The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewMike Whitney Archive
Trump's Missile Fiasco
Did the Pentagon collaborate with Moscow on which targets to hit?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_1066818929

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The April 14 missile attacks on Syria were a politically-motivated fireworks display that were largely designed to silence Trump’s critics. The attacks– which were coordinated with Moscow– did not kill any Russian, Syrian, Iranian or Hezbollah combat troops. They did not kill any Syrian civilians. They did not impede the Syrian Army’s ongoing military offensive or roll back any of the recent territorial gains in East Ghouta. They did not destroy any critical infrastructure nor did they undermine the determination of the Russian-led coalition to continue to prosecute the 7 year-long war against CIA-backed terrorists who are responsible for the deaths of 500,000 Syrians and the displacement of 7 million others. In short, the attacks accomplished nothing except, perhaps, to temporarily mollify the warmongering western media and their bloodthirsty puppetmasters in the foreign policy establishment.

The fact that Trump felt compelled to launch the attacks before the chemical weapons inspectors from the OPCW had even touched down in Damascus, shows that Washington is not interested in providing justifications for its criminal aggression. Similar to claims of Russia hacking the 2016 US elections or the alleged use of toxic nerve agent in the Skripal incident, the case against Syrian President Bashar al Assad was based on the thin gruel of uncorroborated allegations by jihadist-linked organizations on the ground whose long history of staging provocative incidents to foment a crisis is part of the public record. We’re not going to waste our time on that nonsense here. Suffice it to say, that the information from these US-funded organizations is invariably unreliable. Their sole task is to create a justification for more carnage.

As for Assad’s chemical weapons: The entire stockpile was destroyed in 2014 as per an agreement between the US and Syria. According to Ahmet Uzumcu, director general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons:

“Never before has an entire arsenal of a category of weapons of mass destruction been removed from a country experiencing a state of internal armed conflict, and this has been accomplished within very demanding and tight time frames.”

In other words, Assad’s chemical weapons are as fictitious as Saddam’s WMD or Iran’s imaginary nuclear weapons program. All three are mere inventions of western elites looking for a rationale to plunder and control strategically-located nations in the Middle East.

Some readers will remember that Trump tacitly revealed his motivation for the attacks in a tweat he delivered just days before the incident. Here’s what he said on April 11:

“Much of the bad blood with Russia is caused by the Fake & Corrupt Russia Investigation, headed up by the all Democrat loyalists, or people that worked for Obama. Mueller is most conflicted of all (except Rosenstein who signed FISA & Comey letter). No Collusion, so they go crazy!” The Real Donald Trump

What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin. It’s Mueller, the bigwig Dems and the media that are fomenting this Russphobic hysteria and trying to destroy Trump. And that’s what precipitated the ‘wag the dog’ scenario that unfolded on April 14th. Trump was trying to get his enemies off his back by incinerating a few empty buildings in Syria. And, it almost worked, but now information is beginning to leak-out that could be damaging to both Trump and his chief lieutenants.

What information?

The information from a Pentagon probe into the effectiveness of the missile strikes. The Top Brass is apparently concerned about reports from Moscow that Russian air defenses intercepted 71 of the 103 missiles fired. Here’s a clip from an article at Southfront:

“Informed sources close to the Pentagon say that the US military is about to launch an internal probe in order to get a true picture of the situation, a real number of missiles, which had hit their targets, the reasons behind a minor damage delivered by the strike and the explanations how the Syrian Air Defense Forces had been able to intercept a part of the missiles using their old-fashioned air defense systems.” (“Pentagon Is Concerned About Results Of Syria Strike, Prepares To Launch Internal Probe”, South Front)

More disturbing, is the news that the Pentagon coordinated with Moscow on the sites that would be targeted in the attack. (which would explain why there were no casualties.) Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford has denied the charge, but there are numerous claims circulating on the Internet that sound credible. Check out this excerpt from an article at The Hill:

“The United States used its deconfliction phone line with Russia prior to Friday’s airstrikes in Syria, but did not tell the Russians what the United States was targeting, the U.S. military’s top general said Friday night.

“We specifically identified these targets to mitigate the risk of Russian forces being involved, and we used our normal deconfliction channels — those were active this week — to work through the airspace issues and so forth,” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford said at a Pentagon briefing. “We did not do any coordination with the Russians on the strikes, nor did we pre-notify them….

“The only communications that took place specifically associated with this operation before the targets were struck was the normal deconfliction of the airspace, the procedures that are in place for all of our operations in Syria,” he said. “We did not coordinate targets or any planning with the Russians.”” (The Hill)

Really? The Russians were not pre-notified?? Then how does one explain this tidbit from RT:

“Before we took the action, the United States communicated with the Russian Federation to reduce the danger of any Russian or civilian casualties,” (US Ambassador to Russia) Jon Huntsman said, claiming that “all the targets were linked with the Assad regime’s illegal chemical weapons program.”…

The US ambassador to Russia said that the US strikes were coordinated with Russia to avoid a great power confrontation.” (RT)

Military analyst Publius Tacitus is even more explicit in a post at Colonel Pat Lang’s website, Sic Semper Tyrannis. He says:

“Russia was told where we were going to strike. Russia in turn warned the Syrians. Both the Syrians and the Russians evacuated key personnel and equipment from the target sites. Any claim by the United States that we caused devastating damage or destroyed essential capabilities is total fantasy.” (Trump’s big Flop in Syria”, Publius Tacitus, Sic semper Tyrannis)

There were also a number of comments on Twitter from usually-reliable sources that #Russia was informed ahead of time” or this from Maxim A. Suchkov, political analyst and Russian editor at Al Monitor:

“U.S. publicly claims that no advanced warning were given to Russians, but Russian (absence of) response indicates otherwise, since Russia has personnel in Damascus but didn’t activate air defenses. This suggests RU knew of location of precision strikes.” (Twitter)

Or this from the Russian Insider:

“Americans and Russians are talking. Intensely. Putin’s spokesman has told the press the hotline the two militaries established to “deconflict” their parallel Syria interventions against ISIS, is still active and “being used by both sides”, which sounds like both sides are interested in talking….

As per Suchkov’s report above… the two (sides) are actually haggling over the details of the US giving target locations to the Russians in advance …That is quite unlike any war the US has recently fought…

Both sides have drawn their lines and neither is enthusiastic about losing face. Trump has vowed missiles are coming and Russia’s chief general Gerasimov vowed he’ll fire at any ship or aircraft that puts his men at risk.

In such circumstances negotiating the details of the coming strike in advance is as wise as it is cynical….. it may be the only and best way to avoid this blowing up into something even far nastier….That is something we should all be thankful for…..”(“US and Russia Are Talking Around the Clock to Choreograph Trump’s Coming Syria Strikes”, Russia Insider)

I entirely agree with the author on this point. If Dunford took the initiative and collaborated with Russia on what targets to bomb, then we all owe him a debt of gratitude. He may have prevented another World War. I just hope his role in this matter is not exposed in the upcoming Pentagon investigation. If that happens, he will certainly face severe punishment.

In any event, we can see that the April 14 missile attacks were largely a symbolic muscle-flexing exercise that was aimed at pacifying Trump’s domestic rivals rather than punishing Assad for crimes he never committed. (It is worth mentioning that there have been many credible reports that the US used banned substances in its siege of Raqqa last year.) The fact that Putin limited his response to a perfunctory denunciation, suggests that Trump achieved his objectives. (In other words, he avoided WW3) Here’s part of what Putin said:

“Russia condemns in the strongest possible terms the attack against Syria, where Russian military personnel are assisting the legitimate government in its counterterrorism efforts.

Through its actions, the US makes the already catastrophic humanitarian situation in Syria even worse and brings suffering to civilians. In fact, the US panders to the terrorists who have been tormenting the Syrian people for seven years, leading to a wave of refugees fleeing this country and the region.

The current escalation around Syria is destructive for the entire system of international relations.” (Kremlin, RU)

Putin is right. Washington’s support for the Sunni extremists in Syria has prolonged the war and turned the country into a smoldering wastelands. Unfortunately, it does not look like the US is going to throw in the towel anytime soon. In fact, the appointments of warhawks John Bolton and Mike Pompeo to the national security team, suggests that Trump may be planning a major escalation in the near future. The president has aligned himself with a Zionist right-wing fringe who see the conflict as a proxy-war with Iran that must be won in order to establish US-Israeli regional hegemony and maintain a stranglehold on vital resources and pipeline corridors. Trump’s missile attack is just a minor skirmish in that much larger war.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Donald Trump, Russia, Syria 
Hide 200 CommentsLeave a Comment
200 Comments to "Trump's Missile Fiasco"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. I’d find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It’d confirm that Trump was actually insane.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist

    I’d find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It’d confirm that Trump was actually insane.
     
    I don't know about insane but he is certainly a feckless, nutless POS.
    , @The Alarmist
    I can tell you from experience that a bowl of Jello® can be President as long as it wobbles in the direction the advisors desire. The diagnosis would more likely be appropriate for Mr. Bolton.
    , @gda
    What a bunch of shite. It just shows that Mike Whitney and his fans have no idea of what is actually going on behind the scenes, and continue to glom on to the MSM shrieks of Mueller and Russia, Russia, Russia.

    If you believe this had anything whatsoever to do with Mueller then you're a chump and clearly don't even deserve to be enlightened. I would suggest turning off the CNN, but you're already infected.

    Mueller has been cock-blocked and Trump is in command. The revelations to come from the IG Report and more are going to be delicious. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
    , @Wally
    "I’d find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3"

    What makes you think that "that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3"?
    , @Didier
    Great comment

    The last years, a lot of progress is made in the understanding of the political reality of the world. We can agree that propaganda is intensively used as a means to suppress the masses: feminism, multiculturalism, leftism in general. The question now is: how much does the elite lie to establish their system? How far do the lies go?

    Feminism and multiculturalism are only the tips of the iceberg. The rabbit hole is much deeper than that. The matrix is much broader.

    In this brand new free 300 page document, the history, the tactics and the lies of the elites are revealed. Including the most important lie, the one that was not discovered until now.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/io5wtw1o8y7xgu7/TheTruthNatureOfPresentDaySociety.pdf?dl=0

    The intro video can be watched here:

    archive.org/details/presentdaysociety
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. “What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin.”

    What the failure to withdraw from Syria is saying is that Mueller is Commander In Chief.

    Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth.

    I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    "Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth."

    Yes, I base my opinion of Trump's loyalties on exactly that. It started with his appointment of Nikki Haley and all the Trumpeteers on ZH chanting "keep your friends close and your enemies closer". Just seeing the way his choices of neocons and Goldman Sachs thieves for his inner circle were being defended by people who claimed to have voted for him kept me from defending Trump.

    I figured that he was getting support from a pool of neocons and that made him one of them.
    , @c matt
    One can only hope that the attack was coordinated with the Russians; that would give a glimmer of hope that some sanity remains somewhere in DC (District of Criminals).

    I don't know if Trump is being forced into this neocon trap, or if he simply played us. Either way, the result is almost the same (at least if he is being forced, there is a slim chance he could outmaneuver them).
    , @Moi
    Trump is in the pockets of the Zionists, and has become a Zionist because the one thing he understands is which side his bread is buttered on.

    To make sense of anything we do in the ME, you only need to ask one question: "What does Israel want."
    , @GourmetDan

    I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.
     
    Seems to me that Trump is trying to walk a tightrope here... he likely knows the 'chemical' attack is a false flag and his response was designed to appease the zios without actually causing much damage...
    , @Wally
    Indeed, but the alternative was Hillary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn. Time is working against Imperial Washington.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    Turkey seems to me to be the swing state here. You cannot isolate Russia without Turkey. Not only do they uncork themselves form the Black Sea , there will be no NATO fodder with casualties that no one cares about. Turkey is a big chunk of NATO. This is to sy nothing about trade. Sanction sound nice and dandy in the US, but in Turkey it wrecks their economy.
    , @Mike P
    German expat here.

    Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party - she herself lacked both the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.

    Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same time, the "ultra-right" (i.e. common sense) party "Alternative fuer Deutschland" is forever mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections - funny how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.

    Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.
    , @Thirdeye
    We're seeing a pattern - broken only by France staying distant from the 2003 Iraq invasion - of the most solid support for American imperial adventures being from the two powers who held worldwide empires as of 1939, lost them as a political price of getting bailed out of their predicaments in World War II, and were defeated militarily and politically in attempts to re-establish imperial dominion during the 1950s and 60s. Playing "me too" under the American umbrella is their last remaining hope of regaining empire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Dan Hayes says:

    Mike Whitney:

    Prof Emeritus Steve Cohen essentially concurs with your analysis. Tonight Cohen expressed concern that the national drumbeat against Trump essentially checkmates any efforts to repair US-Russian relations.

    As an aside, UR readers are referred to Robert Fisk’s very recent report in the UK Independent that the purported Syrian gas attack actually arose from artillery-induced asphyxiation in underground tunnels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    In addition:

    British-US Toxin, Not Novichok used in Salisbury - Skripal Attack

    https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-british-us-toxin-not-novichok-used-in-salisbury-attack/
    Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. The Scalpel says: • Website

    I don’t believe that “the fix was in” because the runways of major military airports were targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk’s would be as effective as they were. I don’t see Putin happily agreeing to have those airport runways put out of commission. a bit of deconfliction, yes, a total charade, no. This could have quite easily escalated

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...I don’t believe that “the fix was in” because the runways of major military airports were targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk’s would be as effective as they were. I don’t see Putin happily agreeing to have those airport runways put out of commission. a bit of deconfliction, yes, a total charade, no...'
     
    I agree with this...on the basis of sound logic...

    There is no way that we can know the facts about what kind of communuication and coordination [if any] took place behind the scenes...

    But we have a lot of inconsistencies in the US narrative...first we were told that eight targets were going to be hit...then, post facto, it was just three...

    One of the sites...the Barzeh research center in Damascus area was supposedly hit 76 times...this on an area of about one acre...[half a hectare...5,000 square meters]...

    Looking at high quality pictures of the site after the attack it is clear that adjacent buildings only meters from the targeted site are undamaged...as are light poles surrounding the whole complex...as well as stands of pine trees again only meters away...

    The idea that 76 450kg high explosive warheads detonated here is visibly absurd...and is quite easy to analyze technically using accepted and authoritative engineering methods for explosive effects...

    As I have done on my comment on another thread...

    I consider it proven beyond doubt that there is no chance whatsoever that 76 missiles hit that site...I doubt it would even be one tenth of that...

    And it is also logical to ask...why would you even launch 76 missiles on a one acre complex that has three buildings...a single T-hawk can take out a building or even a ship...as seen on the pentagon show off video below...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sa7ZX58Kk4

    The answer is obvious...of course no military professional would send 76 missiles on one small target...that is simply bullshit...

    So that brings us to the next logical question...if they did not send 76 missiles at Barzeh...where did they go...?

    Well...that's what makes the story of airfields targeted but the missiles intercepted believable...

    Let's remember we are dealing with Proven Liars here...everybody knows that...recetly Phil Giraldi had an article here titled...'Liars Lying About Everything...'

    Not to mention that Robert Fisk has now blown the Douma 'chemical attack' story out of the water...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/sr349mrwd/4447a4e2074ca621dc8c7ce4e43af2f2--funny-pics-funny-shit.jpg

    , @Herald
    You raise points of doubt and effectively deal with them yourself. Putin would have been very unlikely to have been involved in any detailed negotiations over targets. These would have been dealt with by his military commanders. If airfields were targeted then it would appear details were indeed known to the Syrian defenders. This goes some of the way to explain the abysmal success rate of the US missiles in this fiasco as Mike Whitney and many others rightly call it. So a hoax it certainly was and one to compare with the hoax gas attack in Eastern Ghouta.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. I’m really struggling to make any kind of sense out of this. Thanks very much for a thoughtful and informed article.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    I’m really struggling to make any kind of sense out of this.
     
    Don't even try. We're dealing with crackpots in positions of power. In fact, that's what gets attracted to such positions in the first place. and no sane individual will ever understand what motivates them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Why fiasco ?
    The effectiveness of anything can only be judged by knowing what the objective was.
    Those who want Syria, or/and Assad attacked, most of them, have the idea that something was done.
    Difficult for USA propaganda media to state that Trump did nothing.
    Then there now is the fact that Syrian systems are quite capable of resisting missile attacks.
    Possibly Israel will think twice before launching another attack.
    So in my opinion, what Trump did is possibly a great success.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. If Trump gets in trouble for a fake missile attack in response to a fake chemical weapons attack that made use of non-existent WMD, then what can I say? It’s really Trump himself more than the neocons who’s to blame. His refusal to grow a pair and stand up to Washington will ultimately be his downfall.

    What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin. It’s Mueller, the bigwig Dems and the media that are fomenting this Russphobic hysteria and trying to destroy Trump. And that’s what precipitated the ‘wag the dog’ scenario that unfolded on April 14th.

    It’s long past time for Trump to fire Mueller. The fake ‘RussiaGate’ investigation is over and didn’t find anything actionable. How much longer is Trump going to allow this little fishing expedition to go on?

    Trump was trying to get his enemies off his back by incinerating a few empty buildings in Syria. And, it almost worked, but now information is beginning to leak-out that could be damaging to both Trump and his chief lieutenants.

    As a candidate, Trump never hesitated to call out the BS in DC. But if, as president, he goes along with this kabuki-theater, then he deserves what he gets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I consider it quite possible that Trump does not want to end like Kennedy.
    The lone shooter Harvey Lee Oswald, who nowadays believes this ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Realist says:
    @reiner Tor
    I'd find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It'd confirm that Trump was actually insane.

    I’d find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It’d confirm that Trump was actually insane.

    I don’t know about insane but he is certainly a feckless, nutless POS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gda
    So he's brought NATO to the table regarding funding, is about to solve the greatest crisis/threat to the world by bringing NK to the table re; Denuclearization, and has plans to solve the ME situation (which you clearly know nothing about) using the GCC.

    Yet he's a feckless, nutless POS.

    You seem to be somewhat lacking in judgement. Beyond redemption with your TDS. A crazed loon.

    Did you miss the first part of the IG's report? Do you realize what's to come? Nah, it's all Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense with your ilk.

    Keep it up - you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. @Seamus Padraig
    If Trump gets in trouble for a fake missile attack in response to a fake chemical weapons attack that made use of non-existent WMD, then what can I say? It's really Trump himself more than the neocons who's to blame. His refusal to grow a pair and stand up to Washington will ultimately be his downfall.

    What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin. It’s Mueller, the bigwig Dems and the media that are fomenting this Russphobic hysteria and trying to destroy Trump. And that’s what precipitated the ‘wag the dog’ scenario that unfolded on April 14th.
     
    It's long past time for Trump to fire Mueller. The fake 'RussiaGate' investigation is over and didn't find anything actionable. How much longer is Trump going to allow this little fishing expedition to go on?

    Trump was trying to get his enemies off his back by incinerating a few empty buildings in Syria. And, it almost worked, but now information is beginning to leak-out that could be damaging to both Trump and his chief lieutenants.
     
    As a candidate, Trump never hesitated to call out the BS in DC. But if, as president, he goes along with this kabuki-theater, then he deserves what he gets.

    I consider it quite possible that Trump does not want to end like Kennedy.
    The lone shooter Harvey Lee Oswald, who nowadays believes this ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    "Harvey" Oswald didn't shoot anyone - his denial was perfectly plausible, and his murder at Ruby's hands was a desperate stopgap measure to shut him up before he started naming his handlers who had framed him. Badly.

    They never planned to let "Harvey" survive to see an actual trial, because of the lack of evidence against him, and therefore the evidence of a high-level conspiracy would then be so obvious.

    No trial, no test of the evidence against him.

    "Harvey" was exactly what he claimed to be - he was the patsy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Lesbo-Conservative on Missiles of April.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. @Tim Howells
    I'm really struggling to make any kind of sense out of this. Thanks very much for a thoughtful and informed article.

    I’m really struggling to make any kind of sense out of this.

    Don’t even try. We’re dealing with crackpots in positions of power. In fact, that’s what gets attracted to such positions in the first place. and no sane individual will ever understand what motivates them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    True, that. The day that I start understanding what these lunatics are thinking will be the day that I admit to myself that I've gone full retard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. m___ says:

    Regardless of Trump’s ignorance, who still believes in presidents having real power by status of function alone, Obama never mattered neither, the pot-shots were a worthy experiment on how to apply global rule, by global consensus. Next to it, Gaza comes to mind, even the South African government of “natives” see the potential for Boers containment as inspired by Gaza.

    Pot-shots, latter Russia moves, Chinese containment attitudes:

    By experimenting, science progresses, the science of governing, the size of experiments, containment, all these goodies that matter and can make for advancements in efficiently, ruling the human mess into survival. Building data, in a few years, resulting into something of predictability in a global context, over longer periods of time. More of this dipping into the chest of tools.

    The element to be accented: local experiments, global intent.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. One hesitates to comment on something(an obvious possibility)that would expose the Pres further. But two observations :

    1. for the pretense to work it could never come to light, certainly not as soon as this.

    2. Once the cat was out of the bag, unless his opponents were in some manner diminished — His role in any manner of brokering would be nearly shot. Unless his opponents swallowed the matter and moved on – and everyone treated this as a face safe moment. But there’s no evidence that is in their nature. In a time when we need clarity, more theater that isn’t transparent and further compromises legitimate government is questionable strategy

    The interviewer in the included link (despite her own complicity here) is correct — any citizen attempting to sort out what to support is going to have a time wading through this little gem slid among IQsqrd discussions:

    all the world’s a stage, but it’s not all Kabuki theater and it shouldn’t be.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @WorkingClass
    "What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin."

    What the failure to withdraw from Syria is saying is that Mueller is Commander In Chief.

    Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth.

    I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.

    “Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth.”

    Yes, I base my opinion of Trump’s loyalties on exactly that. It started with his appointment of Nikki Haley and all the Trumpeteers on ZH chanting “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”. Just seeing the way his choices of neocons and Goldman Sachs thieves for his inner circle were being defended by people who claimed to have voted for him kept me from defending Trump.

    I figured that he was getting support from a pool of neocons and that made him one of them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @jacques sheete

    I’m really struggling to make any kind of sense out of this.
     
    Don't even try. We're dealing with crackpots in positions of power. In fact, that's what gets attracted to such positions in the first place. and no sane individual will ever understand what motivates them.

    True, that. The day that I start understanding what these lunatics are thinking will be the day that I admit to myself that I’ve gone full retard.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @m___
    Certainly so, as long as "what you see" is what you believe, at least you are as ignorant as all of us. That makes for company.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. The missile attacks confirmed Israels control over the U.S. gov which was proven by the fact that Israel did 911 and got away with killing some 3000 Americans. Israel and her ziocons control the U.S. gov lock stock and gun barrel and are destroying America.

    Assad has never used gas attacks on the Syrian people , these attacks were perpetrated by the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATOs Operation Gladio, these people are satanist war mongers straight from HELL.

    God bless Assad and Syria and Putin and Russia for standing against these satanic forces that are HELL bent on destroying Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @prusmc
    Desert Fox:
    Assuming that it was an Israeli false flag on 9/11: if Gore , rather than Bush, was the President, would the attack still take place?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Joe Hide says:

    By spending hours each day, for years, researching hundreds of websites, including this one, the article’s conclusions are not at all surprising.
    Even when all the dis-information and mis-information came out originally about this missile strike, I figured it was just a distraction for actual hidden political, military, and economic goals.
    Like I’ve commented many times in Unz.com, the Bigger Game is at play. What we see in the media is camouflage, smoke and mirrors, distractions….. that eventually gives advantage to flank and rear surprise attacks by the Good Guys.
    We, the Realistic, Practical, and Reasonable, are winning, having learned the Rules of the Game after being beaten at it so long, by it’s multi-generational creators and controllers.
    Gradually and incrementally, this metaphorical chess board is coming to checkmate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. m___ says:
    @Twodees Partain
    True, that. The day that I start understanding what these lunatics are thinking will be the day that I admit to myself that I've gone full retard.

    Certainly so, as long as “what you see” is what you believe, at least you are as ignorant as all of us. That makes for company.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Sorry, m_. I don't get it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. FB says:
    @The Scalpel
    I don't believe that "the fix was in" because the runways of major military airports were targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk's would be as effective as they were. I don't see Putin happily agreeing to have those airport runways put out of commission. a bit of deconfliction, yes, a total charade, no. This could have quite easily escalated

    ‘…I don’t believe that “the fix was in” because the runways of major military airports were targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk’s would be as effective as they were. I don’t see Putin happily agreeing to have those airport runways put out of commission. a bit of deconfliction, yes, a total charade, no…’

    I agree with this…on the basis of sound logic…

    There is no way that we can know the facts about what kind of communuication and coordination [if any] took place behind the scenes…

    But we have a lot of inconsistencies in the US narrative…first we were told that eight targets were going to be hit…then, post facto, it was just three…

    One of the sites…the Barzeh research center in Damascus area was supposedly hit 76 times…this on an area of about one acre…[half a hectare...5,000 square meters]…

    Looking at high quality pictures of the site after the attack it is clear that adjacent buildings only meters from the targeted site are undamaged…as are light poles surrounding the whole complex…as well as stands of pine trees again only meters away…

    The idea that 76 450kg high explosive warheads detonated here is visibly absurd…and is quite easy to analyze technically using accepted and authoritative engineering methods for explosive effects…

    As I have done on my comment on another thread…

    I consider it proven beyond doubt that there is no chance whatsoever that 76 missiles hit that site…I doubt it would even be one tenth of that…

    And it is also logical to ask…why would you even launch 76 missiles on a one acre complex that has three buildings…a single T-hawk can take out a building or even a ship…as seen on the pentagon show off video below…

    The answer is obvious…of course no military professional would send 76 missiles on one small target…that is simply bullshit…

    So that brings us to the next logical question…if they did not send 76 missiles at Barzeh…where did they go…?

    Well…that’s what makes the story of airfields targeted but the missiles intercepted believable…

    Let’s remember we are dealing with Proven Liars here…everybody knows that…recetly Phil Giraldi had an article here titled…‘Liars Lying About Everything…’

    Not to mention that Robert Fisk has now blown the Douma ‘chemical attack’ story out of the water…

    Read More
    • Replies: @gda
    Robert Fisk? Seriously? LOL
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. The interesting thing about all this is that, if true, it totally destroys any “capital” Trump hoped to gain from the attack in regard to Russiagate. If anything, it would push Trump into even deeper trouble. Instead of showing Trump standing up to Putin, it would show Trump in cahoots with Putin. It would make matters even worse if it turned out that the attack was a fake (as some people claim) cooked up between Trump and Putin so as to allow Trump to mount a fake “retaliation”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ploni almoni
    If the attack was a fake, then what is not a fake?
    , @gda
    Sorry mate, Trump Derangement Syndrome seems to have taken over your brain. Turn off the CNN and take the red pill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. “The entire stockpile was destroyed in 2014 as per an agreement between the US and Syria. According to Ahmet Uzumcu…”

    If you can’t trust Ahmet Uzumcu, who can you trust?

    “…but there are numerous claims circulating on the Internet that sound credible.”

    If you can’t trust the internet, who can you trust?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. @reiner Tor
    I'd find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It'd confirm that Trump was actually insane.

    I can tell you from experience that a bowl of Jello® can be President as long as it wobbles in the direction the advisors desire. The diagnosis would more likely be appropriate for Mr. Bolton.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Wally says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Mike Whitney:

    Prof Emeritus Steve Cohen essentially concurs with your analysis. Tonight Cohen expressed concern that the national drumbeat against Trump essentially checkmates any efforts to repair US-Russian relations.

    As an aside, UR readers are referred to Robert Fisk's very recent report in the UK Independent that the purported Syrian gas attack actually arose from artillery-induced asphyxiation in underground tunnels.

    In addition:

    British-US Toxin, Not Novichok used in Salisbury – Skripal Attack

    https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-british-us-toxin-not-novichok-used-in-salisbury-attack/

    Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    BZ was in small amounts within the "Novichok".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Sean says:

    Britain with Skirpal and the US with Chlorine could not be fooling the Russians that they were responsible, and Russia would think it was being set up to be very seriously attacked if it was being framed repeatedly. It just seems like a very dangerous ploy for a meaningless reward (the natural resources Syria and strategic importance of Syria are very modest). I don’t think the Russians would just be sitting there coordinating with the strikes if they were being framed like the post suggests. They would be on red alert and calling up the reserves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price

    It just seems like a very dangerous ploy for a meaningless reward (the natural resources Syria and strategic importance of Syria are very modest).
     
    Maybe true, except for the fact that Syria, under Assad's leadership serves as a convenient land route over which sophisticated weapons produced in Iran are delivered to Hezbollah defense forces in Lebanon. In my opinion, this is the primary reason behind current US and Israeli efforts being made to destroy Assad. The bottom line is that Israel has been attacking it's weak neighbors for such a long time, until they simply find it impossible to live with the reality of being unable to invade Lebanon on the slightest pretext. In addition and more ominous, Hezbollah's leader Hassan Rouhani has publically stated that Hezbollah defense forces may eventually extend their protection to the Palestinian people held captive in the Gaza Strip
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Michael Kenny
    The interesting thing about all this is that, if true, it totally destroys any “capital” Trump hoped to gain from the attack in regard to Russiagate. If anything, it would push Trump into even deeper trouble. Instead of showing Trump standing up to Putin, it would show Trump in cahoots with Putin. It would make matters even worse if it turned out that the attack was a fake (as some people claim) cooked up between Trump and Putin so as to allow Trump to mount a fake “retaliation”.

    If the attack was a fake, then what is not a fake?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false.” CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Philip Owen says: • Website
    @Wally
    In addition:

    British-US Toxin, Not Novichok used in Salisbury - Skripal Attack

    https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-british-us-toxin-not-novichok-used-in-salisbury-attack/
    Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service

    BZ was in small amounts within the “Novichok”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Pay attention, here's what it says:

    "Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service.

    The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

    Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

    The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.

    The Swiss center mentioned by Lavrov is the Spiez Laboratory controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and ultimately by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW."
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Philip Owen says: • Website

    The few pictures I’ve seen of interception attempts were all too high in the sky to be targetting a TLAM or a Storm Shadow which are ground following missiles. They need to fly high enough to avoid power lines but that’s it. (Apparently in Iraq 1, hitting power lines was the main mechanism by which they and most lost US Marine Corps helicopters were destroyed ).

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Quick question Tampon Phil...

    What exactly do you know about the flight characteristics of cruise missiles...?

    Over on the other thread you first tried to argue that the Barzeh site I discussed in my technical analysis was not the site of the missile strike...

    Then when I provided a sat image released by the pentagon and published in newspapers around the world...confirming definitively that the site I analyzed in my original comment was indeed the site of the missile strike...you said this...

    '...I didn’t say it was a fake picture. I said it was a demolition site. The same site being demolished as a conjecture. The best alternative at the moment is that the payloads were not 450 kg...'
     
