0
Slyver 0 points ago +1 / -1

No, they are multiple box beams. They modeled it as a single box beam, combining the multiple trans members into a single member. Read what I actually wrote (and the paper itself) before you respond.

The wing sustains a bending and shear force equal to the weight of the entire airplane, as well as reacting against engine thrust levels and supporting point engine loads (bending and torsion).

I agree completely. None of the structure designed to cope with those loads will help with a focused impact on the leading edge, which is exactly what I said.

The wing is not made of tempered steel. It is made from aluminum alloy

Again, exactly what I said. I also said, and quoted the article to make it clear, the skyscraper box beam is made of hardened steel, the airplane box beam is made of aluminum alloy.

but it didn't stop an iceberg from fatally gashing the RMS Titanic.

First, I'm not 100% convinced that's what happened. however, I believe that it can have happened. I have no problem with the physics of that. The reason is that the total strength of an object is dependent on it's total thickness in the direction of impact. In the case of an Iceberg, it is more than thick enough to crush steel. In the case of a single aluminum cross member of a wing (probably in the 10-15mm range max), it is not. They combined all the cross members into a SINGLE 100mm thick aluminum beam to do their calculations.

Oh, yeah. The signpost.

The signpost is irrelevant. I never mentioned the signpost. I'm talking about the building. The speed (in the range of a building impact) is not sufficient to substantially change the fundamental consideration, which is what is the single thickest impacting member (thickest box wall) in the direction of travel.

Don't bother responding until you read my posts on this topic. Your ignorance of what I actually said makes you look foolish in your hubris, once again.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

There are different factions that have been warring silently for control of the "sheep."

There is evidence of different factions within the PTB. However, the evidence suggests this fractionation is always minimal, and is never at odds with the larger control structure. My investigation suggests that the control structure is both an Aristocracy (intermarried families, all cousins, without substantial genetic deviation for millennia) and a Meritocracy (the strong rule).

You can find evidence of the meritocratic nature within the Aristocracy all over the place. The Rothschilds were at odds with the Rockefellers. The Morgans were at odds with them both at various times. The Astor, Guggenheim, Straus assassination was a power play, but there is no reason to think these families were truly at odds in the larger scheme. Indeed, there is nothing but evidence that suggests they were working towards the same goal with only minor deviation within the larger family group (that in this case resulted in a few untimely deaths).

There is a larger scheme which can be labeled as "secret control of the world." That label is a bit too loose, but I'll go with it for now. Within that scheme there is some wiggle room for personal advantage. Think of it like the Highlander movie series, or numerous other such works of "fiction" with a similar theme. There is a secret group that is "in the know." That group controls all the power in the world, and they act together. They do not substantially deviate from "The Plan" (of the creation of Utopia). But how The Plan is accomplished in some of the smaller details has this wiggle room.

While you can find stuff like this, where the Hunts "appear to have feuded with the Banker families" there is FAR MORE evidence that they were in collusion with them, working towards a common goal. The "competition" you see helps to hide the structure, making it seem like "warring factions," like these entities are truly at odds, when it is instead more like "gentlemen's bets," Oftentimes people die within these "faction wars," sometimes even the gentlemen themselves, like Highlander. That doesn't in any way suggest a substantial deviation from The Plan. It is more like "children being allowed to play."

0
Slyver 0 points ago +2 / -2

How is that relevant to analyzing structural failure modes of impact? Answer, it isn't.

I am not in any way suggesting your experience doesn't give you a whole lot more knowledge in how to build an aircraft wing. (Some of) my experience on the other hand is in design and testing the materials these things are made out of. When it comes to creating reasonable models, the material properties, their size, shape, layout, connection strength, etc. are all the important bits of information you need to know. How to dismantle it, or repair it after the fact is irrelevant.

You seem to believe that an aircraft wing can tear through high strength steel (which as I said, is reported as 6 to 15ish times stronger per volume). I suggest that as a good first approximation, you would need a single piece wall thickness of about 6 to 15 times greater than the steel (60 to 150mm) to even have a chance of winning the collision war. That's just basic materials science. While the structure is not irrelevant, and relative variance in the specific properties matter, in this case, the structure isn't specifically designed to withstand frontal impacts with high strength steel beams, nor are the materials orders of magnitude different in their relative properties. This means that both design and the variance in relative properties are secondary to the basic strength. What matters most then, in such a case, is the material thickness.