    I then pointed out to you the physical fact of flight that removing 450 kg from the nose of a winged cruise missile would shift its center of gravity in the aft direction and make the missile unflyable...

    Not being able to argue with the laws of physics...you then suggested that the 450 kg warhead was replaced by an equal weight with less explosive power...since we had already established that the lack of damage to nearby structures was inconsistent with 76 claimed T-hawk hits on that small site...

    At which point I mentioned that your statements were on a level with the Prince Charles infamous 'tampon' phone call...hence your new nickname...Tampon Phil...

    Now here you are again just asking for more punishment...

    Ok...as a start you may wish to review my technical discussion of the T-hawk flight characteristics on the 800 lb Gorilla thread...

    You may also wish to consult a topographical map of Syria to see some of the mountains that these cruise missiles would have to fly over to reach those inland targets...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/ihacliky5/Syria-_Topographic-_Map.jpg


    You will note the north to south mountain chain along the coast...including the Anti-Lebanese Mountains that rise to 10,000 ft...

    My discussion of the T-hawk technical characteristics in that link above includes such crucial parameter as wing loading and thrust to weight ratio...which determine this flight vehicle's climb rate and turn rate...

    '...The few pictures I’ve seen of interception attempts were all too high in the sky to be targetting a TLAM or a Storm Shadow which are ground following missiles.

    They need to fly high enough to avoid power lines but that’s it...'
     
    And how do they get over those mountains Tampon Phil...?

    Are they ground following there too...?

    And also please let us know the scaling method you used to determine the height of those missiles from photos...that would be helpful...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. The professional military people knew what was at stake in limiting the damage engendered by the war crime engaged in to placate the neocon power structure. Since armageddon was at stake, even according to Mattis’s own statements, he apparently was able to rein Trump in to some degree, according to this contribution and more clearly from some other reports. We now also have increasing proof that the “chemical weapons” thing was a provocation, though the yankee regime’s worldwide propaganda wurlitzer keeps playing the same nihilist song. I agree with others who have concluded that if Mattis is eliminated, that is when we will have to worry. Presumably, for now, since the normal secrecy is combined with a laudable profound survival instinct, the military will keep a lid on any investigations this generates. If not, as Whitney has indicated, we are in deep shit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. FB says:
    @Philip Owen
    The few pictures I've seen of interception attempts were all too high in the sky to be targetting a TLAM or a Storm Shadow which are ground following missiles. They need to fly high enough to avoid power lines but that's it. (Apparently in Iraq 1, hitting power lines was the main mechanism by which they and most lost US Marine Corps helicopters were destroyed ).

    Quick question Tampon Phil…

    What exactly do you know about the flight characteristics of cruise missiles…?

    Over on the other thread you first tried to argue that the Barzeh site I discussed in my technical analysis was not the site of the missile strike…

    Then when I provided a sat image released by the pentagon and published in newspapers around the world…confirming definitively that the site I analyzed in my original comment was indeed the site of the missile strike…you said this…

    ‘…I didn’t say it was a fake picture. I said it was a demolition site. The same site being demolished as a conjecture. The best alternative at the moment is that the payloads were not 450 kg…’

    I then pointed out to you the physical fact of flight that removing 450 kg from the nose of a winged cruise missile would shift its center of gravity in the aft direction and make the missile unflyable…

    Not being able to argue with the laws of physics…you then suggested that the 450 kg warhead was replaced by an equal weight with less explosive power…since we had already established that the lack of damage to nearby structures was inconsistent with 76 claimed T-hawk hits on that small site…

    At which point I mentioned that your statements were on a level with the Prince Charles infamous ‘tampon’ phone call…hence your new nickname…Tampon Phil…

    Now here you are again just asking for more punishment…

    Ok…as a start you may wish to review my technical discussion of the T-hawk flight characteristics on the 800 lb Gorilla thread…

    You may also wish to consult a topographical map of Syria to see some of the mountains that these cruise missiles would have to fly over to reach those inland targets…

    You will note the north to south mountain chain along the coast…including the Anti-Lebanese Mountains that rise to 10,000 ft…

    My discussion of the T-hawk technical characteristics in that link above includes such crucial parameter as wing loading and thrust to weight ratio…which determine this flight vehicle’s climb rate and turn rate…

    ‘…The few pictures I’ve seen of interception attempts were all too high in the sky to be targetting a TLAM or a Storm Shadow which are ground following missiles.

    They need to fly high enough to avoid power lines but that’s it…’

    And how do they get over those mountains Tampon Phil…?

    Are they ground following there too…?

    And also please let us know the scaling method you used to determine the height of those missiles from photos…that would be helpful…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. gwynedd1 says:
    @WorkingClass
    The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn. Time is working against Imperial Washington.

    Turkey seems to me to be the swing state here. You cannot isolate Russia without Turkey. Not only do they uncork themselves form the Black Sea , there will be no NATO fodder with casualties that no one cares about. Turkey is a big chunk of NATO. This is to sy nothing about trade. Sanction sound nice and dandy in the US, but in Turkey it wrecks their economy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Mike P says:
    @WorkingClass
    The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn. Time is working against Imperial Washington.

    German expat here.

    Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party – she herself lacked both the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted over Kohl’s natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.

    Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same time, the “ultra-right” (i.e. common sense) party “Alternative fuer Deutschland” is forever mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections – funny how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.

    Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor.

    German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of SorosaNeocon brainwashing.

    There is no other explanation for people who are committing slow self-extermination as a distinct ethnos. Same with the French electorate: they had a chance to elect a true French patriot and instead chose another globalist weirdo poodle.

    , @Sean
    Militarily subsidised by Nato, Germany spends next to nothing on its own defence and is keeping wages down even more than usual by importing immigrants, thereby aiding its deindustrialising of the rest of the EU. Russia is declining in national power compared to Germany by getting into silly pissing contests with America. Adolf Hitler always said it would be necessary to sacrifice millions of Germans to make Germany Great. He would approve of Merkel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. gda says:
    @reiner Tor
    I'd find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It'd confirm that Trump was actually insane.

    What a bunch of shite. It just shows that Mike Whitney and his fans have no idea of what is actually going on behind the scenes, and continue to glom on to the MSM shrieks of Mueller and Russia, Russia, Russia.

    If you believe this had anything whatsoever to do with Mueller then you’re a chump and clearly don’t even deserve to be enlightened. I would suggest turning off the CNN, but you’re already infected.

    Mueller has been cock-blocked and Trump is in command. The revelations to come from the IG Report and more are going to be delicious. There will be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. gda says:
    @Michael Kenny
    The interesting thing about all this is that, if true, it totally destroys any “capital” Trump hoped to gain from the attack in regard to Russiagate. If anything, it would push Trump into even deeper trouble. Instead of showing Trump standing up to Putin, it would show Trump in cahoots with Putin. It would make matters even worse if it turned out that the attack was a fake (as some people claim) cooked up between Trump and Putin so as to allow Trump to mount a fake “retaliation”.

    Sorry mate, Trump Derangement Syndrome seems to have taken over your brain. Turn off the CNN and take the red pill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. gda says:
    @FB

    '...I don’t believe that “the fix was in” because the runways of major military airports were targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk’s would be as effective as they were. I don’t see Putin happily agreeing to have those airport runways put out of commission. a bit of deconfliction, yes, a total charade, no...'
     
    I agree with this...on the basis of sound logic...

    There is no way that we can know the facts about what kind of communuication and coordination [if any] took place behind the scenes...

    But we have a lot of inconsistencies in the US narrative...first we were told that eight targets were going to be hit...then, post facto, it was just three...

    One of the sites...the Barzeh research center in Damascus area was supposedly hit 76 times...this on an area of about one acre...[half a hectare...5,000 square meters]...

    Looking at high quality pictures of the site after the attack it is clear that adjacent buildings only meters from the targeted site are undamaged...as are light poles surrounding the whole complex...as well as stands of pine trees again only meters away...

    The idea that 76 450kg high explosive warheads detonated here is visibly absurd...and is quite easy to analyze technically using accepted and authoritative engineering methods for explosive effects...

    As I have done on my comment on another thread...

    I consider it proven beyond doubt that there is no chance whatsoever that 76 missiles hit that site...I doubt it would even be one tenth of that...

    And it is also logical to ask...why would you even launch 76 missiles on a one acre complex that has three buildings...a single T-hawk can take out a building or even a ship...as seen on the pentagon show off video below...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sa7ZX58Kk4

    The answer is obvious...of course no military professional would send 76 missiles on one small target...that is simply bullshit...

    So that brings us to the next logical question...if they did not send 76 missiles at Barzeh...where did they go...?

    Well...that's what makes the story of airfields targeted but the missiles intercepted believable...

    Let's remember we are dealing with Proven Liars here...everybody knows that...recetly Phil Giraldi had an article here titled...'Liars Lying About Everything...'

    Not to mention that Robert Fisk has now blown the Douma 'chemical attack' story out of the water...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/sr349mrwd/4447a4e2074ca621dc8c7ce4e43af2f2--funny-pics-funny-shit.jpg

    Robert Fisk? Seriously? LOL

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. anonymous[353] • Disclaimer says:

    The point was to send a message to Assad that the US and it’s allies are able and willing to take action should he try to cross the red line drawn around Saudi Arabia. Once the war winds down and the Syrian state starts regrouping and rebuilding there’s naturally going to be a payback time against the regional actors who poured so many resources into trying to demolish the Syrian state. This means Saudi Arabia which is vulnerable in a number of ways. SA is a huge customer and spends billions in the US and allied countries and is thus under the US umbrella of protection as a valuable ally. There’s bound to be a lot of nervousness in Riyadh right now so the US must demonstrate a willingness to act militarily to them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zogby

    The point was to send a message to Assad
     
    Well, if that was the plan, then it backfired, because the message Assad got was that the US is a paper tiger because the Russians will help keep him safe from the US, and protect him. Anyways, your theory that as soon the war ends Syria will turn to and be capable of exacting revenge on SA is far-fetched. There is no country in history to come out of such a long and bloody civil war only to be able to immeditely get revenge. More over, the Russians will not assist in such revenge, and Iran which is already far better equipped and has a motive for revenge is not doing it. So why expect Syria to do it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. gda says:
    @Realist

    I’d find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It’d confirm that Trump was actually insane.
     
    I don't know about insane but he is certainly a feckless, nutless POS.

    So he’s brought NATO to the table regarding funding, is about to solve the greatest crisis/threat to the world by bringing NK to the table re; Denuclearization, and has plans to solve the ME situation (which you clearly know nothing about) using the GCC.

    Yet he’s a feckless, nutless POS.

    You seem to be somewhat lacking in judgement. Beyond redemption with your TDS. A crazed loon.

    Did you miss the first part of the IG’s report? Do you realize what’s to come? Nah, it’s all Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense with your ilk.

    Keep it up – you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist

    Keep it up – you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.
     
    So you speak for everyone on this blog????
    , @Zogby

    So he’s brought NATO to the table regarding funding
     
    and has nothing to show for it.

    by bringing NK to the table
     
    NK wanted to negotiate with the US almost since the day Kim Jung Un came to power - back in 2013 with all the diplomatic overtures relayed via Dennis Rodman to the Obama administration - but Obama ignored it because he didn't want to negotiate with Kim - viewing him as a monster that shouldn't be negotiated with. By the time Trump took office, NK was deep into their nuclear and missile testing, and now that they've achieved whatever technical goals they were looking for, Kim is pulling a "peace is declared" stunt like Charlie Chaplin's Greate Dictator. So what we have so far is Trump willing to negotiate with someone Obama wasn't willing to negotiate with. Wow.

    and has plans to solve the ME situation
     
    Oh, gee whiz, he has plans. As opposed to all his predecessors that had no plans and made no effort to solve same. DUH
    , @Realist
    You forgot to mention Chumps appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the SC.....who just voted in favor of illegal aliens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Avery says:
    @Mike P
    German expat here.

    Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party - she herself lacked both the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.

    Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same time, the "ultra-right" (i.e. common sense) party "Alternative fuer Deutschland" is forever mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections - funny how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.

    Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.

    Merkel’s selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor.

    German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of SorosaNeocon brainwashing.

    There is no other explanation for people who are committing slow self-extermination as a distinct ethnos. Same with the French electorate: they had a chance to elect a true French patriot and instead chose another globalist weirdo poodle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    Merkel's party has no majority - actually her party's share of the vote is at historic lows with less than one third (traditionally it was 45-50%). She has moved that formerly conservative party to the left by co-opting green and welfare agendas of the competing parties. The other formerly strong party, the Social Democrats, have been reduced to a status of auxiliaries in an eternal "grand coalition". In spite of infighting, the new "right-wing" AfD came in third in the last elections.

    But of course, as you say, the people's failure to get rid of her is due in large measure to relentless media brainwashing, they swallow the refugee nonsense because it is subliminally suggested that it atones for the "holocaust" etc. I don't read a single German newspaper anymore, the manure is just too depressing.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Realist says:
    @gda
    So he's brought NATO to the table regarding funding, is about to solve the greatest crisis/threat to the world by bringing NK to the table re; Denuclearization, and has plans to solve the ME situation (which you clearly know nothing about) using the GCC.

    Yet he's a feckless, nutless POS.

    You seem to be somewhat lacking in judgement. Beyond redemption with your TDS. A crazed loon.

    Did you miss the first part of the IG's report? Do you realize what's to come? Nah, it's all Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense with your ilk.

    Keep it up - you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.

    Keep it up – you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.

    So you speak for everyone on this blog????

    Read More
    • Replies: @gda
    Not many on this blog. What does that tell you about the level of intelligence on this blog?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. c matt says:
    @WorkingClass
    "What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin."

    What the failure to withdraw from Syria is saying is that Mueller is Commander In Chief.

    Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth.

    I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.

    One can only hope that the attack was coordinated with the Russians; that would give a glimmer of hope that some sanity remains somewhere in DC (District of Criminals).

    I don’t know if Trump is being forced into this neocon trap, or if he simply played us. Either way, the result is almost the same (at least if he is being forced, there is a slim chance he could outmaneuver them).

    Read More
    • Replies: @jeff davis
    "...there is a slim chance he could outmaneuver them..."

    He outmaneuvered them to win the GOP primary. He outmaneuvered them to win the general election. He outmaneuvered them after the previous chemical weapons false flag, and has now outmaneuvered them after this one. The Deep State/CIA-sponsored jihadists execute a phony chemical weapons attack, he executes a bit of phony "retaliation" kabuki. Then the world opinion settles into two groups: those that "get it" (wink, wink), and those that don't.

    Despite being a complete newbie, Trump is instinctively good at this game. After just over a year, he is playing at a much higher level than his adversaries. And he still has two years and nine months to go ***in only his first term***.

    There is only a slim chance they will outmaneuver him.

    The Dems are following the same "Here comes the blue wave" self-delusion in the run-up to the 2018 mid-terms, that cost them in 2016, where it took the form of "Here comes Hillary". And the GOP "Never Trumpers" are bailing. So let's just see what happens in November. Will Trump be weakened or strengthened?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Zogby says:

    In case people missed it, The Russian MOD published more detailed statistics about the attack which can be found here

    http://tass.com/defense/1000148

    If taken at face value, one detail that stands out is that the Russians’ original boast that the missile attack was thwarted by “old Soviet-era air defense” is not true. 47 of the 71 intercepts they claim were done by modern Pantsir and Buk systems that Syria purchased around 2010. The older systems had noticeably worse performance than the modern systems.
    The other interesting tidbit there is that the Russian General claims that “the survey of this and other facilities revealed neither this number of ammunition fragments nor the corresponding number of craters”. In other words, as FB states above, that even though 25 missiles hypothetically got through in the attacks on Barzeh and Djaramani, the damage on the ground does not correspond to that many missiles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Thanks for the Tass article link...

    Yes...there is no question that the US would have targeted Syrian airfields...apparently a few did get through at one airfield...but the others were fully rejected...

    Laymen who know nothing about aircraft or missiles do not understand the complexities and detail involved...they simply accept the brochure 'information' presented on wikipedia and such about the capabilities of such flight vehicles...

    This does not shed any light on a fascinating and important subject...important because now we have had some air combat between US and Nato airpower [Ship, sub and air launched cruise missiles vs. Russian air defenses]...

    Clearly the Russians won...there was not a single death on the Syrian side...the US did destroy a few buildings...most notably the Barzeh research center in the Damascus area...

    We can tell the Russians won this round because the US is claiming completely ridiculous stuff...that they launched 76 T-hawks with a combined TNT tonnage of nearly 40 tons...yet little pine shrubs standing 20 feet away are completely intact...

    I mean how stupid...?

    Clearly the US is claiming such a high number of attacks on the three buildings that they did hit because they failed to hit those airfields...and we know that they failed to hit those airfields because if they did we would have satellite imagery being boastfully released...

    You can tell as much by the information that is withheld as you can by the information they give out...

    Now for some basic technical facts...cruise missiles are not hard to shoot down once they are spotted...but the hard part is spotting them because they are small and thus do not bounce back strong radar reflections...

    They can fly close to terrain...although this is not always the case as I have explained previously and depends on the ingress route and the type of terrain along that flight path...ie if it is required to fly over mountainous terrain it must fly quite high...

    In 1999 the Serbs shot down a number T-hawks with their 1950s era Soviet equipment...here is the remains of one T-hawk airframe in the Belgrade Aviation Museum...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/y3a1od5u5/Downed_Tomahawk_cruise_missile_in_Belgrade_Serbia.jpg

    Once spotted on radar...the T-hawks and similar subsonic cruise missiles are sitting ducks...they have no means of evading missile shots...either from an air to air missile launched from a fighter jet...or a surface to air missile launched from an air defense battery...

    A fighter jet relies on a radar warning receiver to alert the crew that it has been targeted by a missile shot and the crew can instantly commence evasive maneuver...which is basically going into a steep banked turn so as to break radar lock and evade the missile shot...

    Cruise missiles have no such RWR...and it would be pointless to equipment with such since they have very poor turning performance...

    This is due to their very high wing loading...which is the ratio of wing area to aircraft weight...a T-hawk weighs about 3,000 lb but has a wing area of only about 10 square feet for a wing loading of 300 lb/ft^2...

    That is about three times as high as a passenger jet's wing loading and as much as five times higher than a fighter jet...

    Think of wing loading and how it relates to maneuverability by considering a person carrying a backpack...if that person is running and they need to change course having that extra weight on their back will not let them zigzag like a runner carrying no weight...

    The same is true for climb performance...think of carrying 100 lb in your backpack and climbing up a set of stairs...

    The physical laws of flight performance are based on Newtonian Mechanics and cannot be argued with...

    The thrust to weight ratio of a cruise missile is about comparable to that of a passenger jet...the thrust of the T-hawks Williams turbofan engine is about 700 lb against a weight of 3,000 lb that is less than 0.25 thrust to weight...

    A powerful fighter like an F15 will have a thrust to weight ratio of close to unity or even above...ie it's engine thrust is actually equal to or greater than its weight and the airplane can thus climb straight up like a rocket...

    So the key in defending against subsonic cruise missiles...which fly at about the same speed as passenger jet, about 500 mph [800 km/hr]...is to pick them up on radar...

    The Russians have clearly prepared for such an attack ever since the Shayrat strike...the very powerful Russian radars in Syria are capable of tracking any flying object...and the Syrian SAM batteries are networked into that system and are fed that radar data in real time...

    We also saw in some of those missile intercept videos near the Damascus airport that Syrian jets were taking off and landing...this is because the jets would use their onboard radar to find the cruise missiles and data link that info back to the SAM batteries...

    A fighter is easily capable of taking down a cruise missile with an AA shot also...but this all comes down to pilot skill and training...something which the SyAAF may not be dealing with on a regular basis...considering their focus on the fight against ground targets in Jihadist areas...

    As for the Pantsir...yes this point defense system is the perfect tool to shoot down cruise missiles...it is the successor of the Tor SAM system that was designed specifically to shoot down T-hawks...

    The older SAMs did not perform badly according to the Russian MoD assessment...the S125 is a 1950s era system that the Serbs used to down two F117s and an F16...much more difficult targets than a T-hawk...

    The S200 is a huge missile with a 350 km range...exceeded only by the latest S400 long range missile introduced into service only a couple of years ago...

    It flies extremely fast 2,500 m/s which is about Mach 8...it is even faster than the new S400 missiles which fly at 2,000 m/s...by comparison the USN Raytheon SM6 air defense missile used on Aegis missile ships flies only at M3.5...about 1,000 m/s...

    The high speed of the S200 is actually its disadvantage against a slow moving target like a cruise missile...the laws of physics tell us that the faster the vehicle is flying, the larger its turn radius will be...thus the big S200 is not going to do well against cruise missiles...this is not surprising...

    Overall...the Russian MoD version of events is certainly way more credible than the US version which is full of holes...
    , @SolontoCroesus
    In response to a caller's concern, Oklahoma congressman Steve Russell told the C Span Washington Journal audience this morning that there was "no danger from a chemical plume" after missiles struck Syrian chemical plants "because the attack was designed to burn up" the fumes.

    Russell explained that while "Nazis used chemicals in the holocaust." and
    Russians deliberately target hospitals and schools with barrel bombs, "no other nation takes as much care to prevent harm to civilians" as the USA.
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?444201-5/washington-journal-representative-steve-russell-r-ok-discusses-congress-role-syria-conflict


    Except maybe Fallujah.
    And Vietnam.
    Little bit in North Korea.
    Some slip-ups over Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anon[425] • Disclaimer says:

    Redemption of Sachs?

    Read More
    • Replies: @EliteCommInc.
    They were fine until they referenced Iran. Iran was an inside job by Iranians that the CIA supported, but doubted it would work.


    But bravo to Dr. Sachs.

    , @EliteCommInc.
    This is nothing like the Balkans -- nothing.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    UUUge mistake, Jimmy Dore; you should have done some homework before you elevated Jeffrey Sachs to truth-teller status.

    Spend a few minutes with The Saker -- William Engdah interview

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLVypNN4fHU

    http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/

    Sachse is not trustworthy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. Herald says:
    @The Scalpel
    I don't believe that "the fix was in" because the runways of major military airports were targeted. There was no guarantee that the Pantsir and Buk's would be as effective as they were. I don't see Putin happily agreeing to have those airport runways put out of commission. a bit of deconfliction, yes, a total charade, no. This could have quite easily escalated

    You raise points of doubt and effectively deal with them yourself. Putin would have been very unlikely to have been involved in any detailed negotiations over targets. These would have been dealt with by his military commanders. If airfields were targeted then it would appear details were indeed known to the Syrian defenders. This goes some of the way to explain the abysmal success rate of the US missiles in this fiasco as Mike Whitney and many others rightly call it. So a hoax it certainly was and one to compare with the hoax gas attack in Eastern Ghouta.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Mike P says:
    @Avery
    Merkel's selection as chancellor does not explain why German electorate keep electing her party as majority, which then is in the position to name her as chancellor.

    German people have been lobotomized and neutered after decades of SorosaNeocon brainwashing.

    There is no other explanation for people who are committing slow self-extermination as a distinct ethnos. Same with the French electorate: they had a chance to elect a true French patriot and instead chose another globalist weirdo poodle.

    Merkel’s party has no majority – actually her party’s share of the vote is at historic lows with less than one third (traditionally it was 45-50%). She has moved that formerly conservative party to the left by co-opting green and welfare agendas of the competing parties. The other formerly strong party, the Social Democrats, have been reduced to a status of auxiliaries in an eternal “grand coalition”. In spite of infighting, the new “right-wing” AfD came in third in the last elections.

    But of course, as you say, the people’s failure to get rid of her is due in large measure to relentless media brainwashing, they swallow the refugee nonsense because it is subliminally suggested that it atones for the “holocaust” etc. I don’t read a single German newspaper anymore, the manure is just too depressing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Zogby says:
    @gda
    So he's brought NATO to the table regarding funding, is about to solve the greatest crisis/threat to the world by bringing NK to the table re; Denuclearization, and has plans to solve the ME situation (which you clearly know nothing about) using the GCC.

    Yet he's a feckless, nutless POS.

    You seem to be somewhat lacking in judgement. Beyond redemption with your TDS. A crazed loon.

    Did you miss the first part of the IG's report? Do you realize what's to come? Nah, it's all Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense with your ilk.

    Keep it up - you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.

    So he’s brought NATO to the table regarding funding

    and has nothing to show for it.

    by bringing NK to the table

    NK wanted to negotiate with the US almost since the day Kim Jung Un came to power – back in 2013 with all the diplomatic overtures relayed via Dennis Rodman to the Obama administration – but Obama ignored it because he didn’t want to negotiate with Kim – viewing him as a monster that shouldn’t be negotiated with. By the time Trump took office, NK was deep into their nuclear and missile testing, and now that they’ve achieved whatever technical goals they were looking for, Kim is pulling a “peace is declared” stunt like Charlie Chaplin’s Greate Dictator. So what we have so far is Trump willing to negotiate with someone Obama wasn’t willing to negotiate with. Wow.

    and has plans to solve the ME situation

    Oh, gee whiz, he has plans. As opposed to all his predecessors that had no plans and made no effort to solve same. DUH

    Read More
    • Replies: @gda
    If President Trump was to walk on water Zogby would complain about his lack of ability to swim.

    You just epitomize the level of intelligence on this blog. Congratulations!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Zogby says:
    @anonymous
    The point was to send a message to Assad that the US and it's allies are able and willing to take action should he try to cross the red line drawn around Saudi Arabia. Once the war winds down and the Syrian state starts regrouping and rebuilding there's naturally going to be a payback time against the regional actors who poured so many resources into trying to demolish the Syrian state. This means Saudi Arabia which is vulnerable in a number of ways. SA is a huge customer and spends billions in the US and allied countries and is thus under the US umbrella of protection as a valuable ally. There's bound to be a lot of nervousness in Riyadh right now so the US must demonstrate a willingness to act militarily to them.

    The point was to send a message to Assad

    Well, if that was the plan, then it backfired, because the message Assad got was that the US is a paper tiger because the Russians will help keep him safe from the US, and protect him. Anyways, your theory that as soon the war ends Syria will turn to and be capable of exacting revenge on SA is far-fetched. There is no country in history to come out of such a long and bloody civil war only to be able to immeditely get revenge. More over, the Russians will not assist in such revenge, and Iran which is already far better equipped and has a motive for revenge is not doing it. So why expect Syria to do it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Wally says:
    @Philip Owen
    BZ was in small amounts within the "Novichok".

    Pay attention, here’s what it says:

    “Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service.

    The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

    Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

    The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.

    The Swiss center mentioned by Lavrov is the Spiez Laboratory controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and ultimately by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Owen
    Your source is Lavrov who constantly lies. His team is the source of a large proportion of Russian fake news. 2000 dead in Tsinkhvali as a starter. Try some other sources on BZ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Sean says:
    @Mike P
    German expat here.

    Merkel is a CIA asset. She has skeletons in her closet from her time in East Germany, and her meteoric rise to power was clearly engineered by a third party - she herself lacked both the experience and the power base within the party for doing it herself. She was promoted over Kohl's natural successor, Schaeuble, who was discredited using comparatively trifling allegations of accepting improper donations (aka bribes) on behalf of the party.

    Merkel has betrayed German interests at every turn, most blatantly in the context of the Greek debt fiasco and the refugee fake crisis. She goes along with imposing sanctions on Russia, which hurts export-oriented Germany like no other Western country. At the same time, the "ultra-right" (i.e. common sense) party "Alternative fuer Deutschland" is forever mired in ridiculous infighting, which regularly escalates just ahead of elections - funny how that is. Must be those meddling Russians.

    Long story short, hell will freeze over before Merkel decides herself what is for breakfast, never mind for policy. I wish we could clone Putin and import him.

    Militarily subsidised by Nato, Germany spends next to nothing on its own defence and is keeping wages down even more than usual by importing immigrants, thereby aiding its deindustrialising of the rest of the EU. Russia is declining in national power compared to Germany by getting into silly pissing contests with America. Adolf Hitler always said it would be necessary to sacrifice millions of Germans to make Germany Great. He would approve of Merkel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    What keeps German wages down, in real terms, is the Euro, not the migrants.

    You are correct on the neglect of the armed forces. I have griped about it often, but I have recently changed my tune. If the forces were indeed up to snuff, this would only cause the U.S. to "ask" for their deployment in their many endless idiotic wars. Letting the troops degrade to some sort of war museum on wheels is a sly way of getting out of that - can't deploy in the short term, sorry, no spark plugs, but will be more than happy to go along for the next war ... so I now see this as one of the few things Merkel got right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Anon
    Redemption of Sachs?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk

    They were fine until they referenced Iran. Iran was an inside job by Iranians that the CIA supported, but doubted it would work.

    But bravo to Dr. Sachs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. gda says:
    @Realist

    Keep it up – you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.
     
    So you speak for everyone on this blog????

    Not many on this blog. What does that tell you about the level of intelligence on this blog?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. gda says:
    @Zogby

    So he’s brought NATO to the table regarding funding
     
    and has nothing to show for it.

    by bringing NK to the table
     
    NK wanted to negotiate with the US almost since the day Kim Jung Un came to power - back in 2013 with all the diplomatic overtures relayed via Dennis Rodman to the Obama administration - but Obama ignored it because he didn't want to negotiate with Kim - viewing him as a monster that shouldn't be negotiated with. By the time Trump took office, NK was deep into their nuclear and missile testing, and now that they've achieved whatever technical goals they were looking for, Kim is pulling a "peace is declared" stunt like Charlie Chaplin's Greate Dictator. So what we have so far is Trump willing to negotiate with someone Obama wasn't willing to negotiate with. Wow.

    and has plans to solve the ME situation
     
    Oh, gee whiz, he has plans. As opposed to all his predecessors that had no plans and made no effort to solve same. DUH

    If President Trump was to walk on water Zogby would complain about his lack of ability to swim.

    You just epitomize the level of intelligence on this blog. Congratulations!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Anon
    Redemption of Sachs?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk

    This is nothing like the Balkans — nothing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Anon
    Redemption of Sachs?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O2TRzA2ezk

    UUUge mistake, Jimmy Dore; you should have done some homework before you elevated Jeffrey Sachs to truth-teller status.

    Spend a few minutes with The Saker — William Engdah interview

    http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/

    Sachse is not trustworthy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Sachs worked closely w/ Soros to plunder USSR/ FSU.

    His job now is to establish Jews/Israel/banker class, Deep State of which he's a part, and think tankers as absolutely innocent of any complicity in the destruction of Syria.
    He's most likely in it up to his eyeballs.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Moi says:
    @WorkingClass
    "What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin."

    What the failure to withdraw from Syria is saying is that Mueller is Commander In Chief.

    Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth.

    I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.

    Trump is in the pockets of the Zionists, and has become a Zionist because the one thing he understands is which side his bread is buttered on.

    To make sense of anything we do in the ME, you only need to ask one question: “What does Israel want.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. A fake response to a fake gas attack with fake WMDs. Trust a reality show star to do this one right, LOL. All theatrics, nothing concrete in the whole situation. Just a lot of American fireworks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sowhat
    He's not the first fake leader. I voted for another fake. Stop the world and let me off!
    , @NoseytheDuke
    And only for a cost of around $150 million of US taxpayers hard earned dollars, that is if you don't include the cost of the PR companies involved in putting together the White Helmets and their film crews. I seem to recall reading about a half billion dollar plus contract going to a British PR firm with the special capabilities required for these sorts of things. MAGA indeed!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Sean
    Britain with Skirpal and the US with Chlorine could not be fooling the Russians that they were responsible, and Russia would think it was being set up to be very seriously attacked if it was being framed repeatedly. It just seems like a very dangerous ploy for a meaningless reward (the natural resources Syria and strategic importance of Syria are very modest). I don't think the Russians would just be sitting there coordinating with the strikes if they were being framed like the post suggests. They would be on red alert and calling up the reserves.

    It just seems like a very dangerous ploy for a meaningless reward (the natural resources Syria and strategic importance of Syria are very modest).

    Maybe true, except for the fact that Syria, under Assad’s leadership serves as a convenient land route over which sophisticated weapons produced in Iran are delivered to Hezbollah defense forces in Lebanon. In my opinion, this is the primary reason behind current US and Israeli efforts being made to destroy Assad. The bottom line is that Israel has been attacking it’s weak neighbors for such a long time, until they simply find it impossible to live with the reality of being unable to invade Lebanon on the slightest pretext. In addition and more ominous, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Rouhani has publically stated that Hezbollah defense forces may eventually extend their protection to the Palestinian people held captive in the Gaza Strip

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    https://original.antiwar.com/porter/2018/03/04/israel-plans-new-war-syria-not-reasons-claims/
    , @Sean
    Iran is making itself a target, one wonders who they think is going to save them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @SolontoCroesus
    UUUge mistake, Jimmy Dore; you should have done some homework before you elevated Jeffrey Sachs to truth-teller status.

    Spend a few minutes with The Saker -- William Engdah interview

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLVypNN4fHU

    http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/

    Sachse is not trustworthy.

    Sachs worked closely w/ Soros to plunder USSR/ FSU.

    His job now is to establish Jews/Israel/banker class, Deep State of which he’s a part, and think tankers as absolutely innocent of any complicity in the destruction of Syria.
    He’s most likely in it up to his eyeballs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Wally
    Pay attention, here's what it says:

    "Swiss lab says ‘BZ toxin’ used in Salisbury, not produced in Russia, was in US & UK service.

    The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

    Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

    The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.

    The Swiss center mentioned by Lavrov is the Spiez Laboratory controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and ultimately by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW."
     

    Your source is Lavrov who constantly lies. His team is the source of a large proportion of Russian fake news. 2000 dead in Tsinkhvali as a starter. Try some other sources on BZ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    No hasbarist, my source is the Swiss lab analysis.

    Actually read what I posted.

    Proof them wrong, if you can.

    , @FB
    Hey Tampon Phil...

    So Lavrov is a liar...?

    As opposed to truth tellers like BoJo...Nikki Haley [who was recently 'bukkake'd' [figuratively speaking of course] by ISIS on the other thread]...May [who would probably benefit from same] etc...


    http://media.santabanta.com/joke/visuals/7217.jpg
    , @annamaria
    We have got it: Philip Owen believes religiously in the words of Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Gavin Willaimson. And, of course, Blair is a paragon of honesty for Philip Owen.
    What are you doing here, on the Unz Review? -- This is not a ziocon stink-tank source of (dis)information, and this is not the ziocons-controlled MSM's presstitutes' haven.
    You make yourself ridiculous by parroting the MSM "wisdom." Your frustration over the impending defeat of "moderate" terrorists in Syria affects your reason and amplifies your rabid hatred of Russia. Don't expect any sympathy for your "victimhood" on this site.
    This is the reality: "Salisbury Nerve Agent Attack Reveals $70 Million Pentagon Program at Porton Down," by Dilyana Gaytandzhieva - https://southfront.org/salisbury-nerve-agent-attack-reveals-70-million-pentagon-program-porton/
    "Porton Down is just one of the Pentagon-funded military laboratories in 25 countries across the world, where the US Army produces and tests man-made viruses, bacteria and toxins in direct violation of the UN convention. These US bio-laboratories are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program– Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
    The Pentagon-funded military facilities are not under the direct control of the host state as the US military and civilian personnel is working under diplomatic cover. The local governments are prohibited from public disclosure of sensitive information about the foreign military program running on their own territory."
    -- All statements in this article are sourced, unlike the pronouncement of the miserable puppets Blair, May, Johnson, and Willaimson.
    , @yurivku
    You are a good provement how stupid all brits are. But you can proudly say - I'm not a bit more stupid than may/johnson/williamson.
    Good job philip, keep it going.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. peterAUS says:
    @exiled off mainstreet
    The professional military people knew what was at stake in limiting the damage engendered by the war crime engaged in to placate the neocon power structure. Since armageddon was at stake, even according to Mattis's own statements, he apparently was able to rein Trump in to some degree, according to this contribution and more clearly from some other reports. We now also have increasing proof that the "chemical weapons" thing was a provocation, though the yankee regime's worldwide propaganda wurlitzer keeps playing the same nihilist song. I agree with others who have concluded that if Mattis is eliminated, that is when we will have to worry. Presumably, for now, since the normal secrecy is combined with a laudable profound survival instinct, the military will keep a lid on any investigations this generates. If not, as Whitney has indicated, we are in deep shit.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Sowhat says:

    This is what tomfoolery looks like- when “I love mah Generals” and you allow them to “lead the way.”
    At the same time we have a “three-pete” of the absolutely idiotic accusations that Assad used chem-WMDs on his own civilians. Everyone that uses the internet can ferret out the truth. This isn’t ten years ago. This is 2018. Doesn’t Intel realize how immature they appear? I’m not only mad as hell, I’m SO disappointed in just how stupid the Government of the United States appears to anyone with half a brain.
    I’m ashamed of the Country I thought I loved.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. Sowhat says:
    @m.a. kaiser
    A fake response to a fake gas attack with fake WMDs. Trust a reality show star to do this one right, LOL. All theatrics, nothing concrete in the whole situation. Just a lot of American fireworks.

    He’s not the first fake leader. I voted for another fake. Stop the world and let me off!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Mike P says:
    @Sean
    Militarily subsidised by Nato, Germany spends next to nothing on its own defence and is keeping wages down even more than usual by importing immigrants, thereby aiding its deindustrialising of the rest of the EU. Russia is declining in national power compared to Germany by getting into silly pissing contests with America. Adolf Hitler always said it would be necessary to sacrifice millions of Germans to make Germany Great. He would approve of Merkel.

    What keeps German wages down, in real terms, is the Euro, not the migrants.

    You are correct on the neglect of the armed forces. I have griped about it often, but I have recently changed my tune. If the forces were indeed up to snuff, this would only cause the U.S. to “ask” for their deployment in their many endless idiotic wars. Letting the troops degrade to some sort of war museum on wheels is a sly way of getting out of that – can’t deploy in the short term, sorry, no spark plugs, but will be more than happy to go along for the next war … so I now see this as one of the few things Merkel got right.

    Read More
    • Agree: Miro23
    • Replies: @Sean

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/germanys-surplus-based-on-unionbacked-wage-restraint/news-story/49f3577bc3406696158a0405092f4414

    In most years since 1950, Germany has run a surplus on its current account, a broad measure of the balance of trade. When in surplus, domestic savings exceed domestic investments, with the excess lent abroad. These surpluses mean other countries must run current account deficits (in other words, borrow) to ensure there is enough aggregate demand to keep people in work. Last year, Germany’s surplus was a mammoth 8.3 per cent of GDP. At almost $300 billion that is far larger than China’s surplus, which was once a target of angry US congressmen. Now Germany is accused of piggybacking on other countries’ spending and of exporting job losses. Donald Trump has castigated its surplus as “very bad” and bemoaned the number of German cars sold in America — “we will stop this”. [..]

    Within the euro club, the gripe is that Germany, as the most creditworthy member, has insisted on austerity for countries with heavy debts, without recognising that its own tight rein on spending makes that adjustment harder. [...] .

    What makes the issue so difficult to resolve, or even to acknowledge, is that Germany’s savings surpluses are not the outcome of explicit economic policy. Instead, their roots lie in a tacit business model from which emerge both the admired and disparaged facets of Germany’s economy [...]Even so, since 2010, Germany ties with Canada for the fastest wage growth among G7 countries. Enderlein expects nominal pay rises of 3-4 per cent over the next few years in Germany.

    Old habits are hard to shift, however. A few years ago, Bofinger argued in favour of faster wage rises in Germany, instead of pay cuts in southern Europe, as a better way to restore balance to the euro zone. He was taken to task by a union leader who reasoned that Germany would lose jobs to China as a consequence.
     

    So the West is being played for a fool by the country they pay to defend: Germany.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @WorkingClass
    "What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin."

    What the failure to withdraw from Syria is saying is that Mueller is Commander In Chief.

    Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth.

    I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.

    I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.

    Seems to me that Trump is trying to walk a tightrope here… he likely knows the ‘chemical’ attack is a false flag and his response was designed to appease the zios without actually causing much damage…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Wally says:
    @reiner Tor
    I'd find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It'd confirm that Trump was actually insane.

    “I’d find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3″

    What makes you think that “that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3″?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Wally says:
    @Philip Owen
    Your source is Lavrov who constantly lies. His team is the source of a large proportion of Russian fake news. 2000 dead in Tsinkhvali as a starter. Try some other sources on BZ.

    No hasbarist, my source is the Swiss lab analysis.

    Actually read what I posted.

    Proof them wrong, if you can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    [Changing your handle to create a sockpuppet and hide your identity is forbidden here. If you do this again, all your future comments may be summarily trashed.]

    Your source is Lavrov unless you want to start accepting hearsay as evidence. Do you?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @m___
    Certainly so, as long as "what you see" is what you believe, at least you are as ignorant as all of us. That makes for company.

    Sorry, m_. I don’t get it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. FB says:
    @Zogby
    In case people missed it, The Russian MOD published more detailed statistics about the attack which can be found here
    http://tass.com/defense/1000148

    If taken at face value, one detail that stands out is that the Russians' original boast that the missile attack was thwarted by "old Soviet-era air defense" is not true. 47 of the 71 intercepts they claim were done by modern Pantsir and Buk systems that Syria purchased around 2010. The older systems had noticeably worse performance than the modern systems.
    The other interesting tidbit there is that the Russian General claims that "the survey of this and other facilities revealed neither this number of ammunition fragments nor the corresponding number of craters". In other words, as FB states above, that even though 25 missiles hypothetically got through in the attacks on Barzeh and Djaramani, the damage on the ground does not correspond to that many missiles.

    Thanks for the Tass article link…

    Yes…there is no question that the US would have targeted Syrian airfields…apparently a few did get through at one airfield…but the others were fully rejected…

    Laymen who know nothing about aircraft or missiles do not understand the complexities and detail involved…they simply accept the brochure ‘information’ presented on wikipedia and such about the capabilities of such flight vehicles…

    This does not shed any light on a fascinating and important subject…important because now we have had some air combat between US and Nato airpower [Ship, sub and air launched cruise missiles vs. Russian air defenses]…

    Clearly the Russians won…there was not a single death on the Syrian side…the US did destroy a few buildings…most notably the Barzeh research center in the Damascus area…

    We can tell the Russians won this round because the US is claiming completely ridiculous stuff…that they launched 76 T-hawks with a combined TNT tonnage of nearly 40 tons…yet little pine shrubs standing 20 feet away are completely intact…

    I mean how stupid…?

    Clearly the US is claiming such a high number of attacks on the three buildings that they did hit because they failed to hit those airfields…and we know that they failed to hit those airfields because if they did we would have satellite imagery being boastfully released…

    You can tell as much by the information that is withheld as you can by the information they give out…

    Now for some basic technical facts…cruise missiles are not hard to shoot down once they are spotted…but the hard part is spotting them because they are small and thus do not bounce back strong radar reflections…

    They can fly close to terrain…although this is not always the case as I have explained previously and depends on the ingress route and the type of terrain along that flight path…ie if it is required to fly over mountainous terrain it must fly quite high…

    In 1999 the Serbs shot down a number T-hawks with their 1950s era Soviet equipment…here is the remains of one T-hawk airframe in the Belgrade Aviation Museum…

    Once spotted on radar…the T-hawks and similar subsonic cruise missiles are sitting ducks…they have no means of evading missile shots…either from an air to air missile launched from a fighter jet…or a surface to air missile launched from an air defense battery…

    A fighter jet relies on a radar warning receiver to alert the crew that it has been targeted by a missile shot and the crew can instantly commence evasive maneuver…which is basically going into a steep banked turn so as to break radar lock and evade the missile shot…

    Cruise missiles have no such RWR…and it would be pointless to equipment with such since they have very poor turning performance…

    This is due to their very high wing loading…which is the ratio of wing area to aircraft weight…a T-hawk weighs about 3,000 lb but has a wing area of only about 10 square feet for a wing loading of 300 lb/ft^2…

    That is about three times as high as a passenger jet’s wing loading and as much as five times higher than a fighter jet…

    Think of wing loading and how it relates to maneuverability by considering a person carrying a backpack…if that person is running and they need to change course having that extra weight on their back will not let them zigzag like a runner carrying no weight…

    The same is true for climb performance…think of carrying 100 lb in your backpack and climbing up a set of stairs…

    The physical laws of flight performance are based on Newtonian Mechanics and cannot be argued with…

    The thrust to weight ratio of a cruise missile is about comparable to that of a passenger jet…the thrust of the T-hawks Williams turbofan engine is about 700 lb against a weight of 3,000 lb that is less than 0.25 thrust to weight…

    A powerful fighter like an F15 will have a thrust to weight ratio of close to unity or even above…ie it’s engine thrust is actually equal to or greater than its weight and the airplane can thus climb straight up like a rocket…

    So the key in defending against subsonic cruise missiles…which fly at about the same speed as passenger jet, about 500 mph [800 km/hr]…is to pick them up on radar…

    The Russians have clearly prepared for such an attack ever since the Shayrat strike…the very powerful Russian radars in Syria are capable of tracking any flying object…and the Syrian SAM batteries are networked into that system and are fed that radar data in real time…

    We also saw in some of those missile intercept videos near the Damascus airport that Syrian jets were taking off and landing…this is because the jets would use their onboard radar to find the cruise missiles and data link that info back to the SAM batteries…

    A fighter is easily capable of taking down a cruise missile with an AA shot also…but this all comes down to pilot skill and training…something which the SyAAF may not be dealing with on a regular basis…considering their focus on the fight against ground targets in Jihadist areas…

    As for the Pantsir…yes this point defense system is the perfect tool to shoot down cruise missiles…it is the successor of the Tor SAM system that was designed specifically to shoot down T-hawks…

    The older SAMs did not perform badly according to the Russian MoD assessment…the S125 is a 1950s era system that the Serbs used to down two F117s and an F16…much more difficult targets than a T-hawk…

    The S200 is a huge missile with a 350 km range…exceeded only by the latest S400 long range missile introduced into service only a couple of years ago…

    It flies extremely fast 2,500 m/s which is about Mach 8…it is even faster than the new S400 missiles which fly at 2,000 m/s…by comparison the USN Raytheon SM6 air defense missile used on Aegis missile ships flies only at M3.5…about 1,000 m/s…

    The high speed of the S200 is actually its disadvantage against a slow moving target like a cruise missile…the laws of physics tell us that the faster the vehicle is flying, the larger its turn radius will be…thus the big S200 is not going to do well against cruise missiles…this is not surprising…

    Overall…the Russian MoD version of events is certainly way more credible than the US version which is full of holes…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Missiles that fly close to the terrain can evade radars by flying low over flats or between slopes where there is relief but they have to rely on satellites for positioning. Jam the communication and the missile no longer knows where it is. I wonder how much debris there is now in the mountains north of Damascus.
    , @Pandos
    Terrific write.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. FB says:
    @Philip Owen
    Your source is Lavrov who constantly lies. His team is the source of a large proportion of Russian fake news. 2000 dead in Tsinkhvali as a starter. Try some other sources on BZ.

    Hey Tampon Phil…

    So Lavrov is a liar…?

    As opposed to truth tellers like BoJo…Nikki Haley [who was recently 'bukkake'd' [figuratively speaking of course] by ISIS on the other thread]…May [who would probably benefit from same] etc…

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    You forgot the man of exemplary truthfulness: Colin Powell with his vial at the UN. That became a meme.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. RJJCDA says:

    At Sec. St. nomination hearing, Pompeo bragged that “we had killed a couple of hundred Russian contractors.” As a former civilian contractor in a war zone, I note that he just put a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone. It is now open season on them. Who will have blood on their hands?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I note that he just put a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone.
     
    You mean a "security consultant/whatever", or, better, a "merc"? Confused. Isn't that a part of job description?

    It is now open season on them.
     
    Just now? Interesting. Fallujah, Tripoli ...........those high profile. Plenty of rest too, just low profile.

    Who will have blood on their hands?
     
    The same guys who have been doing that so far.
    That's for Afghanistan and Iraq, that episode in Libya and parts of Syria where Americans/Westerners are operating.

    Now, if you believe that "Assad side" (SAA thing, Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah etc.) will try to pull something on US personnel in Syria, I doubt it.
    Doubt it very much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @jilles dykstra
    I consider it quite possible that Trump does not want to end like Kennedy.
    The lone shooter Harvey Lee Oswald, who nowadays believes this ?

    “Harvey” Oswald didn’t shoot anyone – his denial was perfectly plausible, and his murder at Ruby’s hands was a desperate stopgap measure to shut him up before he started naming his handlers who had framed him. Badly.

    They never planned to let “Harvey” survive to see an actual trial, because of the lack of evidence against him, and therefore the evidence of a high-level conspiracy would then be so obvious.

    No trial, no test of the evidence against him.

    “Harvey” was exactly what he claimed to be – he was the patsy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Why Ruby shot him I still do not know.
    He was, in my opinion, not a hired murderer, then he also would have killed.
    But USA police methods continue to surprise me, in the Netherlands suspects as Oswald are not walked through corridors where anyone can shoot stem.
    They are transported in bullet proof cars, into a court room, where nobody can enter with even a pocket knife.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Wally
    No hasbarist, my source is the Swiss lab analysis.

    Actually read what I posted.

    Proof them wrong, if you can.

    [Changing your handle to create a sockpuppet and hide your identity is forbidden here. If you do this again, all your future comments may be summarily trashed.]

    Your source is Lavrov unless you want to start accepting hearsay as evidence. Do you?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Hasbarist, the source is the Swiss lab, read what I posted ... and you can't prove me wrong.
    , @Wally
    And:
    "The poisoning of Skripal ended with the old spy in good health; with Boris Johnson being caught lying; with [the chemical weapons control body] OPCW refusing to connect Skripal’s poison to Moscow; and with Brits keeping Miss Skripal incommunicado under duress, away from her fiancé and the rest of her family, a clear sign of a collapsing story."

    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/first-joust/

    Too easy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. S. N. says:

    The Corrupt U.S. Congress Cheers as the War Industry Steals Billions from the People’s Coffers!

    Christian Sorensen | April 13, 2018

    ”Missile Production Capacity

    In February, Newsbud reported on the war industry increasing its capacity to produce Hellfire missiles.

    Capacity to produce other missile types is expanding as well.

    On 6 March 2018, BAE Systems received close to $13.7 million to help increase production capacity of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). With its headquarters in London, BAE Systems links the U.K. war industry to the United States, effectively underpinning the ‘special relationship’ between the two countries.

    On 19 March 2018, Raytheon received roughly $7.8 million to improve the production capacity of AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles. Steps Raytheon might take to increase missile production include adding more equipment, altering staffing levels, and upgrading its facilities.

    The war industry has been operating at full steam for the past seventeen years. Now, these contracts tell us, the boardrooms of prominent war industry giants believe there is reason to produce more Hellfire, APKWS, and Sidewinder missiles. Is it war with Iran? A bigger offensive against President Assad’s forces in Syria? Conflict in Korea?

    The U.S. war industry is expecting more sustained, high-tempo hostilities in the near future. You’ve been warned.”

    https://www.newsbud.com/2018/04/13/the-corrupt-u-s-congress-cheers-as-the-war-industry-steals-billions-from-the-peoples-coffers/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    UK PM’s husband’s Capital Group is largest shareholder in BAE, shares soar since Syrian airstrikes

    https://www.rt.com/uk/424392-may-husbands-capital-group/
    "Philip May, husband of the UK prime minister, works for a company that is the largest shareholder in arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, whose share price has soared since the recent airstrikes in Syria.
    The company, Capital Group, is also the second-largest shareholder in Lockheed Martin – a US military arms firm that supplies weapons systems, aircraft and logistical support. Its shares have also rocketed since the missile strikes last week. . . ."

    h/t http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/04/real-reporting-on-syria-by-publius-tacitus.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. peterAUS says:
    @RJJCDA
    At Sec. St. nomination hearing, Pompeo bragged that "we had killed a couple of hundred Russian contractors." As a former civilian contractor in a war zone, I note that he just put a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone. It is now open season on them. Who will have blood on their hands?

    I note that he just put a target on the forehead of every American contractor working in a war zone.

    You mean a “security consultant/whatever”, or, better, a “merc”? Confused. Isn’t that a part of job description?

    It is now open season on them.

    Just now? Interesting. Fallujah, Tripoli ………..those high profile. Plenty of rest too, just low profile.

    Who will have blood on their hands?

    The same guys who have been doing that so far.
    That’s for Afghanistan and Iraq, that episode in Libya and parts of Syria where Americans/Westerners are operating.

    Now, if you believe that “Assad side” (SAA thing, Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah etc.) will try to pull something on US personnel in Syria, I doubt it.
    Doubt it very much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Zogby
    In case people missed it, The Russian MOD published more detailed statistics about the attack which can be found here
    http://tass.com/defense/1000148

    If taken at face value, one detail that stands out is that the Russians' original boast that the missile attack was thwarted by "old Soviet-era air defense" is not true. 47 of the 71 intercepts they claim were done by modern Pantsir and Buk systems that Syria purchased around 2010. The older systems had noticeably worse performance than the modern systems.
    The other interesting tidbit there is that the Russian General claims that "the survey of this and other facilities revealed neither this number of ammunition fragments nor the corresponding number of craters". In other words, as FB states above, that even though 25 missiles hypothetically got through in the attacks on Barzeh and Djaramani, the damage on the ground does not correspond to that many missiles.

    In response to a caller’s concern, Oklahoma congressman Steve Russell told the C Span Washington Journal audience this morning that there was “no danger from a chemical plume” after missiles struck Syrian chemical plants “because the attack was designed to burn up” the fumes.

    Russell explained that while “Nazis used chemicals in the holocaust.” and
    Russians deliberately target hospitals and schools with barrel bombs, “no other nation takes as much care to prevent harm to civilians” as the USA.

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?444201-5/washington-journal-representative-steve-russell-r-ok-discusses-congress-role-syria-conflict

    Except maybe Fallujah.
    And Vietnam.
    Little bit in North Korea.
    Some slip-ups over Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Why are many commenters so excited? Everything is appropriate: fake missile strike in response to fake chemical weapons use.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Well said.
    , @anon

    Why are many commenters so excited? Everything is appropriate: fake missile strike in response to fake chemical weapons use.

     

    That's a good way to put it. Just wish Trump had exercised more restraint in his tweet, he should not have called Assad a "monster". The real monsters are right here in the US, the Israel Lobby and the Deep State led by Rod Rosenstein the fucking weasel, and the biggest monster of them all is right there in the White House with him, Mike Pence, the one who hired Rosenstein, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton. Pence the Ziocon has been working hard to subvert Trump since Day 1. He wants to be president.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @FB
    Hey Tampon Phil...

    So Lavrov is a liar...?

    As opposed to truth tellers like BoJo...Nikki Haley [who was recently 'bukkake'd' [figuratively speaking of course] by ISIS on the other thread]...May [who would probably benefit from same] etc...


    http://media.santabanta.com/joke/visuals/7217.jpg

    You forgot the man of exemplary truthfulness: Colin Powell with his vial at the UN. That became a meme.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. anon[107] • Disclaimer says:
    @S. N.
    The Corrupt U.S. Congress Cheers as the War Industry Steals Billions from the People’s Coffers!

    Christian Sorensen | April 13, 2018


    ''Missile Production Capacity

    In February, Newsbud reported on the war industry increasing its capacity to produce Hellfire missiles.

    Capacity to produce other missile types is expanding as well.

    On 6 March 2018, BAE Systems received close to $13.7 million to help increase production capacity of the Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS). With its headquarters in London, BAE Systems links the U.K. war industry to the United States, effectively underpinning the ‘special relationship’ between the two countries.

    On 19 March 2018, Raytheon received roughly $7.8 million to improve the production capacity of AIM-9X Sidewinder missiles. Steps Raytheon might take to increase missile production include adding more equipment, altering staffing levels, and upgrading its facilities.

    The war industry has been operating at full steam for the past seventeen years. Now, these contracts tell us, the boardrooms of prominent war industry giants believe there is reason to produce more Hellfire, APKWS, and Sidewinder missiles. Is it war with Iran? A bigger offensive against President Assad’s forces in Syria? Conflict in Korea?

    The U.S. war industry is expecting more sustained, high-tempo hostilities in the near future. You’ve been warned.''


    https://www.newsbud.com/2018/04/13/the-corrupt-u-s-congress-cheers-as-the-war-industry-steals-billions-from-the-peoples-coffers/

    UK PM’s husband’s Capital Group is largest shareholder in BAE, shares soar since Syrian airstrikes

    https://www.rt.com/uk/424392-may-husbands-capital-group/

    “Philip May, husband of the UK prime minister, works for a company that is the largest shareholder in arms manufacturer, BAE Systems, whose share price has soared since the recent airstrikes in Syria.
    The company, Capital Group, is also the second-largest shareholder in Lockheed Martin – a US military arms firm that supplies weapons systems, aircraft and logistical support. Its shares have also rocketed since the missile strikes last week. . . .”

    h/t http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2018/04/real-reporting-on-syria-by-publius-tacitus.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Avery says:
    @AnonFromTN
    Why are many commenters so excited? Everything is appropriate: fake missile strike in response to fake chemical weapons use.

    Well said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. KA says:

    Iran doesn’t want to escalate the situation and give Trump any leverage on Iran deal. Iran wants to deprive any moral political or legal supports from EU to USA on this.
    Trump pulls out . Rest remains same . This will give Iran moral political and legal authorities to pursue its nuclear program with China and Russia . This will have domino effects on other areas of these 3 countries – how to conduct business internationally.

    So a choreographed coordinated attack works for Iran . Trump is happy. His base angry. His enemies can’t go after him for few hours or days .

    Mad madam prostitute Nick Halley has to be soothed by Kudlow telling her she was not a demented rat.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:

    The Zioncons have got Trump by the balls through their pitbull Robert Mueller and poodle Rod Rosenstein. I despise Alan Dershowitz as he is a major Zionist but I agree with him when he said Jeff Sessions needs to unrecuse himself, fire Mueller and Rosenstein. Trump’s hands are tied. If he fires any of these 3 clowns, both the DNC and GOP will immediately try to impeach him. It’s time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, unrecuse himself, fire the pitbull and the poodle, and start immediate investigation into Mueller, Rosenstein and their collusion with Clinton on Uranium One.

    I was one of Jeff Sessions’ biggest supporters, complained loudly when Trump wanted to fire him. Now I wish I hadn’t. Trump was right and should’ve fired him. He’s easily the weakest, most worthless AG. The biggest case is swirling around him threatening to kill off everything that Trump wanted to do, and he’s doing absolutely nothing to help the man who hired him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Sessions was a real tiger in the Senate, when it came to immigration. Now, he seems to be more like a paper tiger.

    I wonder what dirt the deep state has on him? Supposedly he was very clean beforehand.

    A man with a name like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III should be doing better than him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. annamaria says:
    @Philip Owen
    Your source is Lavrov who constantly lies. His team is the source of a large proportion of Russian fake news. 2000 dead in Tsinkhvali as a starter. Try some other sources on BZ.

    We have got it: Philip Owen believes religiously in the words of Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Gavin Willaimson. And, of course, Blair is a paragon of honesty for Philip Owen.
    What are you doing here, on the Unz Review? — This is not a ziocon stink-tank source of (dis)information, and this is not the ziocons-controlled MSM’s presstitutes’ haven.
    You make yourself ridiculous by parroting the MSM “wisdom.” Your frustration over the impending defeat of “moderate” terrorists in Syria affects your reason and amplifies your rabid hatred of Russia. Don’t expect any sympathy for your “victimhood” on this site.
    This is the reality: “Salisbury Nerve Agent Attack Reveals $70 Million Pentagon Program at Porton Down,” by Dilyana Gaytandzhieva – https://southfront.org/salisbury-nerve-agent-attack-reveals-70-million-pentagon-program-porton/
    “Porton Down is just one of the Pentagon-funded military laboratories in 25 countries across the world, where the US Army produces and tests man-made viruses, bacteria and toxins in direct violation of the UN convention. These US bio-laboratories are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program– Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
    The Pentagon-funded military facilities are not under the direct control of the host state as the US military and civilian personnel is working under diplomatic cover. The local governments are prohibited from public disclosure of sensitive information about the foreign military program running on their own territory.”
    – All statements in this article are sourced, unlike the pronouncement of the miserable puppets Blair, May, Johnson, and Willaimson.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    I don't think Tampon Phil will be much affected by facts of any kind...you might as well be talking to a she-donkey in estrus...

    Maybe you missed my exchange with Tampon Phil on the other thread where I provided a technical look at the bombed Barzeh complex near Damascus...

    Follow that exchange with Tampon Phil and you will learn much about the human mind's staggering potential for delusion...ie Tampon Phil is your archetypal koolaid addict...even when hard facts stare him in the face he chooses fantasy over simple reality...

    A most illuminating insight into the recesses of the broken mind...

    You also may have missed Tampon Phil's posting of his CV on that same thread...where he tells fascinating stories of peddling Indian palm oil in Russia...without much success apparently...

    He claims he is an engineer...and went to Russia to 'turn swords into plowshares' but ended up selling palm oil instead...

    Draw your own conclusions...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. anon[119] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnonFromTN
    Why are many commenters so excited? Everything is appropriate: fake missile strike in response to fake chemical weapons use.

    Why are many commenters so excited? Everything is appropriate: fake missile strike in response to fake chemical weapons use.