Do aircraft wings have single beam thicknesses running horizontally (relative to impact) that are 60 to 150mm of solid aircraft grade aluminum?

It is for these reasons that the paper I cited looked at exactly the materials thicknesses for their "first approximation" analysis. The problem is, they modeled the wing as if it were a single box with the combined thicknesses of all the plates of aluminum making up the wing equaling a 100mm thick aluminum bar. That is ludicrous beyond sanity, yet somehow it got published. Indeed, it was the first thing to come up in a search as "proof."

4
Slyver 4 points ago +7 / -3

When analyzing failure modes for an object, the best test is an actual test of the actual objects. It doesn't matter if you are the designer, the builder, the mechanic, etc. What matters is if you are the tester. In this case of trying to understand a failure mode without an actual test, being a designer, builder, or mechanic is irrelevant unless those people have actual experience that is similar to the test in question. Like, if you, as a mechanic, have fixed airplane wings after they have run into 10mm thick high strength steel beam boxes, then your mechanic experience is relevant. If not, it doesn't mean dick all.

In such a case, without any relevant experience, what you want is someone who has experience in analyzing failure modes of similar structures. I have that. I'm not saying "you should listen to me instead," what I am saying is dismissing that experience because I'm not an aircraft mechanic is idiotic. And that is exactly what you are doing.

9
Slyver 9 points ago +10 / -1

I've worked with aircraft grade aluminum and high strength steel (cut, drilled, welded, etc.). Do I need to work on actual airplanes to understand physics or engineering? (I have degrees in both.)

You didn't actually address a single point I made.

5
Slyver 5 points ago +7 / -2

A wing is just a bunch of little boxes with ribbing in a hatch pattern. Those boxes are made out of strong aluminum, however, the steel that the building is made out of is "high strength steel," not "mild steel." From the paper I linked above:

How was it possible that the relatively weak, light and airy airframe damaged the apparently heavy lattice of high strength steel columns? The devastating result of this encounter came as a surprise to the engineering and scientific community or at least to the present authors.

They don't say specifically how strong the steel is, though they might in their actual analytical paper, which I didn't find (I didn't look that hard). It is "high strength steel," which is anywhere from about 6 to 15 times stronger than the strongest aluminum per volume. On the airplane, it doesn't matter how many boxes there are to give it structure. Once one crumples, the rest behind will follow, just like a martial artist breaking blocks. The separation between the blocks makes it easy after the first. The test then will be for any one individual box.

it's damn near as hard as mild steal

It's not "mild steel," it's not "rebar," its high strength tempered steel in a box column designed to hold up the, at the time, tallest skyscraper in the world.

So the relevant question is, how thick are each of the individual cross beams in the wing v. the thickness of the box column holding up a skyscraper?

The weight of the fuel, the number of boxes in the wing, all that other stuff is far less important because of the dynamics of impact and the narrow focus of the actual impact site. Fuel for example, will just move out of the way. It's not going to do shit.

The aircraft doesn't need to cut the beams it just needs to punch it out of the way.

Have you ever tried to punch through 10mm of hardened steel in a box design? Those bolts are even thicker. The failure mode will not be the bolts. You have to actually break the whole box. The lips that make it into an "H" on each side that are part of the attachment points actually make it even stronger in the direction of impact. You have to basically crumple both sides as well as both faces. Try to do it with aluminum. Just try. See how thick you have to make the aluminum. It will have to be 6 to 15 times thicker to even hold it's own, which is why the model created by the government proofers did exactly that, modeling the wing as if it were just one box with the collective thickness of all the wing boxes, which is ludicrous.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +3 / -1

By and large, people do not understand what Capitalism is.

They tend to think that it means:

a widely adopted economic system in which there is private ownership of the means of production

"Private ownership" is used as opposed to "State ownership." That is the contrast that matters within the common discourse. This creates two boxes, and no one is allowed to think outside of those boxes.

In the common propaganda on "the Right," it tends to mean:

A free market economy.

This is a conflation of Free Market and Capitalism, which only works if thought is restricted to the two allowed boxes of "private" v. "State" ownership.

What it originally meant is:

From 1640s as "the wealth employed in carrying on a particular business," then, in a broader sense in political economy, "that part of the produce of industry which is available for further production" (1793)

Capitalism originally means "to use capital to create more capital." Capitalism, by definition, is about growth. It's all about growth. Constant growth, utilizing capital that already is held by control freaks (which was how capitalism began) leads inevitably to a monopoly. It can be no other way, which is why that is how it is today, albeit hidden from public knowledge.

A free market is not Capitalism. That is the most important thing to understand. They are completely separate things. You can have capitalism in a free market. You can apply any economic design model to any business you want in a free market. The market will decide your success or failure. As long as the information channels remain open, any fuckery will mean doom in a free market.

The key to a free market being free then, is in people being willing to take responsibility for it. In educating themselves. In understanding what propaganda is, and how it drives false beliefs. In understanding that a market cannot remain free if it is regulated, and that the power remains in the votes of the buyers, not in any other system. Responsible self education, an inherent lack of trust, and no regulation or taxation are essential to a market being and remaining free.

Capitalism as applied to an entire economy will always fail. It is like a parasite that must eat it's host. It can't be sustained by design. Indeed, merely "sustaining" itself is completely outside of it's design parameters. Only in a free market can the world protect itself from those who gain substantial capital and employ capitalism (constant growth) as their primary economic model.

17
Slyver 17 points ago +22 / -5

From a paper Sciencesplaining how it happened:

it was observed that if all structural members of the wing are lumped together and smeared into a box beam of equivalent mass, its thickness becomes over 100 mm which is ten times larger than the 9.5 mm thickness of the hollow external column of the Twin Towers.

They modelled it by creating a box beam. A wing is not a box beam. It's not even close to a box beam. It is a long thin honeycomb which has failure modes completely different than a box beam. It's not designed to handle point like impact forces on the leading edge. There are no substantial forces in that direction in the sky, not counting the occasional errant bird which is substantially squishier than steal beams. In the case of birds, it is estimated that 15% of bird strikes on the leading edge of airplane wings cause structural failure in the wing because they aren't built to handle those forces. They are just too rare to compromise the design.

If a wing can barely survive a bird, how is it going to cut through a box beam made of tempered steel?

Their initial assumptions were not inline with reality, and any engineer or physicist understands this. They call it a "first approximation," but it's full of bad assumptions.

After playing with their model for long enough, they got a result that "helped explain what we saw" in a "rational way."

That's all it takes for The Science to become reality, a plausible explanation. You keep adding the assumptions you require, and fiddle with the parameters until you build a model that gives the desired answer. No testing required.

0
Slyver 0 points ago +1 / -1

There are different factions that have been warring silently for control of the "sheep."

There is evidence of different factions within the PTB. However, the evidence suggests this fractionation is always minimal, and is never at odds with the larger control structure. My investigation suggests that the control structure is both an Aristocracy (intermarried families, all cousins, without substantial genetic deviation for millennia) and a Meritocracy (the strong rule).

You can find evidence of the meritocratic nature within the Aristocracy all over the place. The Rothschilds were at odds with the Rockefellers. The Morgans were at odds with them both at various times. The Astor, Guggenheim, Straus assassination was a power play, but there is no reason to think these families were truly at odds in the larger scheme. Indeed, there is nothing but evidence that suggests they were working towards the same goal with only minor deviation within the larger family group (that in this case resulted in a few untimely deaths).

There is a larger scheme which can be labeled as "secret control of the world." That label is a bit too loose, but I'll go with it for now. Within that scheme there is some wiggle room for personal advantage. Think of it like the Highlander movie series, or numerous other such works of "fiction" with a similar theme. There is a secret group that is "in the know." That group controls all the power in the world, and they act together. They do not substantially deviate from "The Plan" (of the creation of Utopia). But how The Plan is accomplished in some of the smaller details has this wiggle room.