    That’s a good way to put it. Just wish Trump had exercised more restraint in his tweet, he should not have called Assad a “monster”. The real monsters are right here in the US, the Israel Lobby and the Deep State led by Rod Rosenstein the fucking weasel, and the biggest monster of them all is right there in the White House with him, Mike Pence, the one who hired Rosenstein, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton. Pence the Ziocon has been working hard to subvert Trump since Day 1. He wants to be president.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonFromTN
    Trump is a typical business tycoon: a clueless moron. Pence is just a weasel. Weasels are carnivores, but small ones: sometimes they eat, sometimes they get eaten. I hope Pence gets eaten.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @anon

    Why are many commenters so excited? Everything is appropriate: fake missile strike in response to fake chemical weapons use.

     

    That's a good way to put it. Just wish Trump had exercised more restraint in his tweet, he should not have called Assad a "monster". The real monsters are right here in the US, the Israel Lobby and the Deep State led by Rod Rosenstein the fucking weasel, and the biggest monster of them all is right there in the White House with him, Mike Pence, the one who hired Rosenstein, Nikki Haley, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton. Pence the Ziocon has been working hard to subvert Trump since Day 1. He wants to be president.

    Trump is a typical business tycoon: a clueless moron. Pence is just a weasel. Weasels are carnivores, but small ones: sometimes they eat, sometimes they get eaten. I hope Pence gets eaten.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @anon
    The Zioncons have got Trump by the balls through their pitbull Robert Mueller and poodle Rod Rosenstein. I despise Alan Dershowitz as he is a major Zionist but I agree with him when he said Jeff Sessions needs to unrecuse himself, fire Mueller and Rosenstein. Trump's hands are tied. If he fires any of these 3 clowns, both the DNC and GOP will immediately try to impeach him. It's time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, unrecuse himself, fire the pitbull and the poodle, and start immediate investigation into Mueller, Rosenstein and their collusion with Clinton on Uranium One.

    I was one of Jeff Sessions' biggest supporters, complained loudly when Trump wanted to fire him. Now I wish I hadn't. Trump was right and should've fired him. He's easily the weakest, most worthless AG. The biggest case is swirling around him threatening to kill off everything that Trump wanted to do, and he's doing absolutely nothing to help the man who hired him.

    Sessions was a real tiger in the Senate, when it came to immigration. Now, he seems to be more like a paper tiger.

    I wonder what dirt the deep state has on him? Supposedly he was very clean beforehand.

    A man with a name like Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III should be doing better than him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @m.a. kaiser
    A fake response to a fake gas attack with fake WMDs. Trust a reality show star to do this one right, LOL. All theatrics, nothing concrete in the whole situation. Just a lot of American fireworks.

    And only for a cost of around $150 million of US taxpayers hard earned dollars, that is if you don’t include the cost of the PR companies involved in putting together the White Helmets and their film crews. I seem to recall reading about a half billion dollar plus contract going to a British PR firm with the special capabilities required for these sorts of things. MAGA indeed!

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    One must do something.
    The Boston pressure cooker terrorist act comes to mind, where a Vietnam veteran was hired as actor.
    But any doctor and nurse knew that someone with both legs blown off will die in a few minutes when transported in a wheel chair.
    Sept 11, same stupid mistakes, the towers collapsed more quickly than Newton's laws allowed, the 47 story building was blown up at the lowest level.
    But Hollywood learns, the movie about the hijacking of the Pennsylvania plane did not use mobile phones, but the in flight phones.
    As MH370 proved again, one cannot used mobile phones from a plane flying with some 600 MPH.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Wally says:
    @WorkingClass
    "What Trump is saying is that his real enemy is Mueller not Putin."

    What the failure to withdraw from Syria is saying is that Mueller is Commander In Chief.

    Or perhaps we should judge Trump by the company he keeps. Bolton in Washington and Israel/Saudi Arabia in the MENA. The scum of the earth.

    I am a card carrying deplorable. I prefer Trump to Mueller. But I can no longer defend Trump. He is a Zionist first and an American second.

    Indeed, but the alternative was Hillary.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    [Changing your handle to create a sockpuppet and hide your identity is forbidden here. If you do this again, all your future comments may be summarily trashed.]

    Your source is Lavrov unless you want to start accepting hearsay as evidence. Do you?

    Hasbarist, the source is the Swiss lab, read what I posted … and you can’t prove me wrong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    Here's the opening line:

    "The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said."

    That's hearsay, whether you like it or not. If you can find somewhere in that article where a single, solitary person from Spiez is quoted directly, post it now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    [Changing your handle to create a sockpuppet and hide your identity is forbidden here. If you do this again, all your future comments may be summarily trashed.]

    Your source is Lavrov unless you want to start accepting hearsay as evidence. Do you?

    And:
    “The poisoning of Skripal ended with the old spy in good health; with Boris Johnson being caught lying; with [the chemical weapons control body] OPCW refusing to connect Skripal’s poison to Moscow; and with Brits keeping Miss Skripal incommunicado under duress, away from her fiancé and the rest of her family, a clear sign of a collapsing story.”

    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/first-joust/

    Too easy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    You think Israel Shamir is a reliable source?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. polistra says:

    Stepping back from the details to see overall goals, this makes a little sense, but not a whole lot of sense.

    First and foremost, we started this war. There was some sort of coup against Assad in 2013, and Assad was in the process of putting it down and restoring stability. We jumped in and armed the rebels because our goal is chaos. Destruction and death are our main exports.

    Putin finally stepped in on Assad’s side because Russia’s overall goal is stability and order. In other words, deconflicting.

    We go along with the deconflicting because it allows us to report “deliverables” to our bosses in Riyadh and Tel Aviv. If we didn’t go along with the deconflicting, we’d be kicked out entirely.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. Vojkan says:
    @FB
    Thanks for the Tass article link...

    Yes...there is no question that the US would have targeted Syrian airfields...apparently a few did get through at one airfield...but the others were fully rejected...

    Laymen who know nothing about aircraft or missiles do not understand the complexities and detail involved...they simply accept the brochure 'information' presented on wikipedia and such about the capabilities of such flight vehicles...

    This does not shed any light on a fascinating and important subject...important because now we have had some air combat between US and Nato airpower [Ship, sub and air launched cruise missiles vs. Russian air defenses]...

    Clearly the Russians won...there was not a single death on the Syrian side...the US did destroy a few buildings...most notably the Barzeh research center in the Damascus area...

    We can tell the Russians won this round because the US is claiming completely ridiculous stuff...that they launched 76 T-hawks with a combined TNT tonnage of nearly 40 tons...yet little pine shrubs standing 20 feet away are completely intact...

    I mean how stupid...?

    Clearly the US is claiming such a high number of attacks on the three buildings that they did hit because they failed to hit those airfields...and we know that they failed to hit those airfields because if they did we would have satellite imagery being boastfully released...

    You can tell as much by the information that is withheld as you can by the information they give out...

    Now for some basic technical facts...cruise missiles are not hard to shoot down once they are spotted...but the hard part is spotting them because they are small and thus do not bounce back strong radar reflections...

    They can fly close to terrain...although this is not always the case as I have explained previously and depends on the ingress route and the type of terrain along that flight path...ie if it is required to fly over mountainous terrain it must fly quite high...

    In 1999 the Serbs shot down a number T-hawks with their 1950s era Soviet equipment...here is the remains of one T-hawk airframe in the Belgrade Aviation Museum...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/y3a1od5u5/Downed_Tomahawk_cruise_missile_in_Belgrade_Serbia.jpg

    Once spotted on radar...the T-hawks and similar subsonic cruise missiles are sitting ducks...they have no means of evading missile shots...either from an air to air missile launched from a fighter jet...or a surface to air missile launched from an air defense battery...

    A fighter jet relies on a radar warning receiver to alert the crew that it has been targeted by a missile shot and the crew can instantly commence evasive maneuver...which is basically going into a steep banked turn so as to break radar lock and evade the missile shot...

    Cruise missiles have no such RWR...and it would be pointless to equipment with such since they have very poor turning performance...

    This is due to their very high wing loading...which is the ratio of wing area to aircraft weight...a T-hawk weighs about 3,000 lb but has a wing area of only about 10 square feet for a wing loading of 300 lb/ft^2...

    That is about three times as high as a passenger jet's wing loading and as much as five times higher than a fighter jet...

    Think of wing loading and how it relates to maneuverability by considering a person carrying a backpack...if that person is running and they need to change course having that extra weight on their back will not let them zigzag like a runner carrying no weight...

    The same is true for climb performance...think of carrying 100 lb in your backpack and climbing up a set of stairs...

    The physical laws of flight performance are based on Newtonian Mechanics and cannot be argued with...

    The thrust to weight ratio of a cruise missile is about comparable to that of a passenger jet...the thrust of the T-hawks Williams turbofan engine is about 700 lb against a weight of 3,000 lb that is less than 0.25 thrust to weight...

    A powerful fighter like an F15 will have a thrust to weight ratio of close to unity or even above...ie it's engine thrust is actually equal to or greater than its weight and the airplane can thus climb straight up like a rocket...

    So the key in defending against subsonic cruise missiles...which fly at about the same speed as passenger jet, about 500 mph [800 km/hr]...is to pick them up on radar...

    The Russians have clearly prepared for such an attack ever since the Shayrat strike...the very powerful Russian radars in Syria are capable of tracking any flying object...and the Syrian SAM batteries are networked into that system and are fed that radar data in real time...

    We also saw in some of those missile intercept videos near the Damascus airport that Syrian jets were taking off and landing...this is because the jets would use their onboard radar to find the cruise missiles and data link that info back to the SAM batteries...

    A fighter is easily capable of taking down a cruise missile with an AA shot also...but this all comes down to pilot skill and training...something which the SyAAF may not be dealing with on a regular basis...considering their focus on the fight against ground targets in Jihadist areas...

    As for the Pantsir...yes this point defense system is the perfect tool to shoot down cruise missiles...it is the successor of the Tor SAM system that was designed specifically to shoot down T-hawks...

    The older SAMs did not perform badly according to the Russian MoD assessment...the S125 is a 1950s era system that the Serbs used to down two F117s and an F16...much more difficult targets than a T-hawk...

    The S200 is a huge missile with a 350 km range...exceeded only by the latest S400 long range missile introduced into service only a couple of years ago...

    It flies extremely fast 2,500 m/s which is about Mach 8...it is even faster than the new S400 missiles which fly at 2,000 m/s...by comparison the USN Raytheon SM6 air defense missile used on Aegis missile ships flies only at M3.5...about 1,000 m/s...

    The high speed of the S200 is actually its disadvantage against a slow moving target like a cruise missile...the laws of physics tell us that the faster the vehicle is flying, the larger its turn radius will be...thus the big S200 is not going to do well against cruise missiles...this is not surprising...

    Overall...the Russian MoD version of events is certainly way more credible than the US version which is full of holes...

    Missiles that fly close to the terrain can evade radars by flying low over flats or between slopes where there is relief but they have to rely on satellites for positioning. Jam the communication and the missile no longer knows where it is. I wonder how much debris there is now in the mountains north of Damascus.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Everything you said is completely wrong...

    What makes you think that as a layman who knows nothing about aeronautics that you can make statements intended to sound factual...?

    First have a look at my discussion of how a cruise missile works...

    Now about the 'satellites'...that is GPS for the T-hawk and other Nato knockoffs...

    This is NOT the primary guidance [navigation] system of a cruise missile...and it works perfectly well and will get to its target even if the GPS radio signal is jammed...or even if all GPS sats are shot down...

    The primary guidance system is an inertial nav system which is self contained and uses no radio signals like GPS [which can be jammed easily]...

    Inertial nav systems are also the primary navigation system in passenger jets, ICBMs and just about any other missile...

    They work on gyroscopic principles...hence the term 'inertial'...since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton's First Law of Motion...

    Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels and they work on the principle that the gyroscope senses any acceleration of the aircraft whether up, down, left, right etc...here is a diagram showing the three axes of a flight vehicle...and the six possible movements about those axes...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/y5glpjh71/Flight_dynamics_with_text.png


    Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight...the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one...


    '...An INS can detect a change in its geographic position (a move east or north, for example), a change in its velocity (speed and direction of movement) and a change in its orientation (rotation about an axis). It does this by measuring the linear acceleration and angular velocity applied to the system.

    Since it requires no external reference (after initialization), it is immune to jamming and deception...'
     

    Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices...but they are completely self-contained...just like the earlier mechanical gyros...and cannot be interfered with in any way from outside...

    A computer is used to do the math...namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix...


    '...acceleration measurements into an inertial reference frame (hence the term inertial navigation) where they are integrated once to get linear velocity, and twice to get linear position...'
     
    This computer can even be mechanical...but is nowadays a digital electronic computer...

    So your 'factual' statement is actually complete bullshit...

    Here is a picture of a gyro based nav system from the 1950s...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/z7qs7x7od/Project_SPIRE_Inertial_Navigation_Control_2.jpg


    Here is an inertial unit from a modern spacecraft...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/xtz5cg0nh/IMU-28_inertial_measurement_unit.jpg


    Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another...so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above...

    As for your bullshit about terrain following...I don't have time to get into right now...but which is explained on the other thread I linked to...

    When will complete know-nothings get it in their head that looking at the brochure info in wikipedia does not qualify them to make factual-sounding statements...?

    Please do not wast my time by addressing me with amateur bullshit...if you have a question...as you obviously do...then ask...do not state pseudo facts and require me to expend a lot of useless effort on moronic bullshit...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Paul Jolliffe
    "Harvey" Oswald didn't shoot anyone - his denial was perfectly plausible, and his murder at Ruby's hands was a desperate stopgap measure to shut him up before he started naming his handlers who had framed him. Badly.

    They never planned to let "Harvey" survive to see an actual trial, because of the lack of evidence against him, and therefore the evidence of a high-level conspiracy would then be so obvious.

    No trial, no test of the evidence against him.

    "Harvey" was exactly what he claimed to be - he was the patsy.

    Why Ruby shot him I still do not know.
    He was, in my opinion, not a hired murderer, then he also would have killed.
    But USA police methods continue to surprise me, in the Netherlands suspects as Oswald are not walked through corridors where anyone can shoot stem.
    They are transported in bullet proof cars, into a court room, where nobody can enter with even a pocket knife.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    Ruby shot "Harvey" as a desperate, improvised back-up plan by the conspirators to keep "Harvey" from naming names. ("Harvey" was to be killed almost immediately after JFK, but managed to stay alive for 48 hours.)

    Ruby had to be strong-armed into it, and he fully expected to be let off easy ("you all know me, I'm Jack Ruby" he exclaimed in astonishment as the Dallas cops dragged him off of "Oswald".)

    His original guilty verdict was overturned in late 1966, and had Ruby not died of "cancer" in early 1967, he would have received a new trial, at which he might have had some very interesting things to say.

    But he didn't live to see it.

    Nonetheless, here is what Jack Ruby said about his own role in a very high-ranking conspiracy: (this clip is real, but suppressed by the mainstream media)

    https://youtu.be/U77Rj46ncY8
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @NoseytheDuke
    And only for a cost of around $150 million of US taxpayers hard earned dollars, that is if you don't include the cost of the PR companies involved in putting together the White Helmets and their film crews. I seem to recall reading about a half billion dollar plus contract going to a British PR firm with the special capabilities required for these sorts of things. MAGA indeed!

    One must do something.
    The Boston pressure cooker terrorist act comes to mind, where a Vietnam veteran was hired as actor.
    But any doctor and nurse knew that someone with both legs blown off will die in a few minutes when transported in a wheel chair.
    Sept 11, same stupid mistakes, the towers collapsed more quickly than Newton’s laws allowed, the 47 story building was blown up at the lowest level.
    But Hollywood learns, the movie about the hijacking of the Pennsylvania plane did not use mobile phones, but the in flight phones.
    As MH370 proved again, one cannot used mobile phones from a plane flying with some 600 MPH.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Johan_nagel says: • Website

    This odd stance I see people taking…of trump the major force behind possible Korean peace. With zero evidence. Threaten to destroy and insult their leader and people assume this tactic worked great?

    Nonsense.

    Sort out the middle East? By hiring Nikki Haley, pompeo, Bolton?

    Nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. Realist says:
    @gda
    So he's brought NATO to the table regarding funding, is about to solve the greatest crisis/threat to the world by bringing NK to the table re; Denuclearization, and has plans to solve the ME situation (which you clearly know nothing about) using the GCC.

    Yet he's a feckless, nutless POS.

    You seem to be somewhat lacking in judgement. Beyond redemption with your TDS. A crazed loon.

    Did you miss the first part of the IG's report? Do you realize what's to come? Nah, it's all Russia, Russia, Russia nonsense with your ilk.

    Keep it up - you keep us amused with your ignorant thrashing about.

    You forgot to mention Chumps appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the SC…..who just voted in favor of illegal aliens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    That's not really an accurate statement, to say that he's siding with illegal aliens.

    Trump should've dropped the case altogether. Having an ambiguous and unclear definition of "violent" will just clog up the court system.

    Explicitly name the crimes worthy of deportation and go again. I support Mr. Gorsuch's decision, and he is still on thin ice for me until he proves himself though. Far too many Republican swamp traitors.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Emily says:

    Did the Pentagon collaborate with Moscow on which targets to hit?

    No.
    It was the abject failure of the USA and its weapons.
    Why would the Russians collaborate on the wholesale destruction of Syrian airbases and the intent to wipe out of much of the Syrian aerial defenses.
    Makes no sense.
    Trying to cover up the fact that Syria shot down 71 US missiles even with some so called antiquated weapons.
    Come on Russia – time for Syria to receive the s300 – and fast.
    Next time it needs to the shooting down of the lot.

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. Didier says:
    @reiner Tor
    I'd find it scary if it turned out that Dunford had to defy orders to avoid WW3. It'd confirm that Trump was actually insane.

    Great comment

    The last years, a lot of progress is made in the understanding of the political reality of the world. We can agree that propaganda is intensively used as a means to suppress the masses: feminism, multiculturalism, leftism in general. The question now is: how much does the elite lie to establish their system? How far do the lies go?

    Feminism and multiculturalism are only the tips of the iceberg. The rabbit hole is much deeper than that. The matrix is much broader.

    In this brand new free 300 page document, the history, the tactics and the lies of the elites are revealed. Including the most important lie, the one that was not discovered until now.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/io5wtw1o8y7xgu7/TheTruthNatureOfPresentDaySociety.pdf?dl=0

    The intro video can be watched here:

    archive.org/details/presentdaysociety

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. FB says:
    @annamaria
    We have got it: Philip Owen believes religiously in the words of Theresa May, Boris Johnson, and Gavin Willaimson. And, of course, Blair is a paragon of honesty for Philip Owen.
    What are you doing here, on the Unz Review? -- This is not a ziocon stink-tank source of (dis)information, and this is not the ziocons-controlled MSM's presstitutes' haven.
    You make yourself ridiculous by parroting the MSM "wisdom." Your frustration over the impending defeat of "moderate" terrorists in Syria affects your reason and amplifies your rabid hatred of Russia. Don't expect any sympathy for your "victimhood" on this site.
    This is the reality: "Salisbury Nerve Agent Attack Reveals $70 Million Pentagon Program at Porton Down," by Dilyana Gaytandzhieva - https://southfront.org/salisbury-nerve-agent-attack-reveals-70-million-pentagon-program-porton/
    "Porton Down is just one of the Pentagon-funded military laboratories in 25 countries across the world, where the US Army produces and tests man-made viruses, bacteria and toxins in direct violation of the UN convention. These US bio-laboratories are funded by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) under a $ 2.1 billion military program– Cooperative Biological Engagement Program (CBEP), and are located in former Soviet Union countries such as Georgia and Ukraine, the Middle East, South East Asia and Africa.
    The Pentagon-funded military facilities are not under the direct control of the host state as the US military and civilian personnel is working under diplomatic cover. The local governments are prohibited from public disclosure of sensitive information about the foreign military program running on their own territory."
    -- All statements in this article are sourced, unlike the pronouncement of the miserable puppets Blair, May, Johnson, and Willaimson.

    I don’t think Tampon Phil will be much affected by facts of any kind…you might as well be talking to a she-donkey in estrus…

    Maybe you missed my exchange with Tampon Phil on the other thread where I provided a technical look at the bombed Barzeh complex near Damascus…

    Follow that exchange with Tampon Phil and you will learn much about the human mind’s staggering potential for delusion…ie Tampon Phil is your archetypal koolaid addict…even when hard facts stare him in the face he chooses fantasy over simple reality…

    A most illuminating insight into the recesses of the broken mind…

    You also may have missed Tampon Phil’s posting of his CV on that same thread…where he tells fascinating stories of peddling Indian palm oil in Russia…without much success apparently…

    He claims he is an engineer…and went to Russia to ‘turn swords into plowshares’ but ended up selling palm oil instead…

    Draw your own conclusions…

    Read More
    • Replies: @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    Snake oil more like It!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @Realist
    You forgot to mention Chumps appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the SC.....who just voted in favor of illegal aliens.

    That’s not really an accurate statement, to say that he’s siding with illegal aliens.

    Trump should’ve dropped the case altogether. Having an ambiguous and unclear definition of “violent” will just clog up the court system.

    Explicitly name the crimes worthy of deportation and go again. I support Mr. Gorsuch’s decision, and he is still on thin ice for me until he proves himself though. Far too many Republican swamp traitors.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist

    That’s not really an accurate statement, to say that he’s siding with illegal aliens.
     
    The other 4 'conservative ' judges voted against Gorsuch.

    Explicitly name the crimes worthy of deportation and go again.
     
    Easy, being an illegal alien.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. @FB
    I don't think Tampon Phil will be much affected by facts of any kind...you might as well be talking to a she-donkey in estrus...

    Maybe you missed my exchange with Tampon Phil on the other thread where I provided a technical look at the bombed Barzeh complex near Damascus...

    Follow that exchange with Tampon Phil and you will learn much about the human mind's staggering potential for delusion...ie Tampon Phil is your archetypal koolaid addict...even when hard facts stare him in the face he chooses fantasy over simple reality...

    A most illuminating insight into the recesses of the broken mind...

    You also may have missed Tampon Phil's posting of his CV on that same thread...where he tells fascinating stories of peddling Indian palm oil in Russia...without much success apparently...

    He claims he is an engineer...and went to Russia to 'turn swords into plowshares' but ended up selling palm oil instead...

    Draw your own conclusions...

    Snake oil more like It!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. FB says:
    @Vojkan
    Missiles that fly close to the terrain can evade radars by flying low over flats or between slopes where there is relief but they have to rely on satellites for positioning. Jam the communication and the missile no longer knows where it is. I wonder how much debris there is now in the mountains north of Damascus.

    Everything you said is completely wrong…

    What makes you think that as a layman who knows nothing about aeronautics that you can make statements intended to sound factual…?

    First have a look at my discussion of how a cruise missile works…

    Now about the ‘satellites’…that is GPS for the T-hawk and other Nato knockoffs…

    This is NOT the primary guidance [navigation] system of a cruise missile…and it works perfectly well and will get to its target even if the GPS radio signal is jammed…or even if all GPS sats are shot down…

    The primary guidance system is an inertial nav system which is self contained and uses no radio signals like GPS [which can be jammed easily]…

    Inertial nav systems are also the primary navigation system in passenger jets, ICBMs and just about any other missile…

    They work on gyroscopic principles…hence the term ‘inertial’…since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…

    Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels and they work on the principle that the gyroscope senses any acceleration of the aircraft whether up, down, left, right etc…here is a diagram showing the three axes of a flight vehicle…and the six possible movements about those axes…

    Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight…the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one…

    ‘…An INS can detect a change in its geographic position (a move east or north, for example), a change in its velocity (speed and direction of movement) and a change in its orientation (rotation about an axis). It does this by measuring the linear acceleration and angular velocity applied to the system.

    Since it requires no external reference (after initialization), it is immune to jamming and deception…’

    Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices…but they are completely self-contained…just like the earlier mechanical gyros…and cannot be interfered with in any way from outside…

    A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…

    ‘…acceleration measurements into an inertial reference frame (hence the term inertial navigation) where they are integrated once to get linear velocity, and twice to get linear position…’

    This computer can even be mechanical…but is nowadays a digital electronic computer…

    So your ‘factual’ statement is actually complete bullshit…

    Here is a picture of a gyro based nav system from the 1950s…

    Here is an inertial unit from a modern spacecraft…

    Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another…so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above…

    As for your bullshit about terrain following…I don’t have time to get into right now…but which is explained on the other thread I linked to…

    When will complete know-nothings get it in their head that looking at the brochure info in wikipedia does not qualify them to make factual-sounding statements…?

    Please do not wast my time by addressing me with amateur bullshit…if you have a question…as you obviously do…then ask…do not state pseudo facts and require me to expend a lot of useless effort on moronic bullshit…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Punk, I suspect you to be of some Balkanic origin. That's where you find nerds who think of themselves they're super-smart but are actually asses who suffer from arrested development.
    Unlike you, I have actually worked on military projects in a NATO country that invluded vehicle positioning and guidance and weapons systems trajectories. Now, you may regurgitate here stuff you have ingurgitated elsewhere because, as all folks, who suffer from arrested development, you crave for recognition of your genius. That may pass with people who lack knowledge in the field you pretend to be expert at, the problem is that to anyone better informed, it is obvious that you're just a nerd who doesn't understands the concepts behind the things he bathers about. From now on, you're on my "hide" list because I can't even stand any more to have to scroll over your bs.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    You certainly have a gift for explaining complex technical subjects in a manner that can be easily understood by laypersons such as myself.

    I just caught this which I found interesting, especially if they turn out to be the newer and smarter ones that Trump bragged about, if true it makes the episode an even bigger blunder.
    http://theduran.com/oops-two-unexploded-cruise-missiles-delivered-to-russia-from-syria/
    , @Thirdeye

    …since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…
     
    Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. ‘wag the dog’

    Starting the story in the Middle East, where the action is, then going to the White House, the ostensible control node behind much of the strife in the Middle East, including the missile attack, the story then, somewhat arbitrarily stops its trace of the root cause of the empire’s aggression and swerves onto a tangent of Russia-hatred and Mueller and the Byzantine-like … fog and shroud around how policy is actually formulated.
    Seeing the story’s path go to it’s ultimately horrendous worst-case scenario conclusion is somewhat mollifying, by the deft avoidance of the addressing the root cause of the empire’s aggression leaves the reader bewildered.
    Finally, in the last paragraph, you brush by the subject:

    The president has aligned himself with a Zionist right-wing fringe who see the conflict as a proxy-war with Iran that must be won in order to establish US-Israeli regional hegemony and maintain a stranglehold on vital resources and pipeline corridors.

    I believe that we a little bit (huge – over the cliff) beyond describing this phenomenon as a recent, “alignment, somehow having something to do with this latest event, and perhaps some influence moving forward.

    Come on!

    The time has past to only whisper it from the shadows, if at all.
    We’re all being kept, or managed in a state of ongoing conflict and stress to accomplish a sociopathic goal for the most dedicated culturally criminalized gangster collective of all time, to rule all.

    This latest action stands as yet another grotesque monument to their sickeningly psychopathic control over the U.S.A..
    They are obsessed with controlling things.
    This latest missile strike (2018.04.14), costing upwards of $180 million dollars, including the sick, toady ‘cheerleaders’ Teresa May and (the mole) Emmanuel Macro, (showing their bootie), which everybody knows (who can still think to a minimum level of independence) that the entire operation was a fraud, from Skripal to the ridiculously obvious bogus chemical attack, is just that, a message to the free-thinkers of the world, a boast of “aren’t we so clever“.
    This pronouncement is just that, an obnoxious, openly contemptuous display of the degree with which they can control the empire’s leaders, and everybody else puppetting the official line, to the extreme extent of getting them to officially endorse (and in some cases of the public believe), this absurdly laughable narrative.

    We are not talking about a little piece of land in the Middle East, occupied by a brutal, murderous colonial gang of psychopaths, using their victims as human shields against what has been earned by them, over, and over, and over again, we’re talking about a virtual nation which exists with many agents embedded within the control structures of the “higher civilizations” and subverted them, by gaming their liberal democracies, at the cost of the loss of those liberal democracies, including the rights and freedoms that they achieved.

    Isn’t this what this story is all about!?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. Vojkan says:
    @FB
    Everything you said is completely wrong...

    What makes you think that as a layman who knows nothing about aeronautics that you can make statements intended to sound factual...?

    First have a look at my discussion of how a cruise missile works...

    Now about the 'satellites'...that is GPS for the T-hawk and other Nato knockoffs...

    This is NOT the primary guidance [navigation] system of a cruise missile...and it works perfectly well and will get to its target even if the GPS radio signal is jammed...or even if all GPS sats are shot down...

    The primary guidance system is an inertial nav system which is self contained and uses no radio signals like GPS [which can be jammed easily]...

    Inertial nav systems are also the primary navigation system in passenger jets, ICBMs and just about any other missile...

    They work on gyroscopic principles...hence the term 'inertial'...since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton's First Law of Motion...

    Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels and they work on the principle that the gyroscope senses any acceleration of the aircraft whether up, down, left, right etc...here is a diagram showing the three axes of a flight vehicle...and the six possible movements about those axes...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/y5glpjh71/Flight_dynamics_with_text.png


    Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight...the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one...


    '...An INS can detect a change in its geographic position (a move east or north, for example), a change in its velocity (speed and direction of movement) and a change in its orientation (rotation about an axis). It does this by measuring the linear acceleration and angular velocity applied to the system.

    Since it requires no external reference (after initialization), it is immune to jamming and deception...'
     

    Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices...but they are completely self-contained...just like the earlier mechanical gyros...and cannot be interfered with in any way from outside...

    A computer is used to do the math...namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix...


    '...acceleration measurements into an inertial reference frame (hence the term inertial navigation) where they are integrated once to get linear velocity, and twice to get linear position...'
     
    This computer can even be mechanical...but is nowadays a digital electronic computer...

    So your 'factual' statement is actually complete bullshit...

    Here is a picture of a gyro based nav system from the 1950s...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/z7qs7x7od/Project_SPIRE_Inertial_Navigation_Control_2.jpg


    Here is an inertial unit from a modern spacecraft...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/xtz5cg0nh/IMU-28_inertial_measurement_unit.jpg


    Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another...so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above...

    As for your bullshit about terrain following...I don't have time to get into right now...but which is explained on the other thread I linked to...

    When will complete know-nothings get it in their head that looking at the brochure info in wikipedia does not qualify them to make factual-sounding statements...?

    Please do not wast my time by addressing me with amateur bullshit...if you have a question...as you obviously do...then ask...do not state pseudo facts and require me to expend a lot of useless effort on moronic bullshit...

    Punk, I suspect you to be of some Balkanic origin. That’s where you find nerds who think of themselves they’re super-smart but are actually asses who suffer from arrested development.
    Unlike you, I have actually worked on military projects in a NATO country that invluded vehicle positioning and guidance and weapons systems trajectories. Now, you may regurgitate here stuff you have ingurgitated elsewhere because, as all folks, who suffer from arrested development, you crave for recognition of your genius. That may pass with people who lack knowledge in the field you pretend to be expert at, the problem is that to anyone better informed, it is obvious that you’re just a nerd who doesn’t understands the concepts behind the things he bathers about. From now on, you’re on my “hide” list because I can’t even stand any more to have to scroll over your bs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...Unlike you, I have actually worked on military projects in a NATO country that invluded [sic] vehicle positioning and guidance and weapons systems trajectories...'
     