While you can find stuff like this, where the Hunts "appear to have feuded with the Banker families" there is FAR MORE evidence that they were in collusion with them, working towards a common goal. The "competition" you see helps to hide the structure, making it seem like "warring factions," like these entities are truly at odds, when it is instead more like "gentlemen's bets," Oftentimes people die within these "faction wars," sometimes even the gentlemen themselves, like Highlander. That doesn't in any way suggest a substantial deviation from The Plan. It is more like "children being allowed to play."

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

All the world's a stage. What is planned? What is organic? What are people's real motives? Are the people on both sides acting under the same director? Are the "gangs" actually patriots? Who the fuck knows. Whatever the truth is, none of it was contained in this video.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +4 / -2

He does a very good job of making the very first part of my report short and sweet. Of course this misses quite a few details and evidence that are rather important, but it makes the basics of the problem available to a much larger audience. I think it's fantastic.

The whole report (what I have out so far) can be found here.

14
Slyver 14 points ago +15 / -1

Both the CIA and the UN were created by Rockefeller in 1947. The PRC was created by Rockefeller in 1949. Those pieces of information are key to understanding the world.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

The following is for humans. I don't know about dogs.

There are many types of cancer cells that live off of glucose. Not eating glucose can starve the cancer cells. Humans can live just fine without glucose by using keytones (protein breakdown products) as an energy source. Many cancers cannot. Thus, by eating a ketogenic diet, it can have a potentially devastating effect on cancer.

Yes, the medical research is unclear on this, but that research is funded and published by the same people that get, on average, $200,000 per cancer patient, and are literally working towards depopulating the planet to bring about their neo-Malthusian Utopia. In the field of cell biology on the other hand, this is well known.

So, take that however you want. I worked in a lab that studied cancer cells (specifically how failures in the autophagosome can lead to escape from apoptosis). My experience (lab work and reading other's work) suggests that many types of cancer will starve in a body that is ketogenic.

Of course I don't know for certain. I am not saying "for certain." But there is a lot of evidence that supports a ketogenic diet for the (vast) majority of cancer types, and contraindicating evidence has a lot of ties to conflicts of interest.

u/94f450d

I'm not a vet. I don't know about dog diets. I do know that for humans adding any type of fiber to the diet will aid in firming up the stool. I'm not sure exactly how to accomplish that for a dog, but for humans it's pretty straight forward. You can potentially add something like psyllium husk to tuna, or some other good, neutral flavor fiber additive if you can't get your dog to eat celery. :)

4
Slyver 4 points ago +4 / -0

There would be no "standing armies" without banking institutions.

If you need to get people together to protect themselves from other people attacking their actual homes, that doesn't take money, the impetus is already clear. If, on the other hand, you want to convince people to go murder other people in their homes, that requires money.

Banks provide that money. They have always provided that money. Banks are institutions of conquest. We think that they are just "making money off the loans." That's true, but it's not the whole truth. They are also making more money and more importantly, fulfilling their own agendas off the resultant wars.

Indeed, if you own the bank, and you want to control everything, start a war, by whatever means necessary (false flag generally). Then makes lots of money on every front, and fulfill all the other agendas your heart desires.

It's quite the scam, and we have been falling for it for millennia.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +3 / -2

No one plans a free market, it just is.

I disagree. I mean, I sorta agree, but I disagree because it can't "just happen," rather, it must be fought for. Capital (money, goods, whatever) is a force. If someone's capital assets are large enough and they apply them directly to control the market, they can and will do so unless others actively work to ensure that doesn't happen (voting with their dollar e.g.). Please read my report on this to understand how this has happened. Indeed, Capitalism by design intends to become a world wide monopoly (which is exactly what we have).

The problem as I see it is, a Free Market can't be "fought for" by any "official" system (State or other formal control structure), rather it must be maintained by a conscientious society. it is awareness that brings about a Free Market. Ignorance and State input ensures it becomes not free.

It is when you have government control and regulations that you get these other systems like socialism.

That's not really true on the most basic level. That's more of an intention of implementation rather than by design, which is what I was trying to say.

Socialism, in its most basic form (as applied to a company), which is the form that is the crux of many arguments for it, is the idea that the people who work at a company determine all functions of the company through a democracy. Applying it to an entire society (a State) isn't necessary. It is, by design, an economic design model. It has nothing, in principle, to do with the State itself, unless one deigns to extend it to that scale.