    What kind of vehicle positioning are you talking about...valet parking...?
    , @gwynedd1
    As a neutral observer, this was the reply of a jackass. I must admit that I am partial to claims supported by facts because those are the kind of replies I like to make. I know that my facts can be challenged and are falsifiable. Why didn't you proceed to contend on the issue of guidance systems? And what the hell does the Balkans have to do with it? Are you a complete moron? If I lose an argument I should staring talking about random ethnic groups , and maybe accuse them of being a cheap Scotsman?
    , @peterAUS
    Don't say.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Realist says:
    @UrbaneFrancoOntarian
    That's not really an accurate statement, to say that he's siding with illegal aliens.

    Trump should've dropped the case altogether. Having an ambiguous and unclear definition of "violent" will just clog up the court system.

    Explicitly name the crimes worthy of deportation and go again. I support Mr. Gorsuch's decision, and he is still on thin ice for me until he proves himself though. Far too many Republican swamp traitors.

    That’s not really an accurate statement, to say that he’s siding with illegal aliens.

    The other 4 ‘conservative ‘ judges voted against Gorsuch.

    Explicitly name the crimes worthy of deportation and go again.

    Easy, being an illegal alien.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Carroll Price

    It just seems like a very dangerous ploy for a meaningless reward (the natural resources Syria and strategic importance of Syria are very modest).
     
    Maybe true, except for the fact that Syria, under Assad's leadership serves as a convenient land route over which sophisticated weapons produced in Iran are delivered to Hezbollah defense forces in Lebanon. In my opinion, this is the primary reason behind current US and Israeli efforts being made to destroy Assad. The bottom line is that Israel has been attacking it's weak neighbors for such a long time, until they simply find it impossible to live with the reality of being unable to invade Lebanon on the slightest pretext. In addition and more ominous, Hezbollah's leader Hassan Rouhani has publically stated that Hezbollah defense forces may eventually extend their protection to the Palestinian people held captive in the Gaza Strip
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Pandos says:
    @FB
    Thanks for the Tass article link...

    Yes...there is no question that the US would have targeted Syrian airfields...apparently a few did get through at one airfield...but the others were fully rejected...

    Laymen who know nothing about aircraft or missiles do not understand the complexities and detail involved...they simply accept the brochure 'information' presented on wikipedia and such about the capabilities of such flight vehicles...

    This does not shed any light on a fascinating and important subject...important because now we have had some air combat between US and Nato airpower [Ship, sub and air launched cruise missiles vs. Russian air defenses]...

    Clearly the Russians won...there was not a single death on the Syrian side...the US did destroy a few buildings...most notably the Barzeh research center in the Damascus area...

    We can tell the Russians won this round because the US is claiming completely ridiculous stuff...that they launched 76 T-hawks with a combined TNT tonnage of nearly 40 tons...yet little pine shrubs standing 20 feet away are completely intact...

    I mean how stupid...?

    Clearly the US is claiming such a high number of attacks on the three buildings that they did hit because they failed to hit those airfields...and we know that they failed to hit those airfields because if they did we would have satellite imagery being boastfully released...

    You can tell as much by the information that is withheld as you can by the information they give out...

    Now for some basic technical facts...cruise missiles are not hard to shoot down once they are spotted...but the hard part is spotting them because they are small and thus do not bounce back strong radar reflections...

    They can fly close to terrain...although this is not always the case as I have explained previously and depends on the ingress route and the type of terrain along that flight path...ie if it is required to fly over mountainous terrain it must fly quite high...

    In 1999 the Serbs shot down a number T-hawks with their 1950s era Soviet equipment...here is the remains of one T-hawk airframe in the Belgrade Aviation Museum...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/y3a1od5u5/Downed_Tomahawk_cruise_missile_in_Belgrade_Serbia.jpg

    Once spotted on radar...the T-hawks and similar subsonic cruise missiles are sitting ducks...they have no means of evading missile shots...either from an air to air missile launched from a fighter jet...or a surface to air missile launched from an air defense battery...

    A fighter jet relies on a radar warning receiver to alert the crew that it has been targeted by a missile shot and the crew can instantly commence evasive maneuver...which is basically going into a steep banked turn so as to break radar lock and evade the missile shot...

    Cruise missiles have no such RWR...and it would be pointless to equipment with such since they have very poor turning performance...

    This is due to their very high wing loading...which is the ratio of wing area to aircraft weight...a T-hawk weighs about 3,000 lb but has a wing area of only about 10 square feet for a wing loading of 300 lb/ft^2...

    That is about three times as high as a passenger jet's wing loading and as much as five times higher than a fighter jet...

    Think of wing loading and how it relates to maneuverability by considering a person carrying a backpack...if that person is running and they need to change course having that extra weight on their back will not let them zigzag like a runner carrying no weight...

    The same is true for climb performance...think of carrying 100 lb in your backpack and climbing up a set of stairs...

    The physical laws of flight performance are based on Newtonian Mechanics and cannot be argued with...

    The thrust to weight ratio of a cruise missile is about comparable to that of a passenger jet...the thrust of the T-hawks Williams turbofan engine is about 700 lb against a weight of 3,000 lb that is less than 0.25 thrust to weight...

    A powerful fighter like an F15 will have a thrust to weight ratio of close to unity or even above...ie it's engine thrust is actually equal to or greater than its weight and the airplane can thus climb straight up like a rocket...

    So the key in defending against subsonic cruise missiles...which fly at about the same speed as passenger jet, about 500 mph [800 km/hr]...is to pick them up on radar...

    The Russians have clearly prepared for such an attack ever since the Shayrat strike...the very powerful Russian radars in Syria are capable of tracking any flying object...and the Syrian SAM batteries are networked into that system and are fed that radar data in real time...

    We also saw in some of those missile intercept videos near the Damascus airport that Syrian jets were taking off and landing...this is because the jets would use their onboard radar to find the cruise missiles and data link that info back to the SAM batteries...

    A fighter is easily capable of taking down a cruise missile with an AA shot also...but this all comes down to pilot skill and training...something which the SyAAF may not be dealing with on a regular basis...considering their focus on the fight against ground targets in Jihadist areas...

    As for the Pantsir...yes this point defense system is the perfect tool to shoot down cruise missiles...it is the successor of the Tor SAM system that was designed specifically to shoot down T-hawks...

    The older SAMs did not perform badly according to the Russian MoD assessment...the S125 is a 1950s era system that the Serbs used to down two F117s and an F16...much more difficult targets than a T-hawk...

    The S200 is a huge missile with a 350 km range...exceeded only by the latest S400 long range missile introduced into service only a couple of years ago...

    It flies extremely fast 2,500 m/s which is about Mach 8...it is even faster than the new S400 missiles which fly at 2,000 m/s...by comparison the USN Raytheon SM6 air defense missile used on Aegis missile ships flies only at M3.5...about 1,000 m/s...

    The high speed of the S200 is actually its disadvantage against a slow moving target like a cruise missile...the laws of physics tell us that the faster the vehicle is flying, the larger its turn radius will be...thus the big S200 is not going to do well against cruise missiles...this is not surprising...

    Overall...the Russian MoD version of events is certainly way more credible than the US version which is full of holes...

    Terrific write.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. FB says:
    @Vojkan
    Punk, I suspect you to be of some Balkanic origin. That's where you find nerds who think of themselves they're super-smart but are actually asses who suffer from arrested development.
    Unlike you, I have actually worked on military projects in a NATO country that invluded vehicle positioning and guidance and weapons systems trajectories. Now, you may regurgitate here stuff you have ingurgitated elsewhere because, as all folks, who suffer from arrested development, you crave for recognition of your genius. That may pass with people who lack knowledge in the field you pretend to be expert at, the problem is that to anyone better informed, it is obvious that you're just a nerd who doesn't understands the concepts behind the things he bathers about. From now on, you're on my "hide" list because I can't even stand any more to have to scroll over your bs.

    ‘…Unlike you, I have actually worked on military projects in a NATO country that invluded [sic] vehicle positioning and guidance and weapons systems trajectories…’

    What kind of vehicle positioning are you talking about…valet parking…?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Wally
    And:
    "The poisoning of Skripal ended with the old spy in good health; with Boris Johnson being caught lying; with [the chemical weapons control body] OPCW refusing to connect Skripal’s poison to Moscow; and with Brits keeping Miss Skripal incommunicado under duress, away from her fiancé and the rest of her family, a clear sign of a collapsing story."

    http://www.unz.com/ishamir/first-joust/

    Too easy.

    You think Israel Shamir is a reliable source?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Read More
    • Agree: FB
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Wally
    Hasbarist, the source is the Swiss lab, read what I posted ... and you can't prove me wrong.

    Here’s the opening line:

    “The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said.”

    That’s hearsay, whether you like it or not. If you can find somewhere in that article where a single, solitary person from Spiez is quoted directly, post it now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    I agreed with you about Yoda Shamir being unreliable...but if you are trying to defend the Skripal charade as legitimate then you are deluded...
    , @Wally
    Bingo:

    "The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab"

    Prove it wrong, Zionist.

    Still owning you.

    www.codoh.com
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. FB says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Here's the opening line:

    "The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said."

    That's hearsay, whether you like it or not. If you can find somewhere in that article where a single, solitary person from Spiez is quoted directly, post it now.

    I agreed with you about Yoda Shamir being unreliable…but if you are trying to defend the Skripal charade as legitimate then you are deluded…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. edNels says:

    Could it be that even at some stage beyond the simple expedient pertaining to the apparent understood objective that is said to be the main concern of the day, that really these are just signs of the time at which public participation and need to know, fundimently are no longer.

    Their sole task is to create a justification for more carnage.

    That the present issue of war on a small country, one of several issues that have been on the current events front burner lately that have highlighted a tenuous at best, concern (on the part of the… history’s actors as it were,) about any need for solid well documented plain evidence as precursor?

    My point would be: that the need for evidence and to give plausible reasons for action, has become obsolete, and a burden, so it is being mothballed, disassemble, and got rid of.

    In the future there won’t be any expectation of going hat in hand to a skeptical public and seeking to lobby for their consensuses on any felt impulses to move with total abandon all and sundry. They will act, those who care any, will study judiciously or not, the repercussions as they will be reported or not…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  113. Sean says:
    @Mike P
    What keeps German wages down, in real terms, is the Euro, not the migrants.

    You are correct on the neglect of the armed forces. I have griped about it often, but I have recently changed my tune. If the forces were indeed up to snuff, this would only cause the U.S. to "ask" for their deployment in their many endless idiotic wars. Letting the troops degrade to some sort of war museum on wheels is a sly way of getting out of that - can't deploy in the short term, sorry, no spark plugs, but will be more than happy to go along for the next war ... so I now see this as one of the few things Merkel got right.

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/germanys-surplus-based-on-unionbacked-wage-restraint/news-story/49f3577bc3406696158a0405092f4414

    In most years since 1950, Germany has run a surplus on its current account, a broad measure of the balance of trade. When in surplus, domestic savings exceed domestic investments, with the excess lent abroad. These surpluses mean other countries must run current account deficits (in other words, borrow) to ensure there is enough aggregate demand to keep people in work. Last year, Germany’s surplus was a mammoth 8.3 per cent of GDP. At almost $300 billion that is far larger than China’s surplus, which was once a target of angry US congressmen. Now Germany is accused of piggybacking on other countries’ spending and of exporting job losses. Donald Trump has castigated its surplus as “very bad” and bemoaned the number of German cars sold in America — “we will stop this”. [..]

    Within the euro club, the gripe is that Germany, as the most creditworthy member, has insisted on austerity for countries with heavy debts, without recognising that its own tight rein on spending makes that adjustment harder. [...] .

    What makes the issue so difficult to resolve, or even to acknowledge, is that Germany’s savings surpluses are not the outcome of explicit economic policy. Instead, their roots lie in a tacit business model from which emerge both the admired and disparaged facets of Germany’s economy [...]Even so, since 2010, Germany ties with Canada for the fastest wage growth among G7 countries. Enderlein expects nominal pay rises of 3-4 per cent over the next few years in Germany.

    Old habits are hard to shift, however. A few years ago, Bofinger argued in favour of faster wage rises in Germany, instead of pay cuts in southern Europe, as a better way to restore balance to the euro zone. He was taken to task by a union leader who reasoned that Germany would lose jobs to China as a consequence.

    So the West is being played for a fool by the country they pay to defend: Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike P
    It has always been this way - hard work, frugality, it is a cultural thing. If the currency were allowed to float, the problem would take care of itself, as indeed it did in times of the Deutschmark.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Sean says:
    @Carroll Price

    It just seems like a very dangerous ploy for a meaningless reward (the natural resources Syria and strategic importance of Syria are very modest).
     
    Maybe true, except for the fact that Syria, under Assad's leadership serves as a convenient land route over which sophisticated weapons produced in Iran are delivered to Hezbollah defense forces in Lebanon. In my opinion, this is the primary reason behind current US and Israeli efforts being made to destroy Assad. The bottom line is that Israel has been attacking it's weak neighbors for such a long time, until they simply find it impossible to live with the reality of being unable to invade Lebanon on the slightest pretext. In addition and more ominous, Hezbollah's leader Hassan Rouhani has publically stated that Hezbollah defense forces may eventually extend their protection to the Palestinian people held captive in the Gaza Strip

    Iran is making itself a target, one wonders who they think is going to save them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    You are assuming that Iran has not been penetrated or at least compromised. Also I do not trust the representation of Iran in our media. A statement of political reorganization was translated as "wiping Israel off the map" which is another "we will bury you" farce.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. MacNucc11 says:

    I guess Trump was right about the missiles being nice and smart.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. Mike P says:
    @Sean

    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/germanys-surplus-based-on-unionbacked-wage-restraint/news-story/49f3577bc3406696158a0405092f4414

    In most years since 1950, Germany has run a surplus on its current account, a broad measure of the balance of trade. When in surplus, domestic savings exceed domestic investments, with the excess lent abroad. These surpluses mean other countries must run current account deficits (in other words, borrow) to ensure there is enough aggregate demand to keep people in work. Last year, Germany’s surplus was a mammoth 8.3 per cent of GDP. At almost $300 billion that is far larger than China’s surplus, which was once a target of angry US congressmen. Now Germany is accused of piggybacking on other countries’ spending and of exporting job losses. Donald Trump has castigated its surplus as “very bad” and bemoaned the number of German cars sold in America — “we will stop this”. [..]

    Within the euro club, the gripe is that Germany, as the most creditworthy member, has insisted on austerity for countries with heavy debts, without recognising that its own tight rein on spending makes that adjustment harder. [...] .

    What makes the issue so difficult to resolve, or even to acknowledge, is that Germany’s savings surpluses are not the outcome of explicit economic policy. Instead, their roots lie in a tacit business model from which emerge both the admired and disparaged facets of Germany’s economy [...]Even so, since 2010, Germany ties with Canada for the fastest wage growth among G7 countries. Enderlein expects nominal pay rises of 3-4 per cent over the next few years in Germany.

    Old habits are hard to shift, however. A few years ago, Bofinger argued in favour of faster wage rises in Germany, instead of pay cuts in southern Europe, as a better way to restore balance to the euro zone. He was taken to task by a union leader who reasoned that Germany would lose jobs to China as a consequence.
     

    So the West is being played for a fool by the country they pay to defend: Germany.

    It has always been this way – hard work, frugality, it is a cultural thing. If the currency were allowed to float, the problem would take care of itself, as indeed it did in times of the Deutschmark.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Although they are selling them the capital goods that China is using to deindustrialse the rest of the world, Germans won't escape the "pax sinica".

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/16/chinas-growing-economic-presence-in-eu-causing-concern--commentary.html

    Berlin is also very worried about China's buying spree in the heartland of its top technologies — a recent allegedly stealthy purchase of a 9.7 percent stake in Daimler (which owns the Mercedes Benz brand of cars), an 8.8 percent ownership of the Deutsche Bank, the purchase of the robotics firm KUKA and the energy management company Ista.
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. gwynedd1 says:
    @Vojkan
    Punk, I suspect you to be of some Balkanic origin. That's where you find nerds who think of themselves they're super-smart but are actually asses who suffer from arrested development.
    Unlike you, I have actually worked on military projects in a NATO country that invluded vehicle positioning and guidance and weapons systems trajectories. Now, you may regurgitate here stuff you have ingurgitated elsewhere because, as all folks, who suffer from arrested development, you crave for recognition of your genius. That may pass with people who lack knowledge in the field you pretend to be expert at, the problem is that to anyone better informed, it is obvious that you're just a nerd who doesn't understands the concepts behind the things he bathers about. From now on, you're on my "hide" list because I can't even stand any more to have to scroll over your bs.

    As a neutral observer, this was the reply of a jackass. I must admit that I am partial to claims supported by facts because those are the kind of replies I like to make. I know that my facts can be challenged and are falsifiable. Why didn’t you proceed to contend on the issue of guidance systems? And what the hell does the Balkans have to do with it? Are you a complete moron? If I lose an argument I should staring talking about random ethnic groups , and maybe accuse them of being a cheap Scotsman?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Because there is nothing to contend with. His answer, apart fron being insulting, is totally irrelevant to what I wrote. As I wrote, he regurgitates here what he has ingurgitated elsewhere without understanding the underlying concepts. What do you want me to answer? To start with the basics and explain you the P(ρ,θ,φ) - spherical - system of coordinates that is used in positioning? That a trajectory is a set of points with coordinates expressed in that way? Do you want me to explain what Beziers curves are, what are control points, how automatic correction of a trajectory works? The thing is FB does get some things correct, just as a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.
    Whatever, he's on my ignore list, I've been notified of his second answer, didn't read it and can live without knowing what he wrote.
    What it has to do with the Balkans? His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I'm talking about, I'm from the Balkans. As I said of all the people who think they're hypersmart but are actually superdumb, people from the former Yugoslavia are second only to "progressives", who beat them at it regardless of ethnicity. I can't say anything about Scotsmen, I don't know any Scotsman but I have worked with French people, Americans, Russians, Indians, Englishmen, Norwegians, the one people I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia, they think they know everything but you have to pass after 99% of them after they finish work to fix the shit they've done. And if my answer doesn't satisfy you I don't bloody care.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. gwynedd1 says:
    @Sean
    Iran is making itself a target, one wonders who they think is going to save them.

    You are assuming that Iran has not been penetrated or at least compromised. Also I do not trust the representation of Iran in our media. A statement of political reorganization was translated as “wiping Israel off the map” which is another “we will bury you” farce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. prusmc says: • Website
    @DESERT FOX
    The missile attacks confirmed Israels control over the U.S. gov which was proven by the fact that Israel did 911 and got away with killing some 3000 Americans. Israel and her ziocons control the U.S. gov lock stock and gun barrel and are destroying America.

    Assad has never used gas attacks on the Syrian people , these attacks were perpetrated by the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6 and NATOs Operation Gladio, these people are satanist war mongers straight from HELL.

    God bless Assad and Syria and Putin and Russia for standing against these satanic forces that are HELL bent on destroying Syria.

    Desert Fox:
    Assuming that it was an Israeli false flag on 9/11: if Gore , rather than Bush, was the President, would the attack still take place?

    Read More
    • Replies: @DESERT FOX
    Yes!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. Vojkan says:
    @gwynedd1
    As a neutral observer, this was the reply of a jackass. I must admit that I am partial to claims supported by facts because those are the kind of replies I like to make. I know that my facts can be challenged and are falsifiable. Why didn't you proceed to contend on the issue of guidance systems? And what the hell does the Balkans have to do with it? Are you a complete moron? If I lose an argument I should staring talking about random ethnic groups , and maybe accuse them of being a cheap Scotsman?

    Because there is nothing to contend with. His answer, apart fron being insulting, is totally irrelevant to what I wrote. As I wrote, he regurgitates here what he has ingurgitated elsewhere without understanding the underlying concepts. What do you want me to answer? To start with the basics and explain you the P(ρ,θ,φ) – spherical – system of coordinates that is used in positioning? That a trajectory is a set of points with coordinates expressed in that way? Do you want me to explain what Beziers curves are, what are control points, how automatic correction of a trajectory works? The thing is FB does get some things correct, just as a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.
    Whatever, he’s on my ignore list, I’ve been notified of his second answer, didn’t read it and can live without knowing what he wrote.
    What it has to do with the Balkans? His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans. As I said of all the people who think they’re hypersmart but are actually superdumb, people from the former Yugoslavia are second only to “progressives”, who beat them at it regardless of ethnicity. I can’t say anything about Scotsmen, I don’t know any Scotsman but I have worked with French people, Americans, Russians, Indians, Englishmen, Norwegians, the one people I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia, they think they know everything but you have to pass after 99% of them after they finish work to fix the shit they’ve done. And if my answer doesn’t satisfy you I don’t bloody care.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    What it has to do with the Balkans? His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans. As I said of all the people who think they’re hypersmart but are actually superdumb, people from the former Yugoslavia are second only to “progressives”, who beat them at it regardless of ethnicity. I can’t say anything about Scotsmen, I don’t know any Scotsman but I have worked with French people, Americans, Russians, Indians, Englishmen, Norwegians, the one people I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia, they think they know everything but you have to pass after 99% of them after they finish work to fix the shit they’ve done. And if my answer doesn’t satisfy you I don’t bloody care.
     
    My hat's off to you for sure.

    Especially for:

    ..uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans.
     
    To see somebody, here, or anywhere on the Internet in fact, able and willing to take a long and hard look at the ( group ) mirror is something.
    I've had similar experience, although can't say that Russians are far from it.
    , @gwynedd1
    OK I you have a bit of a history here together. I see he certainly can be insulting. However he leaves plenty of factual targets to contend.

    "His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans"

    Treating the Balkans as a monolithic group is interesting given its one of the most Balkanized parts of the world.

    " I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia"

    The former Yugoslavia is in the Balkans. So is Bulgaria, Greece , part of Turkey. There is a lack of precision here.....


    "And if my answer doesn’t satisfy you I don’t bloody care."

    Then I would agree with anyone who thinks you are a moron.

    , @Twodees Partain
    I wouldn't waste any time on these assholes, if I were you. Neither of them has ever had anything interesting to say.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Sean says:
    @Mike P
    It has always been this way - hard work, frugality, it is a cultural thing. If the currency were allowed to float, the problem would take care of itself, as indeed it did in times of the Deutschmark.

    Although they are selling them the capital goods that China is using to deindustrialse the rest of the world, Germans won’t escape the “pax sinica”.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/16/chinas-growing-economic-presence-in-eu-causing-concern–commentary.html

    Berlin is also very worried about China’s buying spree in the heartland of its top technologies — a recent allegedly stealthy purchase of a 9.7 percent stake in Daimler (which owns the Mercedes Benz brand of cars), an 8.8 percent ownership of the Deutsche Bank, the purchase of the robotics firm KUKA and the energy management company Ista.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. peterAUS says:
    @Vojkan
    Punk, I suspect you to be of some Balkanic origin. That's where you find nerds who think of themselves they're super-smart but are actually asses who suffer from arrested development.
    Unlike you, I have actually worked on military projects in a NATO country that invluded vehicle positioning and guidance and weapons systems trajectories. Now, you may regurgitate here stuff you have ingurgitated elsewhere because, as all folks, who suffer from arrested development, you crave for recognition of your genius. That may pass with people who lack knowledge in the field you pretend to be expert at, the problem is that to anyone better informed, it is obvious that you're just a nerd who doesn't understands the concepts behind the things he bathers about. From now on, you're on my "hide" list because I can't even stand any more to have to scroll over your bs.

    Don’t say…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. peterAUS says:
    @Vojkan
    Because there is nothing to contend with. His answer, apart fron being insulting, is totally irrelevant to what I wrote. As I wrote, he regurgitates here what he has ingurgitated elsewhere without understanding the underlying concepts. What do you want me to answer? To start with the basics and explain you the P(ρ,θ,φ) - spherical - system of coordinates that is used in positioning? That a trajectory is a set of points with coordinates expressed in that way? Do you want me to explain what Beziers curves are, what are control points, how automatic correction of a trajectory works? The thing is FB does get some things correct, just as a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.
    Whatever, he's on my ignore list, I've been notified of his second answer, didn't read it and can live without knowing what he wrote.
    What it has to do with the Balkans? His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I'm talking about, I'm from the Balkans. As I said of all the people who think they're hypersmart but are actually superdumb, people from the former Yugoslavia are second only to "progressives", who beat them at it regardless of ethnicity. I can't say anything about Scotsmen, I don't know any Scotsman but I have worked with French people, Americans, Russians, Indians, Englishmen, Norwegians, the one people I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia, they think they know everything but you have to pass after 99% of them after they finish work to fix the shit they've done. And if my answer doesn't satisfy you I don't bloody care.

    What it has to do with the Balkans? His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans. As I said of all the people who think they’re hypersmart but are actually superdumb, people from the former Yugoslavia are second only to “progressives”, who beat them at it regardless of ethnicity. I can’t say anything about Scotsmen, I don’t know any Scotsman but I have worked with French people, Americans, Russians, Indians, Englishmen, Norwegians, the one people I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia, they think they know everything but you have to pass after 99% of them after they finish work to fix the shit they’ve done. And if my answer doesn’t satisfy you I don’t bloody care.

    My hat’s off to you for sure.

    Especially for:

    ..uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans.

    To see somebody, here, or anywhere on the Internet in fact, able and willing to take a long and hard look at the ( group ) mirror is something.
    I’ve had similar experience, although can’t say that Russians are far from it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    When people have problems entire groups of people, its often a personal problem.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. gwynedd1 says:
    @Vojkan
    Because there is nothing to contend with. His answer, apart fron being insulting, is totally irrelevant to what I wrote. As I wrote, he regurgitates here what he has ingurgitated elsewhere without understanding the underlying concepts. What do you want me to answer? To start with the basics and explain you the P(ρ,θ,φ) - spherical - system of coordinates that is used in positioning? That a trajectory is a set of points with coordinates expressed in that way? Do you want me to explain what Beziers curves are, what are control points, how automatic correction of a trajectory works? The thing is FB does get some things correct, just as a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.
    Whatever, he's on my ignore list, I've been notified of his second answer, didn't read it and can live without knowing what he wrote.
    What it has to do with the Balkans? His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I'm talking about, I'm from the Balkans. As I said of all the people who think they're hypersmart but are actually superdumb, people from the former Yugoslavia are second only to "progressives", who beat them at it regardless of ethnicity. I can't say anything about Scotsmen, I don't know any Scotsman but I have worked with French people, Americans, Russians, Indians, Englishmen, Norwegians, the one people I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia, they think they know everything but you have to pass after 99% of them after they finish work to fix the shit they've done. And if my answer doesn't satisfy you I don't bloody care.

    OK I you have a bit of a history here together. I see he certainly can be insulting. However he leaves plenty of factual targets to contend.

    “His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans”

    Treating the Balkans as a monolithic group is interesting given its one of the most Balkanized parts of the world.

    ” I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia”

    The former Yugoslavia is in the Balkans. So is Bulgaria, Greece , part of Turkey. There is a lack of precision here…..

    “And if my answer doesn’t satisfy you I don’t bloody care.”

    Then I would agree with anyone who thinks you are a moron.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Well, I don't assume people I talk to are ignorants who my persona needs to enlighten, I don't assume this is a forum for engineering nerds, and I don't feel the need to brag about my resume since I assume that in order to have a civilised discussion, you must treat people with respect and you must leave your personal issues at the door.
    As for "factual", boy, you must be ignorant of math and physics, because you see, quite a few time, his math just didn't add up. The "facts" he presents here, it takes 15 min of googling to find elsewhere, and even when accurate, which often they aren't, are most of the time totally irrelevant to the discussion. The character displays all the traits of a frustrated asocial nerd who thinks of himself he's eminently knowledgeable and clever and has to show to the world that girls are wrong to ignore him.
    But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my "ignore" list.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Initially when Trump was campaigning he did say a few things against the wars in the ME which didn’t set well with the neocons! After he got into the office Trump modified his position because the neocons did gang up on him and forced him to come in line with their philosophy and their overall plan for the ME and freedom of aggression by Israel! A few weeks ago Trump surprised everyone when he said that he is going to pull out of Syria immediately! Shortly thereafter Trump was told by all American gangs to STFU because he isn’t running this country and he should only follow orders and not his own ideas!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. gwynedd1 says:
    @peterAUS

    What it has to do with the Balkans? His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans. As I said of all the people who think they’re hypersmart but are actually superdumb, people from the former Yugoslavia are second only to “progressives”, who beat them at it regardless of ethnicity. I can’t say anything about Scotsmen, I don’t know any Scotsman but I have worked with French people, Americans, Russians, Indians, Englishmen, Norwegians, the one people I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia, they think they know everything but you have to pass after 99% of them after they finish work to fix the shit they’ve done. And if my answer doesn’t satisfy you I don’t bloody care.
     
    My hat's off to you for sure.

    Especially for:

    ..uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans.
     
    To see somebody, here, or anywhere on the Internet in fact, able and willing to take a long and hard look at the ( group ) mirror is something.
    I've had similar experience, although can't say that Russians are far from it.

    When people have problems entire groups of people, its often a personal problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    When people have problems entire groups of people, its often a personal problem.
     
    Enlightened. I guess.

    Curious, though.
    Does that apply to Jews in general and Israelis in particular?.
    Or Negroes in general and African-Americans in particular?

    As for Balkans people, Serbs for example(I guess that applies here) does that apply to Croats and Kosovars/Albanians?

    Waiting................sort of.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Consider the possibility that your devious President knows what he’s doing and that is stalling for time until the war party can be surprised with a nimble sidestep.

    1. Is Trump to be trusted to tell the truth to anyone you’ve heard of?

    2. Do you think he doesn’t know that an Israeli aligned war party is aiming to keep the US at war in the ME and expand war to Iran, or at least its allies?

    3. Do you think he regards satisfying the war party as in 2. above as likely to help him get re-elected in 2020, or the reverse, and do you think this isn’t very important to him?

    4. How long would it take to gear up for war with Iran and how long would it take Trump to think up an obfuscatory excuse for not following through – or indeed four inconsistent and equally false excuses that he is quite happy to Tweet?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Hi Wiz,

    Consider the possibility that your devious President knows what he’s doing and that is stalling for time until the war party can be surprised with a nimble sidestep.
     
    We're cave-dwellers, answering half-empty / half-full questions by looking at shadows.
    I've gone out of step with everyone around me by saying that Trump's Bolton & Pompeo appointments in fact signify the opposite of what they appear to be.

    The problem Washington's adults face is that the NeoCon "War Party" holds Washington's political power cards along with all the media megaphones, and they are baying for war. What's more they are right. Either Western Capitalism brings more resources under its control, or it's gonna run out of runway and go into the shrubbery.

    The brain trusts in the Pentagon have done their sums, and (they may well have) concluded that there's no percentage in going toe to toe with the Russians. If a Pyrrhic victory is possible, it would be the last one, but they're in a damned-if-they-do / damned-if-they-don't situation. Collapse and re-build over decades, or go for it and most likely take the rest of the world down when you fail. I think the adults chose the former, but how do they sell it?

    I think "Trump's Missile Fiasco" was all about sending a message, and that message was intended for the War Party. When the Pentagon's assessment reports on the attack start circulating, I'm willing to bet they'll be even more despairing than the Kremlin's reports indicate. Reports coming from the ground in Syria (from Twitterers going round counting craters) indicate very few missiles, a dozen or so actually hit anything. If so, only 1/3 of the missiles that didn't get shot down went on to hit a target rather than flying off into the desert, or into a parking lot somewhere.

    In summary, as Bolton's and Pompeo's NeoCon credentials are beyond reproach, there’s simply no better men for the job of bringing the truth of the USM's impotence to the warmongers. That is, of course, if they themselves can be brought round to accepting that truth.

    Let's hope I'm right, and let's hope they get the message. ;-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @prusmc
    Desert Fox:
    Assuming that it was an Israeli false flag on 9/11: if Gore , rather than Bush, was the President, would the attack still take place?

    Yes!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @FB
    Everything you said is completely wrong...

    What makes you think that as a layman who knows nothing about aeronautics that you can make statements intended to sound factual...?

    First have a look at my discussion of how a cruise missile works...

    Now about the 'satellites'...that is GPS for the T-hawk and other Nato knockoffs...

    This is NOT the primary guidance [navigation] system of a cruise missile...and it works perfectly well and will get to its target even if the GPS radio signal is jammed...or even if all GPS sats are shot down...

    The primary guidance system is an inertial nav system which is self contained and uses no radio signals like GPS [which can be jammed easily]...

    Inertial nav systems are also the primary navigation system in passenger jets, ICBMs and just about any other missile...

    They work on gyroscopic principles...hence the term 'inertial'...since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton's First Law of Motion...

    Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels and they work on the principle that the gyroscope senses any acceleration of the aircraft whether up, down, left, right etc...here is a diagram showing the three axes of a flight vehicle...and the six possible movements about those axes...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/y5glpjh71/Flight_dynamics_with_text.png


    Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight...the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one...


    '...An INS can detect a change in its geographic position (a move east or north, for example), a change in its velocity (speed and direction of movement) and a change in its orientation (rotation about an axis). It does this by measuring the linear acceleration and angular velocity applied to the system.

    Since it requires no external reference (after initialization), it is immune to jamming and deception...'
     

    Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices...but they are completely self-contained...just like the earlier mechanical gyros...and cannot be interfered with in any way from outside...

    A computer is used to do the math...namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix...


    '...acceleration measurements into an inertial reference frame (hence the term inertial navigation) where they are integrated once to get linear velocity, and twice to get linear position...'
     
    This computer can even be mechanical...but is nowadays a digital electronic computer...

    So your 'factual' statement is actually complete bullshit...

    Here is a picture of a gyro based nav system from the 1950s...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/z7qs7x7od/Project_SPIRE_Inertial_Navigation_Control_2.jpg


    Here is an inertial unit from a modern spacecraft...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/xtz5cg0nh/IMU-28_inertial_measurement_unit.jpg


    Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another...so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above...

    As for your bullshit about terrain following...I don't have time to get into right now...but which is explained on the other thread I linked to...

    When will complete know-nothings get it in their head that looking at the brochure info in wikipedia does not qualify them to make factual-sounding statements...?

    Please do not wast my time by addressing me with amateur bullshit...if you have a question...as you obviously do...then ask...do not state pseudo facts and require me to expend a lot of useless effort on moronic bullshit...

    You certainly have a gift for explaining complex technical subjects in a manner that can be easily understood by laypersons such as myself.

    I just caught this which I found interesting, especially if they turn out to be the newer and smarter ones that Trump bragged about, if true it makes the episode an even bigger blunder.

    http://theduran.com/oops-two-unexploded-cruise-missiles-delivered-to-russia-from-syria/

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Thanks Nosey...science is fun...and not that difficult to understand...
    , @gwynedd1
    My father was a mechanical engineer. I picked up enough to know that people don't know much about physics and its often counterintuitive. In just one example I had a mob once who declared me a fool for informing them the width of a tire had little to do with traction. I had at the time been bowsing my father's library of engineering books. The mob has long since dispersed and the fact still remains points of contact mean very little. Its about the downward force and the coefficients of the materials. Meanwhile most people just know.

    I should be thankful that I encountered my first counter intuitive thing when I was quite young. I became an empiricist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. peterAUS says:
    @gwynedd1
    When people have problems entire groups of people, its often a personal problem.

    When people have problems entire groups of people, its often a personal problem.

    Enlightened. I guess.

    Curious, though.
    Does that apply to Jews in general and Israelis in particular?.
    Or Negroes in general and African-Americans in particular?

    As for Balkans people, Serbs for example(I guess that applies here) does that apply to Croats and Kosovars/Albanians?

    Waiting…………….sort of.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    Well yes Serbia ,Bulgaria Albania are all part of the Balkan Peninsula. Its generally a pattern or matrix defined by the landscape that tends to allow for a niche. to develop It is also characterized by the forces around it. To generalize about an area influenced by both sides of Roman and the Ottomans is just idiotic in itself. I am left to wonder if this method was used in the other argument.

    "Ethnic diversity is one of the region’s most characteristic social and political features. "
    -Britannica.

    Costa Rica is very much like the Balkans in a naturalistic way. It is a mountainous funnel between two continents. It has 4% of the species in the world and is thus the Byzantium- -Roman-Ottoman cross roads of its kind . Anyone that would say anything in general about it other than its diverse microclimate region would also be a laughing stock.

    So I would have to agree with FB that this person is a jackass; as he wondered in a area of my skill set, I am more apt to notice. Racism itself is a folly really only applicable to a mass of people given the individual differences vary. Group characteristic do exist but it can never be assumed to apply to an individual. That was a meta cultural sweeping statement and nothing other than random lashing out.

    That lends more credibility to FB....

    "Does that apply to Jews in general and Israelis in particular?."


    Jews in general no but Ashkenazim in the US and Israel? Different story.

    Jews are going to be an annoyance for several reasons. For one they are at the top of the socio-economic heap.Resentment of their power is inevitable. They can act on their whims and perversions . This also makes their women intolerable . The longer a civilian society remains the less appealing it is for finding mates. Why do people think civilizations rot? Men and women get it on the most after war where the men are a little more scarce, and the slave girls or under class women are more plentiful. (Romans loved their Gothic women and Arabs loved their slave girls). They are short on men looking to clime higher from base camp 4 all while the shiksas readily convert. They ironically have similar issues with blacks thus the feminist movement is full of blacks and Jews.

    The other problem with Jews is they they are polarizing. There are no checks and balances to their pathologies. The liberals remain here while the nationalist tend to like to settle in Israel. So the concentration of nationalistic wack jobs in Israel must rise while liberal wack jobs remain he without opposition. Those are some of the forces at work.



    And since you mention blacks, no to that as well. American blacks are not like other blacks. i can be said there is a dominant black culture but Africa is the most diverse of human cultures of them all.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. G.J. says:

    More funds spurn nuclear arms, financing still strong

    Emphasis added

    “..329 banks , insurance companies, pension funds and asset managers from 24 countries invested significantly in the top 20 firms involved in nuclear weapons, such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics.

    Of the $525 billion invested, $81 billion more than a year previously, more than half came from the top 10 investors, all U.S.-based, led by Blackrock, Capital Group and Vanguard, the report said. ”

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nuclear-funding/more-funds-spurn-nuclear-arms-financing-still-strong-report-idUSKCN1GJ0G9

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. FB says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    You certainly have a gift for explaining complex technical subjects in a manner that can be easily understood by laypersons such as myself.

    I just caught this which I found interesting, especially if they turn out to be the newer and smarter ones that Trump bragged about, if true it makes the episode an even bigger blunder.
    http://theduran.com/oops-two-unexploded-cruise-missiles-delivered-to-russia-from-syria/

    Thanks Nosey…science is fun…and not that difficult to understand…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    …science is fun…and not that difficult to understand…
     
    But you don't understand it!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Erebus says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Consider the possibility that your devious President knows what he's doing and that is stalling for time until the war party can be surprised with a nimble sidestep.

    1. Is Trump to be trusted to tell the truth to anyone you've heard of?

    2. Do you think he doesn't know that an Israeli aligned war party is aiming to keep the US at war in the ME and expand war to Iran, or at least its allies?

    3. Do you think he regards satisfying the war party as in 2. above as likely to help him get re-elected in 2020, or the reverse, and do you think this isn't very important to him?

    4. How long would it take to gear up for war with Iran and how long would it take Trump to think up an obfuscatory excuse for not following through - or indeed four inconsistent and equally false excuses that he is quite happy to Tweet?

    Hi Wiz,

    Consider the possibility that your devious President knows what he’s doing and that is stalling for time until the war party can be surprised with a nimble sidestep.

    We’re cave-dwellers, answering half-empty / half-full questions by looking at shadows.
    I’ve gone out of step with everyone around me by saying that Trump’s Bolton & Pompeo appointments in fact signify the opposite of what they appear to be.

    The problem Washington’s adults face is that the NeoCon “War Party” holds Washington’s political power cards along with all the media megaphones, and they are baying for war. What’s more they are right. Either Western Capitalism brings more resources under its control, or it’s gonna run out of runway and go into the shrubbery.

    The brain trusts in the Pentagon have done their sums, and (they may well have) concluded that there’s no percentage in going toe to toe with the Russians. If a Pyrrhic victory is possible, it would be the last one, but they’re in a damned-if-they-do / damned-if-they-don’t situation. Collapse and re-build over decades, or go for it and most likely take the rest of the world down when you fail. I think the adults chose the former, but how do they sell it?

    I think “Trump’s Missile Fiasco” was all about sending a message, and that message was intended for the War Party. When the Pentagon’s assessment reports on the attack start circulating, I’m willing to bet they’ll be even more despairing than the Kremlin’s reports indicate. Reports coming from the ground in Syria (from Twitterers going round counting craters) indicate very few missiles, a dozen or so actually hit anything. If so, only 1/3 of the missiles that didn’t get shot down went on to hit a target rather than flying off into the desert, or into a parking lot somewhere.

    In summary, as Bolton’s and Pompeo’s NeoCon credentials are beyond reproach, there’s simply no better men for the job of bringing the truth of the USM’s impotence to the warmongers. That is, of course, if they themselves can be brought round to accepting that truth.

    Let’s hope I’m right, and let’s hope they get the message. ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @MacNucc11
    You have nailed it I believe. It really is quite simple. There are no good options left to them. The best option is in my opinion the first and re-build on more solid ground. Sure there will be pain but that is a given whatever option they choose. The Soviet Union was faced with a similar dilemma and came out ok by simply accepting their defeat. I am reminded of the line from the movie Lost Boys about when a vampire dies it is always messy and they try to take you with them.
    Let's not go that way. I also think you could be correct and that Trump is playing the game of keeping his enemies closer and hope it works. If nothing else he has somewhat out maneuvered his critics in that he has taken some of their firepower away.
    , @Anonymous
    Yep. Shame about those wasted missiles (if they weren't just clearing out old stock). They should have kept on the smart guys who directed those 9/11 missiles or planes or whatever with such precision. Perhaps a drone driver who could take out a terrorist with only half a wedding party could still help with training :-)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Vojkan says:
    @gwynedd1
    OK I you have a bit of a history here together. I see he certainly can be insulting. However he leaves plenty of factual targets to contend.

    "His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I’m talking about, I’m from the Balkans"

    Treating the Balkans as a monolithic group is interesting given its one of the most Balkanized parts of the world.

    " I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia"

    The former Yugoslavia is in the Balkans. So is Bulgaria, Greece , part of Turkey. There is a lack of precision here.....


    "And if my answer doesn’t satisfy you I don’t bloody care."

    Then I would agree with anyone who thinks you are a moron.

    Well, I don’t assume people I talk to are ignorants who my persona needs to enlighten, I don’t assume this is a forum for engineering nerds, and I don’t feel the need to brag about my resume since I assume that in order to have a civilised discussion, you must treat people with respect and you must leave your personal issues at the door.
    As for “factual”, boy, you must be ignorant of math and physics, because you see, quite a few time, his math just didn’t add up. The “facts” he presents here, it takes 15 min of googling to find elsewhere, and even when accurate, which often they aren’t, are most of the time totally irrelevant to the discussion. The character displays all the traits of a frustrated asocial nerd who thinks of himself he’s eminently knowledgeable and clever and has to show to the world that girls are wrong to ignore him.
    But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my “ignore” list.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    "Well, I don’t assume people I talk to are ignorants who my persona needs to enlighten, I don’t assume this is a forum for engineering nerds, "

    Again I found something useful in what FB posted..Perhaps I may not like the Mariachi music in a Mexican restaurant, but I may pluck some morsel from a dish.

    "As for “factual”, boy, you must be ignorant of math and physics, because you see, quite a few time, his math just didn’t add up. The “facts” he presents here, it takes 15 min of googling to find elsewhere, and even when accurate, which often they aren’t, are most of the time totally irrelevant to the discussion. "

    Where did I discuss this? I never accepted the entirety of the argument. I said he presented items as facts that could be challenged. You posted "people from the Balkans suck" which is amusingly applicable to you . Anyone who has studied military history knows the weapon systems are the mere tip of the spear without regard to the staff behind it or the skill to throw it. German armor was far superior to the Allies but 50 Panthers out of supply are no match for 250 well supplied Sherman's. No one knows if the Russians have the means to keep the Syrian air space until its challenged. So I think all this talk is speculative. I did cringe at a comment about "lots of planes" which was the style of argument used against FB.

    "But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my “ignore” list."

    Why act like this is a threat? When people put others on an ignore list it just means they can be lampooned unopposed . Its a silly threat. What you said was moronic . You can either own up to it or not.
    , @MacNucc11
    I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the premise of this article that the missile strikes were coordinated in advance. Although it sounds like few missiles hit targets to minimize the damage to that extent to no casualties is surely curious. Would it have been possible for homing devices to be planted ahead of time? Could this type of missile be guided by such?
    , @peterAUS

    The character displays all the traits of a frustrated asocial nerd who thinks of himself he’s eminently knowledgeable and clever and has to show to the world that girls are wrong to ignore him.
    But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my “ignore” list.
     
    Don't say....

    Although, in this particular case it's a bit more....complicated.
    There are some social and political elements mixed in too, so the end product is even more.....interesting.

    Good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Vojkan
    Because there is nothing to contend with. His answer, apart fron being insulting, is totally irrelevant to what I wrote. As I wrote, he regurgitates here what he has ingurgitated elsewhere without understanding the underlying concepts. What do you want me to answer? To start with the basics and explain you the P(ρ,θ,φ) - spherical - system of coordinates that is used in positioning? That a trajectory is a set of points with coordinates expressed in that way? Do you want me to explain what Beziers curves are, what are control points, how automatic correction of a trajectory works? The thing is FB does get some things correct, just as a broken clock shows the right time twice a day.
    Whatever, he's on my ignore list, I've been notified of his second answer, didn't read it and can live without knowing what he wrote.
    What it has to do with the Balkans? His behaviour is typical of uncivilised hysterical Balkanic retards and I know what I'm talking about, I'm from the Balkans. As I said of all the people who think they're hypersmart but are actually superdumb, people from the former Yugoslavia are second only to "progressives", who beat them at it regardless of ethnicity. I can't say anything about Scotsmen, I don't know any Scotsman but I have worked with French people, Americans, Russians, Indians, Englishmen, Norwegians, the one people I detest having to deal with are people from the former Yugoslavia, they think they know everything but you have to pass after 99% of them after they finish work to fix the shit they've done. And if my answer doesn't satisfy you I don't bloody care.

    I wouldn’t waste any time on these assholes, if I were you. Neither of them has ever had anything interesting to say.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    So he makes a statement about an entire region , and he is not the asshole? And you find "People form the Balkans suck" enlightening and interesting?


    you are obviously an idiot as well.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. gwynedd1 says:
    @peterAUS

    When people have problems entire groups of people, its often a personal problem.
     
    Enlightened. I guess.

    Curious, though.
    Does that apply to Jews in general and Israelis in particular?.
    Or Negroes in general and African-Americans in particular?

    As for Balkans people, Serbs for example(I guess that applies here) does that apply to Croats and Kosovars/Albanians?

    Waiting................sort of.

    Well yes Serbia ,Bulgaria Albania are all part of the Balkan Peninsula. Its generally a pattern or matrix defined by the landscape that tends to allow for a niche. to develop It is also characterized by the forces around it. To generalize about an area influenced by both sides of Roman and the Ottomans is just idiotic in itself. I am left to wonder if this method was used in the other argument.

    “Ethnic diversity is one of the region’s most characteristic social and political features. ”
    -Britannica.

    Costa Rica is very much like the Balkans in a naturalistic way. It is a mountainous funnel between two continents. It has 4% of the species in the world and is thus the Byzantium- -Roman-Ottoman cross roads of its kind . Anyone that would say anything in general about it other than its diverse microclimate region would also be a laughing stock.

    So I would have to agree with FB that this person is a jackass; as he wondered in a area of my skill set, I am more apt to notice. Racism itself is a folly really only applicable to a mass of people given the individual differences vary. Group characteristic do exist but it can never be assumed to apply to an individual. That was a meta cultural sweeping statement and nothing other than random lashing out.

    That lends more credibility to FB….

    “Does that apply to Jews in general and Israelis in particular?.”

    Jews in general no but Ashkenazim in the US and Israel? Different story.

    Jews are going to be an annoyance for several reasons. For one they are at the top of the socio-economic heap.Resentment of their power is inevitable. They can act on their whims and perversions . This also makes their women intolerable . The longer a civilian society remains the less appealing it is for finding mates. Why do people think civilizations rot? Men and women get it on the most after war where the men are a little more scarce, and the slave girls or under class women are more plentiful. (Romans loved their Gothic women and Arabs loved their slave girls). They are short on men looking to clime higher from base camp 4 all while the shiksas readily convert. They ironically have similar issues with blacks thus the feminist movement is full of blacks and Jews.

    The other problem with Jews is they they are polarizing. There are no checks and balances to their pathologies. The liberals remain here while the nationalist tend to like to settle in Israel. So the concentration of nationalistic wack jobs in Israel must rise while liberal wack jobs remain he without opposition. Those are some of the forces at work.

    And since you mention blacks, no to that as well. American blacks are not like other blacks. i can be said there is a dominant black culture but Africa is the most diverse of human cultures of them all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    To generalize about an area influenced by both sides of Roman and the Ottomans is just idiotic in itself.

    Racism itself is a folly really only applicable to a mass of people given the individual differences vary.
     
    Enlightened.

    At the same time,though:

    Jews in general no but Ashkenazim in the US and Israel? Different story.
    And since you mention blacks, no to that as well.
     
    So, correct me if I am wrong:
    You haven't spent a lot of time in Balkans, Bosnia and Kosovo in particular.
    You have spent a lot of time in USA.

    O.K.

    Moving on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. gwynedd1 says:
    @Twodees Partain
    I wouldn't waste any time on these assholes, if I were you. Neither of them has ever had anything interesting to say.

    So he makes a statement about an entire region , and he is not the asshole? And you find “People form the Balkans suck” enlightening and interesting?

    you are obviously an idiot as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    Hush, little newbie. You don't have anything to say that I'm interested in reading. Toddle off now, there's a good kiddie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. gwynedd1 says:
    @Vojkan
    Well, I don't assume people I talk to are ignorants who my persona needs to enlighten, I don't assume this is a forum for engineering nerds, and I don't feel the need to brag about my resume since I assume that in order to have a civilised discussion, you must treat people with respect and you must leave your personal issues at the door.
    As for "factual", boy, you must be ignorant of math and physics, because you see, quite a few time, his math just didn't add up. The "facts" he presents here, it takes 15 min of googling to find elsewhere, and even when accurate, which often they aren't, are most of the time totally irrelevant to the discussion. The character displays all the traits of a frustrated asocial nerd who thinks of himself he's eminently knowledgeable and clever and has to show to the world that girls are wrong to ignore him.
    But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my "ignore" list.

    “Well, I don’t assume people I talk to are ignorants who my persona needs to enlighten, I don’t assume this is a forum for engineering nerds, ”

    Again I found something useful in what FB posted..Perhaps I may not like the Mariachi music in a Mexican restaurant, but I may pluck some morsel from a dish.

    “As for “factual”, boy, you must be ignorant of math and physics, because you see, quite a few time, his math just didn’t add up. The “facts” he presents here, it takes 15 min of googling to find elsewhere, and even when accurate, which often they aren’t, are most of the time totally irrelevant to the discussion. ”

    Where did I discuss this? I never accepted the entirety of the argument. I said he presented items as facts that could be challenged. You posted “people from the Balkans suck” which is amusingly applicable to you . Anyone who has studied military history knows the weapon systems are the mere tip of the spear without regard to the staff behind it or the skill to throw it. German armor was far superior to the Allies but 50 Panthers out of supply are no match for 250 well supplied Sherman’s. No one knows if the Russians have the means to keep the Syrian air space until its challenged. So I think all this talk is speculative. I did cringe at a comment about “lots of planes” which was the style of argument used against FB.

    “But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my “ignore” list.”

    Why act like this is a threat? When people put others on an ignore list it just means they can be lampooned unopposed . Its a silly threat. What you said was moronic . You can either own up to it or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. MacNucc11 says:
    @Erebus
    Hi Wiz,

    Consider the possibility that your devious President knows what he’s doing and that is stalling for time until the war party can be surprised with a nimble sidestep.
     
    We're cave-dwellers, answering half-empty / half-full questions by looking at shadows.
    I've gone out of step with everyone around me by saying that Trump's Bolton & Pompeo appointments in fact signify the opposite of what they appear to be.

    The problem Washington's adults face is that the NeoCon "War Party" holds Washington's political power cards along with all the media megaphones, and they are baying for war. What's more they are right. Either Western Capitalism brings more resources under its control, or it's gonna run out of runway and go into the shrubbery.

    The brain trusts in the Pentagon have done their sums, and (they may well have) concluded that there's no percentage in going toe to toe with the Russians. If a Pyrrhic victory is possible, it would be the last one, but they're in a damned-if-they-do / damned-if-they-don't situation. Collapse and re-build over decades, or go for it and most likely take the rest of the world down when you fail. I think the adults chose the former, but how do they sell it?

    I think "Trump's Missile Fiasco" was all about sending a message, and that message was intended for the War Party. When the Pentagon's assessment reports on the attack start circulating, I'm willing to bet they'll be even more despairing than the Kremlin's reports indicate. Reports coming from the ground in Syria (from Twitterers going round counting craters) indicate very few missiles, a dozen or so actually hit anything. If so, only 1/3 of the missiles that didn't get shot down went on to hit a target rather than flying off into the desert, or into a parking lot somewhere.

    In summary, as Bolton's and Pompeo's NeoCon credentials are beyond reproach, there’s simply no better men for the job of bringing the truth of the USM's impotence to the warmongers. That is, of course, if they themselves can be brought round to accepting that truth.

    Let's hope I'm right, and let's hope they get the message. ;-)

    You have nailed it I believe. It really is quite simple. There are no good options left to them. The best option is in my opinion the first and re-build on more solid ground. Sure there will be pain but that is a given whatever option they choose. The Soviet Union was faced with a similar dilemma and came out ok by simply accepting their defeat. I am reminded of the line from the movie Lost Boys about when a vampire dies it is always messy and they try to take you with them.
    Let’s not go that way. I also think you could be correct and that Trump is playing the game of keeping his enemies closer and hope it works. If nothing else he has somewhat out maneuvered his critics in that he has taken some of their firepower away.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. MacNucc11 says:
    @Vojkan
    Well, I don't assume people I talk to are ignorants who my persona needs to enlighten, I don't assume this is a forum for engineering nerds, and I don't feel the need to brag about my resume since I assume that in order to have a civilised discussion, you must treat people with respect and you must leave your personal issues at the door.
    As for "factual", boy, you must be ignorant of math and physics, because you see, quite a few time, his math just didn't add up. The "facts" he presents here, it takes 15 min of googling to find elsewhere, and even when accurate, which often they aren't, are most of the time totally irrelevant to the discussion. The character displays all the traits of a frustrated asocial nerd who thinks of himself he's eminently knowledgeable and clever and has to show to the world that girls are wrong to ignore him.
    But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my "ignore" list.

    I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the premise of this article that the missile strikes were coordinated in advance. Although it sounds like few missiles hit targets to minimize the damage to that extent to no casualties is surely curious. Would it have been possible for homing devices to be planted ahead of time? Could this type of missile be guided by such?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    The thing is anyone can come up with a theory and not be refuted by facts because we know very little as fact. To sum it up we know that a little more than hundred missiles were fired and that judging by the damage, about two reached their target, the famous chemical weapons / snake poison antidote making building.
    Two thoughts nonetheless, 1) the volley was fired at a country over which there is "no-fly" zone and whose air-defences have not been degraded by previous strikes 2) when you plan a missile strike, you plan a trajectory for your missiles, typically a set of GPS coordinates that are control / turning points in the trajectory to evade the most possible air-defences.
    If the Syrians have really downed about 70, about 30 are still missing. Where did they go? There's a lot of bragging on both sides but no evidence that either is saying the full truth. I'd say something close to a prior comment when I said that Trump's tweets looked more like an expression of despair than like a genuine threat of WW3, it seems that something was indeed arranged to give some relief to Trump from constant pressure on him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. gwynedd1 says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    You certainly have a gift for explaining complex technical subjects in a manner that can be easily understood by laypersons such as myself.

    I just caught this which I found interesting, especially if they turn out to be the newer and smarter ones that Trump bragged about, if true it makes the episode an even bigger blunder.
    http://theduran.com/oops-two-unexploded-cruise-missiles-delivered-to-russia-from-syria/

    My father was a mechanical engineer. I picked up enough to know that people don’t know much about physics and its often counterintuitive. In just one example I had a mob once who declared me a fool for informing them the width of a tire had little to do with traction. I had at the time been bowsing my father’s library of engineering books. The mob has long since dispersed and the fact still remains points of contact mean very little. Its about the downward force and the coefficients of the materials. Meanwhile most people just know.

    I should be thankful that I encountered my first counter intuitive thing when I was quite young. I became an empiricist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Anonymous[214] • Disclaimer says:
    @Erebus
    Hi Wiz,

    Consider the possibility that your devious President knows what he’s doing and that is stalling for time until the war party can be surprised with a nimble sidestep.
     
    We're cave-dwellers, answering half-empty / half-full questions by looking at shadows.
    I've gone out of step with everyone around me by saying that Trump's Bolton & Pompeo appointments in fact signify the opposite of what they appear to be.

    The problem Washington's adults face is that the NeoCon "War Party" holds Washington's political power cards along with all the media megaphones, and they are baying for war. What's more they are right. Either Western Capitalism brings more resources under its control, or it's gonna run out of runway and go into the shrubbery.

    The brain trusts in the Pentagon have done their sums, and (they may well have) concluded that there's no percentage in going toe to toe with the Russians. If a Pyrrhic victory is possible, it would be the last one, but they're in a damned-if-they-do / damned-if-they-don't situation. Collapse and re-build over decades, or go for it and most likely take the rest of the world down when you fail. I think the adults chose the former, but how do they sell it?

    I think "Trump's Missile Fiasco" was all about sending a message, and that message was intended for the War Party. When the Pentagon's assessment reports on the attack start circulating, I'm willing to bet they'll be even more despairing than the Kremlin's reports indicate. Reports coming from the ground in Syria (from Twitterers going round counting craters) indicate very few missiles, a dozen or so actually hit anything. If so, only 1/3 of the missiles that didn't get shot down went on to hit a target rather than flying off into the desert, or into a parking lot somewhere.

    In summary, as Bolton's and Pompeo's NeoCon credentials are beyond reproach, there’s simply no better men for the job of bringing the truth of the USM's impotence to the warmongers. That is, of course, if they themselves can be brought round to accepting that truth.

    Let's hope I'm right, and let's hope they get the message. ;-)

    Yep. Shame about those wasted missiles (if they weren’t just clearing out old stock). They should have kept on the smart guys who directed those 9/11 missiles or planes or whatever with such precision. Perhaps a drone driver who could take out a terrorist with only half a wedding party could still help with training :-)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. peterAUS says:
    @Vojkan
    Well, I don't assume people I talk to are ignorants who my persona needs to enlighten, I don't assume this is a forum for engineering nerds, and I don't feel the need to brag about my resume since I assume that in order to have a civilised discussion, you must treat people with respect and you must leave your personal issues at the door.
    As for "factual", boy, you must be ignorant of math and physics, because you see, quite a few time, his math just didn't add up. The "facts" he presents here, it takes 15 min of googling to find elsewhere, and even when accurate, which often they aren't, are most of the time totally irrelevant to the discussion. The character displays all the traits of a frustrated asocial nerd who thinks of himself he's eminently knowledgeable and clever and has to show to the world that girls are wrong to ignore him.
    But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my "ignore" list.

    The character displays all the traits of a frustrated asocial nerd who thinks of himself he’s eminently knowledgeable and clever and has to show to the world that girls are wrong to ignore him.
    But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my “ignore” list.

    Don’t say….

    Although, in this particular case it’s a bit more….complicated.
    There are some social and political elements mixed in too, so the end product is even more…..interesting.

    Good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Well, I realised he was definitely an idiot with his roll-pitch-yaw picture. Anyone who has ever played a flight simulator know what it is and what a gyroscope is. Assuming that I didn't know demonstrates his level of idiocy. The fact that it is totally irrelevant to the issue of GPS beams jamming in order to throw a missile off its course notwithstanding.
    The fact that he wishes for WW3 as relief for very personal frustrations demonstrates that he's not only an idiot, he's also mentally ill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. peterAUS says:
    @gwynedd1
    Well yes Serbia ,Bulgaria Albania are all part of the Balkan Peninsula. Its generally a pattern or matrix defined by the landscape that tends to allow for a niche. to develop It is also characterized by the forces around it. To generalize about an area influenced by both sides of Roman and the Ottomans is just idiotic in itself. I am left to wonder if this method was used in the other argument.

    "Ethnic diversity is one of the region’s most characteristic social and political features. "
    -Britannica.

    Costa Rica is very much like the Balkans in a naturalistic way. It is a mountainous funnel between two continents. It has 4% of the species in the world and is thus the Byzantium- -Roman-Ottoman cross roads of its kind . Anyone that would say anything in general about it other than its diverse microclimate region would also be a laughing stock.