It is this confusion of "State" v. "company" application that I was trying to elucidate.

But Capitalism is also just an economic design model. It says "excess capital will be reinvested into the company to produce increased levels of capital". It has nothing to do with a Free Market.

Because growth can't possible be indefinite, especially within a single company, any Capitalist economy must be regulated by the State or some other control structure to be maintained. Capitalism can't be a Free Market on the broadest scale (the same scale generally attempted by Socialist or Communist States).

This is a different confusion than the Socialism confusion (scope of application), because the proponents of this never ending growth design (Capitalism) have conflated "Capitalism" with "Free Market." This is a categorical error. A Free Market is an economic system, Capitalism is an economic design model (not an entire system in and of itself). A Free Market is one without rules. Any other system, be it Capitalism, Socialism, or whatever, if insisted on by a society (or its governance), must be regulated to ensure no "bad -isms" make it into the system, and are thus the opposite of a Free Market.

It's either "Free" or it's not. Any compromise is an exploitable loophole, and someone will take advantage of it.

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

Capitalism is not "Free Enterprise." That is the lie told to control the opposition. Confusing those things is what you are intended to do. It is how the PTB control the conversation about pretty much everything. Please see my comment below.

2
Slyver 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not sure, but I think it might be the other way around. In a free market system, there is no regulation by the state. There are no taxes, there is no input whatsoever by any State entity. all economic transactions are free.

It is hard to imagine any losses of liberty by any outside sources if the market itself is free. There would still be social tradition, and "laws" (though almost no one understands what that term means), but if it doesn't affect what we own, if no State is claiming ownership on your property, or how you conduct your business, what repression of liberties can there effectively be?

0
Slyver 0 points ago +3 / -3

Capitalism, by definition, is an economic design model where you take gained capital and reinvest it into your business to gain more capital. It is all about growth. Just being "sustained," or "happy with where we're at," etc. is outside of the definition of Capitalism.

People, by design of the propagandists, confuse "Capitalism" with "Free market" or they think of Capitalism strictly in opposition to what they imagine "Communism" or "Socialism" are.

Communism and Socialism, are, by definition, also just economic design models, and there is, in that scope, nothing wrong with them. People conflate what all three of these economic design models are, by economic definition, with how they have been put into practice (State run forced economies). That causes confusion which causes a great deal of heat in discussions about them, with an inability on every side to actually talk about what these things really are, and perhaps more important, what they are not.

What they are not is a Free Market. None of the above are a Free Market. In a Free Market you can apply any -ism you want to your business model, or make up your own, and the Market will decide your success. A Free Market is, by definition, not controlled by anyone. Capitalism has always been controlled. It was created by people who wanted to control everything, which was exactly what they succeeded in doing with Capitalism. These same people also created both Socialism and Communism (as economic design models) and then set the world against itself, through pushing all sides of the conversation in arguments about "what is best" through their "Left" and "Right" propagandists. Everyone lying, everyone confusing what they are really talking about.

Which of course is exactly what Controlled Opposition looks like. Those who push Capitalism are just acting out one half of the Controlled Opposition. They think they are pushing for a Free Market, but nothing could be further from the truth. On the opposite side those pushing for Socialism/Communism think they are pushing for more freedoms for the market and the individual, and against the world wide monopoly that controls the market, and nothing there too could be further from the truth.

What we really want, and what no one is actually pushing for, what is not a part of the conversation, is a Free Market. A Free Market means no controls, no regulations, no police, no State involvement whatsoever. Let people decide for themselves what they want to sell and what they want to buy. A person can never be free as long as the Market is controlled by the State, or though a hidden monopoly; both of which apply to our world in general, and the United States specifically, and have since Capitalism was first implemented. The market has never been free; at least not in the "civilized" world.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +2 / -1

As of when I am looking at this, all the responses are evidence that Q made the claim. What I want to know is, what evidence have others found for AJ--CIA or AJ--Mossad connections?

These are taken from my notes. I am not sure the time on the claims, they are just annotations from my notes.

In this video AJ says his father did work for the CIA.