    So I would have to agree with FB that this person is a jackass; as he wondered in a area of my skill set, I am more apt to notice. Racism itself is a folly really only applicable to a mass of people given the individual differences vary. Group characteristic do exist but it can never be assumed to apply to an individual. That was a meta cultural sweeping statement and nothing other than random lashing out.

    That lends more credibility to FB....

    "Does that apply to Jews in general and Israelis in particular?."


    Jews in general no but Ashkenazim in the US and Israel? Different story.

    Jews are going to be an annoyance for several reasons. For one they are at the top of the socio-economic heap.Resentment of their power is inevitable. They can act on their whims and perversions . This also makes their women intolerable . The longer a civilian society remains the less appealing it is for finding mates. Why do people think civilizations rot? Men and women get it on the most after war where the men are a little more scarce, and the slave girls or under class women are more plentiful. (Romans loved their Gothic women and Arabs loved their slave girls). They are short on men looking to clime higher from base camp 4 all while the shiksas readily convert. They ironically have similar issues with blacks thus the feminist movement is full of blacks and Jews.

    The other problem with Jews is they they are polarizing. There are no checks and balances to their pathologies. The liberals remain here while the nationalist tend to like to settle in Israel. So the concentration of nationalistic wack jobs in Israel must rise while liberal wack jobs remain he without opposition. Those are some of the forces at work.



    And since you mention blacks, no to that as well. American blacks are not like other blacks. i can be said there is a dominant black culture but Africa is the most diverse of human cultures of them all.

    To generalize about an area influenced by both sides of Roman and the Ottomans is just idiotic in itself.

    Racism itself is a folly really only applicable to a mass of people given the individual differences vary.

    Enlightened.

    At the same time,though:

    Jews in general no but Ashkenazim in the US and Israel? Different story.
    And since you mention blacks, no to that as well.

    So, correct me if I am wrong:
    You haven’t spent a lot of time in Balkans, Bosnia and Kosovo in particular.
    You have spent a lot of time in USA.

    O.K.

    Moving on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. gwynedd1 says:

    Yes I have spent a lot of time in the US , with people form the Balkans including first generation relatives on my mother’s side when I was a child. There was a remarkable difference between just two of my mother’s uncles as I recall. The eldest accumulated wealth and would rarely laugh at a joke while the other made jokes at the pub. Of course my great uncle did do one thing. He told me a lot about the Balkans because he was born in the Balkans . I also have worked with Bulgarians, Romanians , and Greeks and I am still trying to figure out the commonality. Few of them eat back bean soup?

    Did I mention that being from somewhere is also jack ass , moronic BS, forms of evidence?

    Now never mind the how the engineering logic works that I am supposed to consider all Balkans as idiots from a Balkan. OK very well, he is a stubborn jackass by his own expertise. Again engineers should have a grasp of logic….

    Again looking at FB , he seems to have some precision while his opponents speak in a kind loosely flung slop. Even as he was an arrogant bully he was far more skilled even at that. Even his insults were superior in quality. Was there one stand out specific reference of his that I could focus on to see how flawed FB was in his arguments?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. Thirdeye says:
    @WorkingClass
    The most interesting aspect of this false response to a false flag attack is the non participation by Germany. Turkey has one foot in both camps. Germany will be next to turn. Time is working against Imperial Washington.

    We’re seeing a pattern – broken only by France staying distant from the 2003 Iraq invasion – of the most solid support for American imperial adventures being from the two powers who held worldwide empires as of 1939, lost them as a political price of getting bailed out of their predicaments in World War II, and were defeated militarily and politically in attempts to re-establish imperial dominion during the 1950s and 60s. Playing “me too” under the American umbrella is their last remaining hope of regaining empire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    Do you know what you are talking about or are you just repeating half educated American prejudices. France fought to reestablish control over French Indo-China but the British didn"t have to as their colonial wars were only establishing peaceful conditions for devolution of power to the native people who all joined the Commonwealth of Nations on independence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. Thirdeye says:
    @FB
    Everything you said is completely wrong...

    What makes you think that as a layman who knows nothing about aeronautics that you can make statements intended to sound factual...?

    First have a look at my discussion of how a cruise missile works...

    Now about the 'satellites'...that is GPS for the T-hawk and other Nato knockoffs...

    This is NOT the primary guidance [navigation] system of a cruise missile...and it works perfectly well and will get to its target even if the GPS radio signal is jammed...or even if all GPS sats are shot down...

    The primary guidance system is an inertial nav system which is self contained and uses no radio signals like GPS [which can be jammed easily]...

    Inertial nav systems are also the primary navigation system in passenger jets, ICBMs and just about any other missile...

    They work on gyroscopic principles...hence the term 'inertial'...since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton's First Law of Motion...

    Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels and they work on the principle that the gyroscope senses any acceleration of the aircraft whether up, down, left, right etc...here is a diagram showing the three axes of a flight vehicle...and the six possible movements about those axes...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/y5glpjh71/Flight_dynamics_with_text.png


    Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight...the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one...


    '...An INS can detect a change in its geographic position (a move east or north, for example), a change in its velocity (speed and direction of movement) and a change in its orientation (rotation about an axis). It does this by measuring the linear acceleration and angular velocity applied to the system.

    Since it requires no external reference (after initialization), it is immune to jamming and deception...'
     

    Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices...but they are completely self-contained...just like the earlier mechanical gyros...and cannot be interfered with in any way from outside...

    A computer is used to do the math...namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix...


    '...acceleration measurements into an inertial reference frame (hence the term inertial navigation) where they are integrated once to get linear velocity, and twice to get linear position...'
     
    This computer can even be mechanical...but is nowadays a digital electronic computer...

    So your 'factual' statement is actually complete bullshit...

    Here is a picture of a gyro based nav system from the 1950s...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/z7qs7x7od/Project_SPIRE_Inertial_Navigation_Control_2.jpg


    Here is an inertial unit from a modern spacecraft...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/xtz5cg0nh/IMU-28_inertial_measurement_unit.jpg


    Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another...so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above...

    As for your bullshit about terrain following...I don't have time to get into right now...but which is explained on the other thread I linked to...

    When will complete know-nothings get it in their head that looking at the brochure info in wikipedia does not qualify them to make factual-sounding statements...?

    Please do not wast my time by addressing me with amateur bullshit...if you have a question...as you obviously do...then ask...do not state pseudo facts and require me to expend a lot of useless effort on moronic bullshit...

    …since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…

    Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Actually, I think he didn't deserve to be corrected because he might learn something and use it in another comment to appear knowledgeable. But you're right, in case some people believe the idiocy he wrote.
    , @FB

    '...Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device...'
     
    That is complete gibberish...

    Are you trying to prove beyond doubt that you are a complete idiot...?

    Are you even vaguely acquainted with Newtonian Mechanics...?

    Obviously not...just as you are not even vaguely capable of solving a triangle as I proved on the other thread...

    Everything I said about gyroscopes and how an inertial system works is 100 percent correct...and quite helpfully explained to the layman...as at least one appreciative comment has shown...

    Since your knowledge of inertial nav systems is ZERO...you may want to first look at this...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/nco980vml/INS_1.jpg


    And...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/7efji4m1p/INS_2.jpg


    And...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/gyz650qt9/INS_3.jpg


    What a spectacular moron you are...

    Note what I said in my above comment...

    '...Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels...Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices…'
     
    Do you see that mechanical gyro wheel in the above diagram...?

    Do you see the laser ring gyro and fiber optic gyro there...?

    What is your general problem...?...[other than being an obvious RETARD...?]


    https://s20.postimg.cc/6dfat4ut9/INS_4.jpg


    Can you read what is says there MORON-BOY...?

    '...Three gyros and three accelerometers are normally combined in an inertial measurement unit (IMU)...'
     
    And what did I say above...?

    '...Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another…so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above…'
     
    What a complete and utter idiot you are...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/lasd7gxb1/INS_5.jpg


    I assume you know how to read in the English language...?[although nothing is a given when dealing with brainless plankton]

    '...Integrating the sensed acceleration will give velocity.

    ...A second integration gives position...'
     
    And what did I say above...?

    '...A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…'
     
    I think you deserve some kind of prize for most spectacular idiot on Unz Review...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/u5t7i444t/INS_6.jpg

    '...The combination of an IMU and a computer running navigation equations is called an Inertial Navigation System (INS)...'
     
    What a Monkey Man...let's look at your pearls of wisdom...


    …since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…
     
    Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum.
     
    Let us see how Sir Isaac expressed himself...[although I am quite sure that he could never imagine an idiot of your magnitude poking his nose into this...]

    '...Newton’s first law of motion, sometimes called the law of inertia, defines a special set of reference frames called inertial frames. This law can be stated as follows:

    If an object does not interact with other objects, it is possible to identify a reference frame in which the object has zero acceleration.

    Such a reference frame is called an inertial frame of reference.

    In the absence of external forces and when viewed from an inertial reference frame, an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion continues in motion with a constant velocity (that is, with a constant speed in a straight line).
     
    --Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 113.

    So the idea of inertia is quite clearly stated and easy to understand...an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an external force...an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an external force...

    It matters not whether the momentum is an object moving in a straight line...or rotating...

    In physics, angular momentum... is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum.
     
    And from Serway...page 335...

    In analogy to the principle of conservation of linear momentum, there is also a principle of conservation of angular momentum. The angular momentum of an isolated system is constant.
     
    That is the principle of the gyroscope...it has inertia...not as movement in a straight line, but as rotation...

    When outside forces act on this wheel...such as the aircraft banking about its lateral axis...the wheel's inertia keeps it spinning in its orientation...as the mount to the aircraft is a gimbal that allows the aircraft to rotate about its lateral axis...while the gyro remains upright or horizontal or some other orientation as the case may be...depending on the aircraft axis [or axes] of rotation that is being sensed...

    This is visually displayed on the pilot's instrument panel as a bank indication relative to the horizon...

    For the purposes of an INS nav system...an accelerometer attached to the gyro will record the angular acceleration of the aircraft about its lateral axis...

    By using a computer that keeps track of each such acceleration about each of the three axes as illustrated in my comment above...we are able to determine the aircraft's geographic position by performing two mathematical integrations as outlined above...

    '...Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device...'
     
    What the hell does that gibberish even mean...?

    A mechanical gyro in an airplane does not change its orientation...

    It is mounted on gimbals that allow it to remain in its orientation...which orientation is maintained due to its inertia...as I already stated...

    It is the airplane that changes its orientation...not the gyro...

    Here is cutaway illustration of a mechanical gyro used for an aircraft attitude indicator...also known as an 'artificial horizon'...

    This from the FAA manual 'Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge'...available for download here...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/nuo01j2ul/Attitude_Gyro_1.jpg


    Chapter 7, page 18 describes how the above attitude gyro works...


    '...The gyro spins in the horizontal plane and resists deflection of the rotational path. Since the gyro relies on rigidity in space, the aircraft actually rotates around the spinning gyro...'
     
    Thanks for your verbal farts monkeyboy...you have only been a huge nuisance to people who actually are curious about some technical things that they would like to see explained...

    Even a cat knows to go and discreetly do her business in the litter box...but you don't give a crap about squatting over this discussion board and crapping all over everyone's head...do you...?

    How could you...an ignorant and stupid bullshit artiste who goes around picking arguments and then gets squashed like a bug...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Vojkan says:
    @MacNucc11
    I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the premise of this article that the missile strikes were coordinated in advance. Although it sounds like few missiles hit targets to minimize the damage to that extent to no casualties is surely curious. Would it have been possible for homing devices to be planted ahead of time? Could this type of missile be guided by such?

    The thing is anyone can come up with a theory and not be refuted by facts because we know very little as fact. To sum it up we know that a little more than hundred missiles were fired and that judging by the damage, about two reached their target, the famous chemical weapons / snake poison antidote making building.
    Two thoughts nonetheless, 1) the volley was fired at a country over which there is “no-fly” zone and whose air-defences have not been degraded by previous strikes 2) when you plan a missile strike, you plan a trajectory for your missiles, typically a set of GPS coordinates that are control / turning points in the trajectory to evade the most possible air-defences.
    If the Syrians have really downed about 70, about 30 are still missing. Where did they go? There’s a lot of bragging on both sides but no evidence that either is saying the full truth. I’d say something close to a prior comment when I said that Trump’s tweets looked more like an expression of despair than like a genuine threat of WW3, it seems that something was indeed arranged to give some relief to Trump from constant pressure on him.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Vojkan
    Correction, a 'no' got lost, should read 'over which there is no "no-fly" zone'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Vojkan says:
    @peterAUS

    The character displays all the traits of a frustrated asocial nerd who thinks of himself he’s eminently knowledgeable and clever and has to show to the world that girls are wrong to ignore him.
    But you can call me a moron all you want, I systematically add people who spit insults to my “ignore” list.
     
    Don't say....

    Although, in this particular case it's a bit more....complicated.
    There are some social and political elements mixed in too, so the end product is even more.....interesting.

    Good.

    Well, I realised he was definitely an idiot with his roll-pitch-yaw picture. Anyone who has ever played a flight simulator know what it is and what a gyroscope is. Assuming that I didn’t know demonstrates his level of idiocy. The fact that it is totally irrelevant to the issue of GPS beams jamming in order to throw a missile off its course notwithstanding.
    The fact that he wishes for WW3 as relief for very personal frustrations demonstrates that he’s not only an idiot, he’s also mentally ill.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    The combination of:

    ...relief for very personal frustrations...
     
    with

    ....also mentally ill...
     
    sums it well.
    I'd add a bit of age with a decent dose of deep hatred of some ethic groups, and that's the combo.

    There is at least one of such types on any loosely moderated Webzine/forum.

    Act accordingly.

    Good is, apart from occasional highly quality post here (or anywhere) the best thing about Internet anonymous posting is "people watching".Glimpsing the reality. Seeing us, in all our glory.
    Or not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @gwynedd1
    So he makes a statement about an entire region , and he is not the asshole? And you find "People form the Balkans suck" enlightening and interesting?


    you are obviously an idiot as well.

    Hush, little newbie. You don’t have anything to say that I’m interested in reading. Toddle off now, there’s a good kiddie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    I have been on this board several years , idiot. So once again we have you babbling about things you clearly no nothing about. Do you ever do any kind of fact checking at all ?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Vojkan says:
    @Vojkan
    The thing is anyone can come up with a theory and not be refuted by facts because we know very little as fact. To sum it up we know that a little more than hundred missiles were fired and that judging by the damage, about two reached their target, the famous chemical weapons / snake poison antidote making building.
    Two thoughts nonetheless, 1) the volley was fired at a country over which there is "no-fly" zone and whose air-defences have not been degraded by previous strikes 2) when you plan a missile strike, you plan a trajectory for your missiles, typically a set of GPS coordinates that are control / turning points in the trajectory to evade the most possible air-defences.
    If the Syrians have really downed about 70, about 30 are still missing. Where did they go? There's a lot of bragging on both sides but no evidence that either is saying the full truth. I'd say something close to a prior comment when I said that Trump's tweets looked more like an expression of despair than like a genuine threat of WW3, it seems that something was indeed arranged to give some relief to Trump from constant pressure on him.

    Correction, a ‘no’ got lost, should read ‘over which there is no “no-fly” zone’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @jilles dykstra
    Why Ruby shot him I still do not know.
    He was, in my opinion, not a hired murderer, then he also would have killed.
    But USA police methods continue to surprise me, in the Netherlands suspects as Oswald are not walked through corridors where anyone can shoot stem.
    They are transported in bullet proof cars, into a court room, where nobody can enter with even a pocket knife.

    Ruby shot “Harvey” as a desperate, improvised back-up plan by the conspirators to keep “Harvey” from naming names. (“Harvey” was to be killed almost immediately after JFK, but managed to stay alive for 48 hours.)

    Ruby had to be strong-armed into it, and he fully expected to be let off easy (“you all know me, I’m Jack Ruby” he exclaimed in astonishment as the Dallas cops dragged him off of “Oswald”.)

    His original guilty verdict was overturned in late 1966, and had Ruby not died of “cancer” in early 1967, he would have received a new trial, at which he might have had some very interesting things to say.

    But he didn’t live to see it.

    Nonetheless, here is what Jack Ruby said about his own role in a very high-ranking conspiracy: (this clip is real, but suppressed by the mainstream media)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. Vojkan says:
    @Thirdeye

    …since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…
     
    Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device.

    Actually, I think he didn’t deserve to be corrected because he might learn something and use it in another comment to appear knowledgeable. But you’re right, in case some people believe the idiocy he wrote.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. gwynedd1 says:
    @Twodees Partain
    Hush, little newbie. You don't have anything to say that I'm interested in reading. Toddle off now, there's a good kiddie.

    I have been on this board several years , idiot. So once again we have you babbling about things you clearly no nothing about. Do you ever do any kind of fact checking at all ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twodees Partain
    >Yawn< You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a shit what you write.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Wally says:
    @Andrew E. Mathis
    Here's the opening line:

    "The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said."

    That's hearsay, whether you like it or not. If you can find somewhere in that article where a single, solitary person from Spiez is quoted directly, post it now.

    Bingo:

    “The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab”

    Prove it wrong, Zionist.

    Still owning you.

    http://www.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrew E. Mathis
    I already it. You just lopped off the last phrase of the sentence. If you were honest, you would concede.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Wally
    Bingo:

    "The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab"

    Prove it wrong, Zionist.

    Still owning you.

    www.codoh.com

    I already it. You just lopped off the last phrase of the sentence. If you were honest, you would concede.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. FB says:
    @Thirdeye

    …since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…
     
    Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device.

    ‘…Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device…’

    That is complete gibberish…

    Are you trying to prove beyond doubt that you are a complete idiot…?

    Are you even vaguely acquainted with Newtonian Mechanics…?

    Obviously not…just as you are not even vaguely capable of solving a triangle as I proved on the other thread…

    Everything I said about gyroscopes and how an inertial system works is 100 percent correct…and quite helpfully explained to the layman…as at least one appreciative comment has shown…

    Since your knowledge of inertial nav systems is ZEROyou may want to first look at this…

    And…

    And…

    What a spectacular moron you are…

    Note what I said in my above comment…

    ‘…Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels…Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices…’

    Do you see that mechanical gyro wheel in the above diagram…?

    Do you see the laser ring gyro and fiber optic gyro there…?

    What is your general problem…?…[other than being an obvious RETARD...?]

    Can you read what is says there MORON-BOY…?

    ‘…Three gyros and three accelerometers are normally combined in an inertial measurement unit (IMU)…’

    And what did I say above…?

    ‘…Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another…so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above…’

    What a complete and utter idiot you are…

    I assume you know how to read in the English language…?[although nothing is a given when dealing with brainless plankton]

    ‘…Integrating the sensed acceleration will give velocity.

    …A second integration gives position…’

    And what did I say above…?

    ‘…A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…’

    I think you deserve some kind of prize for most spectacular idiot on Unz Review…

    ‘…The combination of an IMU and a computer running navigation equations is called an Inertial Navigation System (INS)…’

    What a Monkey Man…let’s look at your pearls of wisdom…

    …since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…

    Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum.

    Let us see how Sir Isaac expressed himself…[although I am quite sure that he could never imagine an idiot of your magnitude poking his nose into this...]

    ‘…Newton’s first law of motion, sometimes called the law of inertia, defines a special set of reference frames called inertial frames. This law can be stated as follows:

    If an object does not interact with other objects, it is possible to identify a reference frame in which the object has zero acceleration.

    Such a reference frame is called an inertial frame of reference.

    In the absence of external forces and when viewed from an inertial reference frame, an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion continues in motion with a constant velocity (that is, with a constant speed in a straight line).

    –Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 113.

    So the idea of inertia is quite clearly stated and easy to understand…an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an external force…an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an external force…

    It matters not whether the momentum is an object moving in a straight line…or rotating…

    In physics, angular momentum… is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum.

    And from Serway…page 335…

    In analogy to the principle of conservation of linear momentum, there is also a principle of conservation of angular momentum. The angular momentum of an isolated system is constant.

    That is the principle of the gyroscope…it has inertia…not as movement in a straight line, but as rotation…

    When outside forces act on this wheel…such as the aircraft banking about its lateral axis…the wheel’s inertia keeps it spinning in its orientation…as the mount to the aircraft is a gimbal that allows the aircraft to rotate about its lateral axis…while the gyro remains upright or horizontal or some other orientation as the case may be…depending on the aircraft axis [or axes] of rotation that is being sensed…

    This is visually displayed on the pilot’s instrument panel as a bank indication relative to the horizon…

    For the purposes of an INS nav system…an accelerometer attached to the gyro will record the angular acceleration of the aircraft about its lateral axis…

    By using a computer that keeps track of each such acceleration about each of the three axes as illustrated in my comment above…we are able to determine the aircraft’s geographic position by performing two mathematical integrations as outlined above…

    ‘…Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device…’

    What the hell does that gibberish even mean…?

    A mechanical gyro in an airplane does not change its orientation…

    It is mounted on gimbals that allow it to remain in its orientation…which orientation is maintained due to its inertia…as I already stated…

    It is the airplane that changes its orientation…not the gyro…

    Here is cutaway illustration of a mechanical gyro used for an aircraft attitude indicator…also known as an ‘artificial horizon’…

    This from the FAA manual ‘Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge’…available for download here…

    Chapter 7, page 18 describes how the above attitude gyro works…

    ‘…The gyro spins in the horizontal plane and resists deflection of the rotational path. Since the gyro relies on rigidity in space, the aircraft actually rotates around the spinning gyro…’

    Thanks for your verbal farts monkeyboy…you have only been a huge nuisance to people who actually are curious about some technical things that they would like to see explained…

    Even a cat knows to go and discreetly do her business in the litter box…but you don’t give a crap about squatting over this discussion board and crapping all over everyone’s head…do you…?

    How could you…an ignorant and stupid bullshit artiste who goes around picking arguments and then gets squashed like a bug…

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    A slight correction to my above text...in regard to the attitude gyro...

    '...such as the aircraft banking about its lateral axis...'
     
    That is incorrect...the airplane banks about its longitudinal axis...

    Here are the three axes of an aircraft...or any flight vehicle...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/o11p4oh59/Flight_Axes.jpg


    We can see that the vehicle can move about any of the three axes...in two directions about each...for six degrees of freedom...


    Also this illustration of the attitude gyro as seen from the pilot's seat would be helpful...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/frptqf0bh/Attitude_Gyro_2.jpg


    The small bar in the center of the instrument display face is the 'horizon bar'...and is attached to the spinning gyro...and thus always remains in this orientation...just as the actual horizon remains in its place as a visual reference point...

    The face of the display with the blue on the top representing the sky...and the dark on the bottom representing earth...is attached to the airplane and moves about the airplanes long axis as the airplane banks...thus showing the juxtaposition of the aircraft in reference to the horizon...

    In the case of the attitude indicator the gyro is oriented in the horizontal plane as shown already...here is that illustration again...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/nuo01j2ul/Attitude_Gyro_1.jpg


    In this case the gimbals on which the gyro is mounted allow for movement in both the longitudinal plane [wing bank left or right]...and the lateral plane [nose pitch up or down]...

    Thus the display shows both pitch and bank...as seen above on the cockpit display...

    , @Thirdeye
    Sorry chump, you're the one with your ignorance flapping in the breeze. I am quite acquainted with Newtonian physics after completing a year at university level (straight-A in case you were wondering) plus geophysics. You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers, with horizontal, vertical, and lateral velocity being the integrals of their X ,Y, and Z inputs. The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum. Most gyroscopic systems use feedback from the gimball suspension to correct orientation of the craft, either as a pilot aid (artificial horizon) or automated system (autopilot, etc). The WWII gyroscopic gun sights were examples of mechanical computers that used the the rate of perturbation for lead correction. In the case of gyroscopic stabilization (distinct from autopilot), the feedback is, like the old gun sights, proportional to the rate of perturbation to counteract the inertia of the craft during such perturbations.

    Copying information off the web is one thing and understanding it is another, as you should have learned by now. You are a blowhard with an inflated notion of his understanding of physics.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. FB says:
    @FB

    '...Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device...'
     
    That is complete gibberish...

    Are you trying to prove beyond doubt that you are a complete idiot...?

    Are you even vaguely acquainted with Newtonian Mechanics...?

    Obviously not...just as you are not even vaguely capable of solving a triangle as I proved on the other thread...

    Everything I said about gyroscopes and how an inertial system works is 100 percent correct...and quite helpfully explained to the layman...as at least one appreciative comment has shown...

    Since your knowledge of inertial nav systems is ZERO...you may want to first look at this...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/nco980vml/INS_1.jpg


    And...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/7efji4m1p/INS_2.jpg


    And...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/gyz650qt9/INS_3.jpg


    What a spectacular moron you are...

    Note what I said in my above comment...

    '...Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels...Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices…'
     
    Do you see that mechanical gyro wheel in the above diagram...?

    Do you see the laser ring gyro and fiber optic gyro there...?

    What is your general problem...?...[other than being an obvious RETARD...?]


    https://s20.postimg.cc/6dfat4ut9/INS_4.jpg


    Can you read what is says there MORON-BOY...?

    '...Three gyros and three accelerometers are normally combined in an inertial measurement unit (IMU)...'
     
    And what did I say above...?

    '...Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another…so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above…'
     
    What a complete and utter idiot you are...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/lasd7gxb1/INS_5.jpg


    I assume you know how to read in the English language...?[although nothing is a given when dealing with brainless plankton]

    '...Integrating the sensed acceleration will give velocity.

    ...A second integration gives position...'
     
    And what did I say above...?

    '...A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…'
     
    I think you deserve some kind of prize for most spectacular idiot on Unz Review...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/u5t7i444t/INS_6.jpg

    '...The combination of an IMU and a computer running navigation equations is called an Inertial Navigation System (INS)...'
     
    What a Monkey Man...let's look at your pearls of wisdom...


    …since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…
     
    Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum.
     
    Let us see how Sir Isaac expressed himself...[although I am quite sure that he could never imagine an idiot of your magnitude poking his nose into this...]

    '...Newton’s first law of motion, sometimes called the law of inertia, defines a special set of reference frames called inertial frames. This law can be stated as follows:

    If an object does not interact with other objects, it is possible to identify a reference frame in which the object has zero acceleration.

    Such a reference frame is called an inertial frame of reference.

    In the absence of external forces and when viewed from an inertial reference frame, an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion continues in motion with a constant velocity (that is, with a constant speed in a straight line).
     
    --Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 113.

    So the idea of inertia is quite clearly stated and easy to understand...an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an external force...an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an external force...

    It matters not whether the momentum is an object moving in a straight line...or rotating...

    In physics, angular momentum... is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum.
     
    And from Serway...page 335...

    In analogy to the principle of conservation of linear momentum, there is also a principle of conservation of angular momentum. The angular momentum of an isolated system is constant.
     
    That is the principle of the gyroscope...it has inertia...not as movement in a straight line, but as rotation...

    When outside forces act on this wheel...such as the aircraft banking about its lateral axis...the wheel's inertia keeps it spinning in its orientation...as the mount to the aircraft is a gimbal that allows the aircraft to rotate about its lateral axis...while the gyro remains upright or horizontal or some other orientation as the case may be...depending on the aircraft axis [or axes] of rotation that is being sensed...

    This is visually displayed on the pilot's instrument panel as a bank indication relative to the horizon...

    For the purposes of an INS nav system...an accelerometer attached to the gyro will record the angular acceleration of the aircraft about its lateral axis...

    By using a computer that keeps track of each such acceleration about each of the three axes as illustrated in my comment above...we are able to determine the aircraft's geographic position by performing two mathematical integrations as outlined above...

    '...Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device...'
     
    What the hell does that gibberish even mean...?

    A mechanical gyro in an airplane does not change its orientation...

    It is mounted on gimbals that allow it to remain in its orientation...which orientation is maintained due to its inertia...as I already stated...

    It is the airplane that changes its orientation...not the gyro...

    Here is cutaway illustration of a mechanical gyro used for an aircraft attitude indicator...also known as an 'artificial horizon'...

    This from the FAA manual 'Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge'...available for download here...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/nuo01j2ul/Attitude_Gyro_1.jpg


    Chapter 7, page 18 describes how the above attitude gyro works...


    '...The gyro spins in the horizontal plane and resists deflection of the rotational path. Since the gyro relies on rigidity in space, the aircraft actually rotates around the spinning gyro...'
     
    Thanks for your verbal farts monkeyboy...you have only been a huge nuisance to people who actually are curious about some technical things that they would like to see explained...

    Even a cat knows to go and discreetly do her business in the litter box...but you don't give a crap about squatting over this discussion board and crapping all over everyone's head...do you...?

    How could you...an ignorant and stupid bullshit artiste who goes around picking arguments and then gets squashed like a bug...

    A slight correction to my above text…in regard to the attitude gyro…

    ‘…such as the aircraft banking about its lateral axis…’

    That is incorrect…the airplane banks about its longitudinal axis…

    Here are the three axes of an aircraft…or any flight vehicle…

    We can see that the vehicle can move about any of the three axes…in two directions about each…for six degrees of freedom…

    Also this illustration of the attitude gyro as seen from the pilot’s seat would be helpful…

    The small bar in the center of the instrument display face is the ‘horizon bar’…and is attached to the spinning gyro…and thus always remains in this orientation…just as the actual horizon remains in its place as a visual reference point…

    The face of the display with the blue on the top representing the sky…and the dark on the bottom representing earth…is attached to the airplane and moves about the airplanes long axis as the airplane banks…thus showing the juxtaposition of the aircraft in reference to the horizon…

    In the case of the attitude indicator the gyro is oriented in the horizontal plane as shown already…here is that illustration again…

    In this case the gimbals on which the gyro is mounted allow for movement in both the longitudinal plane [wing bank left or right]…and the lateral plane [nose pitch up or down]…

    Thus the display shows both pitch and bank…as seen above on the cockpit display…

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Here is another helpful illustration of the above gyroscope in motion...


    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d5/Gyroscope_operation.gif


    We see here the gyroscope as in the attitude indicator above oriented in the horizontal plane...

    Its spinning motion give it inertia...which keeps it oriented always in its horizontal plane...

    The two gimbal mounts are free to rotate about the longitudianl axis and the lateral axis...as can be seen by the movement of those gimbals...

    The gimbals are attached to the aircraft [or any flight vehicle] so that as the vehicle rotates about those two axes...the gyroscope remains in its original orientation always...

    The instrument face is configured so that the movement of the aircraft shows its bank angle and pitch angle as described above...

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. ANON[436] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thirdeye
    We're seeing a pattern - broken only by France staying distant from the 2003 Iraq invasion - of the most solid support for American imperial adventures being from the two powers who held worldwide empires as of 1939, lost them as a political price of getting bailed out of their predicaments in World War II, and were defeated militarily and politically in attempts to re-establish imperial dominion during the 1950s and 60s. Playing "me too" under the American umbrella is their last remaining hope of regaining empire.