Here is a video of Bill Hicks who looks and sounds an awful lot like a younger, thinner Alex Jones, who "died suddenly" about a year before AJ began his talk show on the radio.

I don't remember exactly what was said, but I have in my notes that this video shows AJ promoting Eric Dubay (Flat Earth guy), who is almost certainly a CIA agent.

It's not much. It would be great to get some corroborating evidence other than just "Q said it, therefore it must be true."

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

Jews tend to be well-educated and proportionally a larger percentage of them are in positions of power in and out of government, meaning that we see a disproportionate number of them in the Cabal.

This is not coincidental. The system works as an aristocracy, and the Jewish aristocracy is, by design, larger than for any other demographic. The aristocracy is not just an aristocracy, but also a meritocracy. So if you are of the "right blood" you will be more likely to get opportunities, with no guarantees of success. This gatekeeping of opportunity keeps the aristocracy the aristocracy, but also encourages excellence and fits with their religion (I don't mean Judaism as the term is commonly used).

It is through this selective opportunity system that certain groups have advantages. The whole "jews tend to be well-educated" stuff is because they are much more likely to have the opportunity to become so. The Cabal created the education system. They created the selection systems. They created the awards systems, the publication systems, the credential systems. This system then hands out opportunities and gives voices "fairly" by the view from the outside. But it is especially fair to those who are of The Blood (not just Jewish blood, but any member of the aristocracy)..

The reason the association fallacy of blaming The Jews is so prominent is, 1, because it is pushed as a form of controlled opposition, driving the narrative that the "jews are persecuted" so they can hide their crimes, but also, 2, because there is some merit to it. It was for Jewish reasons that The Plan is in operation. It was for the creation of the State of Israel that the World Wars happened. That, and the creation of the UN, which is run, at the top, by people who call themselves Jewish.

Yes, there are people other than those who call themselves Jews that are members of the very top, but everything suggests they are there working towards what can best be described as "Jewish goals" (whatever that may mean, but it has to do with biblical (Old Testament) prophecies, the Chosen Race, and the Promised Land).

So even though there are more involved than just those who call themselves Jews, the same Aristocratic Jewish Class has been running the show the entire time.

None of that takes away from the association fallacy of blaming all the Jews. Indeed, that's a feature, not a bug. It is an intentional shield used to hide crimes. The point is, there is merit to it, but only in the sense that the Jews, if taken as a nation, are the primary instigators and beneficiaries of the actions, and thus when we call out a nation (which doesn't really exist) as the perpetrator, we automatically make an association fallacy. Blaming The Jews is no different than blaming the "Germans" or even the subgroup, the "Nazis" or the Americans or the Democrats, etc.. It is a very natural thing to blame a group for the actions of a few, unfortunately.

1
Slyver 1 point ago +1 / -0

Can you provide some sort of sources for the 1.2M figure? It is very difficult to find accurate numbers. Also, it's not just the concentration camp jews. There were many killed in poland massacres by the USSR (both when they were Axis and when they were Allies). It's tough to really figure out how many jews were killed. Any sources you have would be greatly appreciated.

6
Slyver 6 points ago +6 / -0

Birth Control and Homosexuality: Intended Consequences

FTFY

Turning the world gay was a part of the neo-Malthusian design. See the Jaffe memo from around 1967. It states explicitly that it is necessary to push propaganda to encourage gayness to reduce the population. That memo came from the same people that ran planned parenthood who created and pushed the pill.

That's just the tip of the iceberg on that one though. That same effort of hormonal birth control plus homosexuality to reduce the population goes back to the early 1900s, and even as far back as the 1870s.

3
Slyver 3 points ago +3 / -0

Don't forget the creation of the United Nations, which by treaty, is a one world government with conscription powers over the entire planet.

The creation of the Cold War via Rockefeller shared nuclear secrets with the USSR as well as Uranium and the tech to purify it, all of which was done under Rockefeller management during the war was another major victory. The "Cold War" was the perfect fear driven construction mechanism to lead to the creation of The Machine, and Utopia (dystopia).

13
Slyver 13 points ago +14 / -1

Yup. Ole' Noam Chomsky. Mr. Controlled Opposition himself.

view more: Next ›