    Do you know what you are talking about or are you just repeating half educated American prejudices. France fought to reestablish control over French Indo-China but the British didn”t have to as their colonial wars were only establishing peaceful conditions for devolution of power to the native people who all joined the Commonwealth of Nations on independence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Read up on Britain and France's role in the Suez Crisis. Granted that was a political, not military, defeat, but it was a blatant attempt to re-establish colonial dominion by force in contravention of the UN Charter. France's Algerian War also had a colonial character.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. FB says:
    @FB
    A slight correction to my above text...in regard to the attitude gyro...

    '...such as the aircraft banking about its lateral axis...'
     
    That is incorrect...the airplane banks about its longitudinal axis...

    Here are the three axes of an aircraft...or any flight vehicle...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/o11p4oh59/Flight_Axes.jpg


    We can see that the vehicle can move about any of the three axes...in two directions about each...for six degrees of freedom...


    Also this illustration of the attitude gyro as seen from the pilot's seat would be helpful...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/frptqf0bh/Attitude_Gyro_2.jpg


    The small bar in the center of the instrument display face is the 'horizon bar'...and is attached to the spinning gyro...and thus always remains in this orientation...just as the actual horizon remains in its place as a visual reference point...

    The face of the display with the blue on the top representing the sky...and the dark on the bottom representing earth...is attached to the airplane and moves about the airplanes long axis as the airplane banks...thus showing the juxtaposition of the aircraft in reference to the horizon...

    In the case of the attitude indicator the gyro is oriented in the horizontal plane as shown already...here is that illustration again...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/nuo01j2ul/Attitude_Gyro_1.jpg


    In this case the gimbals on which the gyro is mounted allow for movement in both the longitudinal plane [wing bank left or right]...and the lateral plane [nose pitch up or down]...

    Thus the display shows both pitch and bank...as seen above on the cockpit display...

    Here is another helpful illustration of the above gyroscope in motion…

    We see here the gyroscope as in the attitude indicator above oriented in the horizontal plane…

    Its spinning motion give it inertia…which keeps it oriented always in its horizontal plane…

    The two gimbal mounts are free to rotate about the longitudianl axis and the lateral axis…as can be seen by the movement of those gimbals…

    The gimbals are attached to the aircraft [or any flight vehicle] so that as the vehicle rotates about those two axes…the gyroscope remains in its original orientation always…

    The instrument face is configured so that the movement of the aircraft shows its bank angle and pitch angle as described above…

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyroscope

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Thirdeye says:
    @ANON
    Do you know what you are talking about or are you just repeating half educated American prejudices. France fought to reestablish control over French Indo-China but the British didn"t have to as their colonial wars were only establishing peaceful conditions for devolution of power to the native people who all joined the Commonwealth of Nations on independence.

    Read up on Britain and France’s role in the Suez Crisis. Granted that was a political, not military, defeat, but it was a blatant attempt to re-establish colonial dominion by force in contravention of the UN Charter. France’s Algerian War also had a colonial character.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    You said "imperial dominion", now you say "colonial" (true enough of France in Indo-China and, despite Algeria being Departement of France, in Algeria too - except that France had Algeria at the end of WW2 and didn't have to reconquer it). Both are inaccurate in relation to Suez which was a reaction to Nasser's nationalising of the private company which owned and ran the Suez Canal in which the British government held 40 per cent of the shares. It had nothing to do with recovering imperial dominion after WW2.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. peterAUS says:
    @Vojkan
    Well, I realised he was definitely an idiot with his roll-pitch-yaw picture. Anyone who has ever played a flight simulator know what it is and what a gyroscope is. Assuming that I didn't know demonstrates his level of idiocy. The fact that it is totally irrelevant to the issue of GPS beams jamming in order to throw a missile off its course notwithstanding.
    The fact that he wishes for WW3 as relief for very personal frustrations demonstrates that he's not only an idiot, he's also mentally ill.

    The combination of:

    …relief for very personal frustrations…

    with

    ….also mentally ill…

    sums it well.
    I’d add a bit of age with a decent dose of deep hatred of some ethic groups, and that’s the combo.

    There is at least one of such types on any loosely moderated Webzine/forum.

    Act accordingly.

    Good is, apart from occasional highly quality post here (or anywhere) the best thing about Internet anonymous posting is “people watching”.Glimpsing the reality. Seeing us, in all our glory.
    Or not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. ANON[163] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thirdeye
    Read up on Britain and France's role in the Suez Crisis. Granted that was a political, not military, defeat, but it was a blatant attempt to re-establish colonial dominion by force in contravention of the UN Charter. France's Algerian War also had a colonial character.

    You said “imperial dominion”, now you say “colonial” (true enough of France in Indo-China and, despite Algeria being Departement of France, in Algeria too – except that France had Algeria at the end of WW2 and didn’t have to reconquer it). Both are inaccurate in relation to Suez which was a reaction to Nasser’s nationalising of the private company which owned and ran the Suez Canal in which the British government held 40 per cent of the shares. It had nothing to do with recovering imperial dominion after WW2.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    The objectives of the 1956 War went far beyond protecting Britain's interest in the canal. They included deposing Nasser to end his nationalist policies and, as far as France was concerned, end Egypt's support for Algerian independence. The Suez Canal would have been restored as a British colony as surely as the Canal Zone is an American colony. The Protocols of Sevres negotiated between Britain, France, and Israel made that quite clear.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Thirdeye says:
    @FB

    '...Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum. Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device...'
     
    That is complete gibberish...

    Are you trying to prove beyond doubt that you are a complete idiot...?

    Are you even vaguely acquainted with Newtonian Mechanics...?

    Obviously not...just as you are not even vaguely capable of solving a triangle as I proved on the other thread...

    Everything I said about gyroscopes and how an inertial system works is 100 percent correct...and quite helpfully explained to the layman...as at least one appreciative comment has shown...

    Since your knowledge of inertial nav systems is ZERO...you may want to first look at this...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/nco980vml/INS_1.jpg


    And...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/7efji4m1p/INS_2.jpg


    And...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/gyz650qt9/INS_3.jpg


    What a spectacular moron you are...

    Note what I said in my above comment...

    '...Early mechanical systems were based on spinning gyro wheels...Newer inertial nav systems use gyros employing laser or fiber optics or even more esoteric devices…'
     
    Do you see that mechanical gyro wheel in the above diagram...?

    Do you see the laser ring gyro and fiber optic gyro there...?

    What is your general problem...?...[other than being an obvious RETARD...?]


    https://s20.postimg.cc/6dfat4ut9/INS_4.jpg


    Can you read what is says there MORON-BOY...?

    '...Three gyros and three accelerometers are normally combined in an inertial measurement unit (IMU)...'
     
    And what did I say above...?

    '...Notice the three laser gyros and their orientation relative to one another…so that they may measure accelerations about the flight vehicles three respective axes as illustrated above…'
     
    What a complete and utter idiot you are...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/lasd7gxb1/INS_5.jpg


    I assume you know how to read in the English language...?[although nothing is a given when dealing with brainless plankton]

    '...Integrating the sensed acceleration will give velocity.

    ...A second integration gives position...'
     
    And what did I say above...?

    '...A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…'
     
    I think you deserve some kind of prize for most spectacular idiot on Unz Review...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/u5t7i444t/INS_6.jpg

    '...The combination of an IMU and a computer running navigation equations is called an Inertial Navigation System (INS)...'
     
    What a Monkey Man...let's look at your pearls of wisdom...


    …since gyroscopes work on the principle of inertia as per Newton’s First Law of Motion…
     
    Wrong. Gyroscopes work from conservation of angular momentum.
     
    Let us see how Sir Isaac expressed himself...[although I am quite sure that he could never imagine an idiot of your magnitude poking his nose into this...]

    '...Newton’s first law of motion, sometimes called the law of inertia, defines a special set of reference frames called inertial frames. This law can be stated as follows:

    If an object does not interact with other objects, it is possible to identify a reference frame in which the object has zero acceleration.

    Such a reference frame is called an inertial frame of reference.

    In the absence of external forces and when viewed from an inertial reference frame, an object at rest remains at rest and an object in motion continues in motion with a constant velocity (that is, with a constant speed in a straight line).
     
    --Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 113.

    So the idea of inertia is quite clearly stated and easy to understand...an object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an external force...an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted on by an external force...

    It matters not whether the momentum is an object moving in a straight line...or rotating...

    In physics, angular momentum... is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum.
     
    And from Serway...page 335...

    In analogy to the principle of conservation of linear momentum, there is also a principle of conservation of angular momentum. The angular momentum of an isolated system is constant.
     
    That is the principle of the gyroscope...it has inertia...not as movement in a straight line, but as rotation...

    When outside forces act on this wheel...such as the aircraft banking about its lateral axis...the wheel's inertia keeps it spinning in its orientation...as the mount to the aircraft is a gimbal that allows the aircraft to rotate about its lateral axis...while the gyro remains upright or horizontal or some other orientation as the case may be...depending on the aircraft axis [or axes] of rotation that is being sensed...

    This is visually displayed on the pilot's instrument panel as a bank indication relative to the horizon...

    For the purposes of an INS nav system...an accelerometer attached to the gyro will record the angular acceleration of the aircraft about its lateral axis...

    By using a computer that keeps track of each such acceleration about each of the three axes as illustrated in my comment above...we are able to determine the aircraft's geographic position by performing two mathematical integrations as outlined above...

    '...Angular momentum is sensitive to changes in the orientation of the gyroscope, not movement of the gyroscope that does not change its orientation. It is not a positioning device...'
     
    What the hell does that gibberish even mean...?

    A mechanical gyro in an airplane does not change its orientation...

    It is mounted on gimbals that allow it to remain in its orientation...which orientation is maintained due to its inertia...as I already stated...

    It is the airplane that changes its orientation...not the gyro...

    Here is cutaway illustration of a mechanical gyro used for an aircraft attitude indicator...also known as an 'artificial horizon'...

    This from the FAA manual 'Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge'...available for download here...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/nuo01j2ul/Attitude_Gyro_1.jpg


    Chapter 7, page 18 describes how the above attitude gyro works...


    '...The gyro spins in the horizontal plane and resists deflection of the rotational path. Since the gyro relies on rigidity in space, the aircraft actually rotates around the spinning gyro...'
     
    Thanks for your verbal farts monkeyboy...you have only been a huge nuisance to people who actually are curious about some technical things that they would like to see explained...

    Even a cat knows to go and discreetly do her business in the litter box...but you don't give a crap about squatting over this discussion board and crapping all over everyone's head...do you...?

    How could you...an ignorant and stupid bullshit artiste who goes around picking arguments and then gets squashed like a bug...

    Sorry chump, you’re the one with your ignorance flapping in the breeze. I am quite acquainted with Newtonian physics after completing a year at university level (straight-A in case you were wondering) plus geophysics. You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers, with horizontal, vertical, and lateral velocity being the integrals of their X ,Y, and Z inputs. The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum. Most gyroscopic systems use feedback from the gimball suspension to correct orientation of the craft, either as a pilot aid (artificial horizon) or automated system (autopilot, etc). The WWII gyroscopic gun sights were examples of mechanical computers that used the the rate of perturbation for lead correction. In the case of gyroscopic stabilization (distinct from autopilot), the feedback is, like the old gun sights, proportional to the rate of perturbation to counteract the inertia of the craft during such perturbations.

    Copying information off the web is one thing and understanding it is another, as you should have learned by now. You are a blowhard with an inflated notion of his understanding of physics.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    You really have a lot of nerve for a RETARD...

    Let's review here...

    First you stated that gyros don't run on the principle of inertia...which is complete bullshit...it is a spinning wheel's inertia...rotational inertia to be specific...that keeps a gyro from resisting a change of direction to its spinning axis...

    Saying that it is not inertia, but angular momentum that keeps the spinning wheel from resisting a change in its axis is nonsensical...

    You obviously do not understand the relationship between inertia and angular momentum...

    So for the benefit of readers on this thread...[not for an obvious idiot like you who is incapable of learning]...I will explain the physics involved...

    Let's first start by defining inertia and then momentum...and what these two terms actually mean and how they are related...


    '...Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest...'
     
    Newton articulated inertia thus...

    '...The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line...'
     
    This is known as the First Law of Motion...

    Newton was talking about motion in a straight line here...but the same property of inertia applies to a rotating object...ie its rotational inertia is what 'endeavours to preserve its present state'...in the words of the Great Man himself...


    '...Another form of inertia is rotational inertia (→ moment of inertia), the property that a rotating rigid body maintains its state of uniform rotational motion...'
     
    Now let's precisely define momentum...both linear and rotational...so that we may see how the property of inertia...ie a body's tendency to keep [or conserve] its original state of motion...arises out of momentum...

    Linear momentum [or translational momentum] is simply mass x velocity...so a person of 100 kg running at 5 meters per second will have a momentum of 500 kg*m/s...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/u6ptpng65/Linear_Momentum.jpg


    --Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 248...

    Or From a similar text by Knight...page 242...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/xrlp8qn8t/Linear_Momentum_Knight.jpg

    p being momentum...and mass being m...v being velocity...


    For those who do not have this book or similar...wikipedia entry on momentum is adequate to understanding this...

    Let us consider now that runner above and imagine that he is a football player...another player runs into him and shoves him off his course and out of bounds...

    What has happened here is that the inertia of the runner was disturbed by the force of the collision with another player...

    If that runner was a truck that had a mass of 10,000 kg instead of 100...obviously that other player running into such a truck would not be able to shove the truck aside...

    That is due to the inertia of that moving truck...

    It is the same thing with a rotating object which has inertia also...and it is the inertia that resists force that is applied to it...

    So we see that inertia is a function of momentum...ie the greater the momentum the more inertia the moving object possesses...not the other way around...


    It is the inertia that is the property that resists any force applied to it...

     

    Now let's look at rotational [or angular] momentum...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/e23ewnab1/Angular_Momentum_Serway.jpg


    We see here that angular momentum is defined as...


    L = I x ώ
     
    Where L is the angular momentum...I is the moment of inertia...and ώ is the angular velocity...

    We compare this equation to linear momentum where P = m x v

    P being momentum...m being mass...and v being linear velocity...

    We notice that these two equations are the same except that there is no mass in the angular momentum equation...

    The mass is replaced by the moment of inertia...I...


    '...Notice that moment of inertia is the rotational equivalent of mass...'
     
    --Knight, page 346...[Knight's emphasis not mine]

    Knight goes on to articulate the nuances of this distinction...


    '...Recall that the quantity we call mass was actually defined as the inertial mass. Objects with larger mass have a larger inertia, meaning that they're harder to accelerate. Similarly, an object with a larger moment of inertia is harder to rotate. The fact that moment of inertia retains the word "inertia' reminds us of this...'
     
    --Knight, page 346-7 [all emphasis by Knight]

    So like I already pointed out to you...you are only causing confusion with your stupidity...

    The reason that a spinning gyro...or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqHXFKJddfM

    As for your other gibberish about gyroscopes in inertial nav systems...you squawked this...


    '...You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers...'
     
    What a complete and utter asswipe you are...

    What does that piece of gibberish even mean...?

    Where did I ever 'attribute' positioning [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean] to gyroscopes...?

    Please look at my comment #102...

    I clearly explained how inertial nav systems are able to use gyroscopes to determine their geographical position...


    '...Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight…the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one…'
     
    And...

    '...A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…'

     

    What an idiot you are...what do you think a 'sensor' means...?

    How any person with even a retarded tiny brain could come away with that from my clear and precise explanation is beyond comprehension...

    And let's look at what you just shat out here...


    '...The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum...'
     
    What an utter idiot...you think you can bullshit here because you assume some of the readers may not understand your meaningless bird squawks...

    Again...my explanation of how an inertial nav system works on the basis of gyros is 100 percent correct...you are either completely retarded or cannot read or comprehend...

    I think it is a combination of both...as you are unable to express yourself in a precise way that is required of the subject matter...

    No...the gyroscope does not 'respond to torque forces'...because there are none acting on it you idiot...the gyroscope is mounted in a gimbal which isolates it from the accelerations experienced by the craft...and allows it to remain in its orientation...ie its inertial frame of reference you utter idiot...


    '... I am quite acquainted with Newtonian physics after completing a year at university level (straight-A in case you were wondering) plus geophysics...'
     
    Wow...a whole year of undergrad physics...that's impressive...[yet you showed you are not even able to solve a triangle on the other thread...]

    So since you have such a strong 'acquaintance' with physics and gyroscopes...and even aircraft autopilot systems and inertial nav systems...then you should not have any problem in solving for the moment of inertia of a disk on an axis...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/dj2x18qbh/Disk_Moment_of_Inertia.jpg


    Good luck moron...

    , @gwynedd1
    OK I am not following. Granted I am not in my field of expertise. I am trying to see which of you has any credibility.

    Your fist comment appeared to be correcting FB by correcting a cat comment by saying its a Russian Blue. All motion is going to axiomatically follow laws of physics involving motion and you said its "wrong".??? It would seem that inertia does apply to gyroscopes and it could only be criticized for a lack of precision , if applicable.

    Now this one you say " gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning"

    Well no , not relative to an independent object. That is the idea of them.

    "It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum"

    I think what you mean is a gyroscope responds to torque forces when pulling on the string on my childhood toy, but that is just to create the gyroscopic effect. The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them. Its an on board independent reference is it not.

    This does not make FB wrong about gyroscopes by changing the context of what is being discussed.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Thirdeye says:
    @ANON
    You said "imperial dominion", now you say "colonial" (true enough of France in Indo-China and, despite Algeria being Departement of France, in Algeria too - except that France had Algeria at the end of WW2 and didn't have to reconquer it). Both are inaccurate in relation to Suez which was a reaction to Nasser's nationalising of the private company which owned and ran the Suez Canal in which the British government held 40 per cent of the shares. It had nothing to do with recovering imperial dominion after WW2.

    The objectives of the 1956 War went far beyond protecting Britain’s interest in the canal. They included deposing Nasser to end his nationalist policies and, as far as France was concerned, end Egypt’s support for Algerian independence. The Suez Canal would have been restored as a British colony as surely as the Canal Zone is an American colony. The Protocols of Sevres negotiated between Britain, France, and Israel made that quite clear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANON
    Certainly France had a quasi imperial objective in mind - if you ignore the actual legal status of Algeria. (And getting rid of Nasser as the leader of Arab nationalism and potential ally of the USSR was certainly an objective). But......your trying to support your original statement wrt British imperial dominion is looking a bit desperate when you refer to the Suez Canal Zone as a "colony", past or prospective. That would require a novel definition of colony.

    Your bigger problem is a word beginning with "b". Let's be polite and call it bluffing. You call the Protocol of Sèvres in aid but you haven't actually read it (I say as an indirect tribute to your presumed intelligence). Far from that secret agreement making it clear that the Canal Zone would become a British Colony it refers only to "temporary occupation" by "Anglo-French [sic] forces".

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @gwynedd1
    I have been on this board several years , idiot. So once again we have you babbling about things you clearly no nothing about. Do you ever do any kind of fact checking at all ?

    >Yawn< You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a shit what you write.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    If you didn't care then you would not have replied. People generally reply to things they care about. I don't care about baby rattles, for example. So you will notice I have not replied to a thread about them.

    Now I care about your reply because I enjoy exposing idiots.

    Do you see the difference in presenting an argument based upon some evidence? And what was you original post about? You were trying lick wounds with your ally. That is what people who doubt their own resources do. They gather consensus because wish to overwhelm by the superiority of numbers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. annamaria says:

    Guess, this is what has convinced the miserable Macron that Assad must be stripped of Légion d’honneur award:

    https://www.truthdig.com/articles/syrian-military-pummels-is-held-districts-in-damascus/

    http://yournewswire.com/assad-us-support-terrorists-by-calling-them-moderates/

    Assad is right: Macron is a property of ziocons and war profiteers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  168. @c matt
    One can only hope that the attack was coordinated with the Russians; that would give a glimmer of hope that some sanity remains somewhere in DC (District of Criminals).

    I don't know if Trump is being forced into this neocon trap, or if he simply played us. Either way, the result is almost the same (at least if he is being forced, there is a slim chance he could outmaneuver them).

    “…there is a slim chance he could outmaneuver them…”

    He outmaneuvered them to win the GOP primary. He outmaneuvered them to win the general election. He outmaneuvered them after the previous chemical weapons false flag, and has now outmaneuvered them after this one. The Deep State/CIA-sponsored jihadists execute a phony chemical weapons attack, he executes a bit of phony “retaliation” kabuki. Then the world opinion settles into two groups: those that “get it” (wink, wink), and those that don’t.

    Despite being a complete newbie, Trump is instinctively good at this game. After just over a year, he is playing at a much higher level than his adversaries. And he still has two years and nine months to go ***in only his first term***.

    There is only a slim chance they will outmaneuver him.

    The Dems are following the same “Here comes the blue wave” self-delusion in the run-up to the 2018 mid-terms, that cost them in 2016, where it took the form of “Here comes Hillary”. And the GOP “Never Trumpers” are bailing. So let’s just see what happens in November. Will Trump be weakened or strengthened?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. ANON[490] • Disclaimer says:
    @Thirdeye
    The objectives of the 1956 War went far beyond protecting Britain's interest in the canal. They included deposing Nasser to end his nationalist policies and, as far as France was concerned, end Egypt's support for Algerian independence. The Suez Canal would have been restored as a British colony as surely as the Canal Zone is an American colony. The Protocols of Sevres negotiated between Britain, France, and Israel made that quite clear.

    Certainly France had a quasi imperial objective in mind – if you ignore the actual legal status of Algeria. (And getting rid of Nasser as the leader of Arab nationalism and potential ally of the USSR was certainly an objective). But……your trying to support your original statement wrt British imperial dominion is looking a bit desperate when you refer to the Suez Canal Zone as a “colony”, past or prospective. That would require a novel definition of colony.

    Your bigger problem is a word beginning with “b”. Let’s be polite and call it bluffing. You call the Protocol of Sèvres in aid but you haven’t actually read it (I say as an indirect tribute to your presumed intelligence). Far from that secret agreement making it clear that the Canal Zone would become a British Colony it refers only to “temporary occupation” by “Anglo-French [sic] forces”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. FB says:
    @Thirdeye
    Sorry chump, you're the one with your ignorance flapping in the breeze. I am quite acquainted with Newtonian physics after completing a year at university level (straight-A in case you were wondering) plus geophysics. You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers, with horizontal, vertical, and lateral velocity being the integrals of their X ,Y, and Z inputs. The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum. Most gyroscopic systems use feedback from the gimball suspension to correct orientation of the craft, either as a pilot aid (artificial horizon) or automated system (autopilot, etc). The WWII gyroscopic gun sights were examples of mechanical computers that used the the rate of perturbation for lead correction. In the case of gyroscopic stabilization (distinct from autopilot), the feedback is, like the old gun sights, proportional to the rate of perturbation to counteract the inertia of the craft during such perturbations.

    Copying information off the web is one thing and understanding it is another, as you should have learned by now. You are a blowhard with an inflated notion of his understanding of physics.

    You really have a lot of nerve for a RETARD…

    Let’s review here…

    First you stated that gyros don’t run on the principle of inertia…which is complete bullshit…it is a spinning wheel’s inertia…rotational inertia to be specific…that keeps a gyro from resisting a change of direction to its spinning axis…

    Saying that it is not inertia, but angular momentum that keeps the spinning wheel from resisting a change in its axis is nonsensical…

    You obviously do not understand the relationship between inertia and angular momentum…

    So for the benefit of readers on this thread…[not for an obvious idiot like you who is incapable of learning]…I will explain the physics involved…

    Let’s first start by defining inertia and then momentum…and what these two terms actually mean and how they are related…

    ‘…Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object’s speed, direction, or state of rest…’

    Newton articulated inertia thus…

    ‘…The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line…’

    This is known as the First Law of Motion…

    Newton was talking about motion in a straight line here…but the same property of inertia applies to a rotating object…ie its rotational inertia is what ‘endeavours to preserve its present state’…in the words of the Great Man himself…

    ‘…Another form of inertia is rotational inertia (→ moment of inertia), the property that a rotating rigid body maintains its state of uniform rotational motion…’

    Now let’s precisely define momentum…both linear and rotational…so that we may see how the property of inertia…ie a body’s tendency to keep [or conserve] its original state of motion…arises out of momentum…

    Linear momentum [or translational momentum] is simply mass x velocity…so a person of 100 kg running at 5 meters per second will have a momentum of 500 kg*m/s…

    –Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 248…

    Or From a similar text by Knight…page 242…


    p being momentum…and mass being m…v being velocity…

    For those who do not have this book or similar…wikipedia entry on momentum is adequate to understanding this…

    Let us consider now that runner above and imagine that he is a football player…another player runs into him and shoves him off his course and out of bounds…

    What has happened here is that the inertia of the runner was disturbed by the force of the collision with another player…

    If that runner was a truck that had a mass of 10,000 kg instead of 100…obviously that other player running into such a truck would not be able to shove the truck aside…

    That is due to the inertia of that moving truck…

    It is the same thing with a rotating object which has inertia also…and it is the inertia that resists force that is applied to it…

    So we see that inertia is a function of momentum…ie the greater the momentum the more inertia the moving object possesses…not the other way around…

    It is the inertia that is the property that resists any force applied to it…

    Now let’s look at rotational [or angular] momentum…

    We see here that angular momentum is defined as…

    L = I x ώ

    Where L is the angular momentum…I is the moment of inertia…and ώ is the angular velocity…

    We compare this equation to linear momentum where P = m x v

    P being momentum…m being mass…and v being linear velocity…

    We notice that these two equations are the same except that there is no mass in the angular momentum equation…

    The mass is replaced by the moment of inertia…I…

    ‘…Notice that moment of inertia is the rotational equivalent of mass…’

    –Knight, page 346…[Knight's emphasis not mine]

    Knight goes on to articulate the nuances of this distinction…

    ‘…Recall that the quantity we call mass was actually defined as the inertial mass. Objects with larger mass have a larger inertia, meaning that they’re harder to accelerate. Similarly, an object with a larger moment of inertia is harder to rotate. The fact that moment of inertia retains the word “inertia’ reminds us of this…’

    –Knight, page 346-7 [all emphasis by Knight]

    So like I already pointed out to you…you are only causing confusion with your stupidity…

    The reason that a spinning gyro…or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia…

    As for your other gibberish about gyroscopes in inertial nav systems…you squawked this…

    ‘…You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers…’

    What a complete and utter asswipe you are…

    What does that piece of gibberish even mean…?

    Where did I ever ‘attribute’ positioning [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean] to gyroscopes…?

    Please look at my comment #102…

    I clearly explained how inertial nav systems are able to use gyroscopes to determine their geographical position…

    ‘…Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight…the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one…’

    And…

    ‘…A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…’

    What an idiot you are…what do you think a ‘sensor’ means…?

    How any person with even a retarded tiny brain could come away with that from my clear and precise explanation is beyond comprehension…

    And let’s look at what you just shat out here…

    ‘…The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum…’

    What an utter idiot…you think you can bullshit here because you assume some of the readers may not understand your meaningless bird squawks…

    Again…my explanation of how an inertial nav system works on the basis of gyros is 100 percent correct…you are either completely retarded or cannot read or comprehend…

    I think it is a combination of both…as you are unable to express yourself in a precise way that is required of the subject matter…

    No…the gyroscope does not ‘respond to torque forces’…because there are none acting on it you idiot…the gyroscope is mounted in a gimbal which isolates it from the accelerations experienced by the craft…and allows it to remain in its orientation…ie its inertial frame of reference you utter idiot…

    ‘… I am quite acquainted with Newtonian physics after completing a year at university level (straight-A in case you were wondering) plus geophysics…’

    Wow…a whole year of undergrad physics…that’s impressive…[yet you showed you are not even able to solve a triangle on the other thread...]

    So since you have such a strong ‘acquaintance’ with physics and gyroscopes…and even aircraft autopilot systems and inertial nav systems…then you should not have any problem in solving for the moment of inertia of a disk on an axis…

    Good luck moron…

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    "So for the benefit of readers on this thread"

    So you are not accused of making an assumption...

    "Saying that it is not inertia, but angular momentum that keeps the spinning wheel from resisting a change in its axis is nonsensical…"

    Again I used the principle of fundamentals.

    I am left to wonder how angular momentum has nothing to do with inertia myself?

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#mi

    "Moment of inertia"

    I am an amoral and irreligious, but I still like this quote:


    18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”

    I notice when I form arguments based upon my own actions I am accused as having no authority by the peanut galleries . Then after citing my sources I am accused for lacking my own content.

    Anyway I can appreciate the length of your threads are difficult to defend and it creates many snipping opportunities.

    Anyway my reply is state they you have certainly convinced my that the lay public assumes much about cruse missiles while being in error.
    , @Thirdeye
    1/2MR(squared) , i.e. the mass, M, times the integral, 1/2 R(squared), of the radius R.

    Where did I ever ‘attribute’ positioning [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean] to gyroscopes…?
     
    You answered in your next self-quote:

    ‘…A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…’
     
    So not only are you wrong in attributing navigational data to the gyroscope, you have trouble remembering what you wrote and you can't understand what you yourself wrote when you read it again. Great!

    it is a spinning wheel’s inertia…rotational inertia to be specific…that keeps a gyro from resisting a change of direction to its spinning axis
     
    Putting your incorrect terminology aside, your words make absolutely no sense. All of the useful properties of gyroscopes arise from their resisting changes to direction of their spinning axis under conservation of angular momentum.

    The reason that a spinning gyro…or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia…

     

    Wrong. It is due to conservation of angular momentum. A gyroscope, like anything else with mass, has inertia even when stationary. It has angular momentum only when spinning. When a torque is exerted on the axis of a gyroscope it exerts an equal torque back on the source of the torque so that angular momentum is conserved in the entire system (a case of Newton's Third Law). Do you even understand the difference between vector and scalar quantities? (Hint: inertia is scalar, momentum is vector.)

    As for your other gibberish about gyroscopes in inertial nav systems…you squawked this…

    ‘…You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers…’

     

    What a complete and utter asswipe you are…

    What does that piece of gibberish even mean…?
     

    Seriously? You have no business pontificating about inertial guidance systems if you don't know what accelerometers are.

    And let’s look at what you just shat out here…

    ‘…The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum…’
     

    What an utter idiot…you think you can bullshit here because you assume some of the readers may not understand your meaningless bird squawks…
     
    If you don't understand the language of the Cartesian co-ordinate system, the basic language of kinematics in three-dimensional space, you are in way, way over your head.

    Let me acquaint you with one more rule, The Rule of Holes. When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. gwynedd1 says:
    @Twodees Partain
    >Yawn< You've obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a shit what you write.

    If you didn’t care then you would not have replied. People generally reply to things they care about. I don’t care about baby rattles, for example. So you will notice I have not replied to a thread about them.

    Now I care about your reply because I enjoy exposing idiots.

    Do you see the difference in presenting an argument based upon some evidence? And what was you original post about? You were trying lick wounds with your ally. That is what people who doubt their own resources do. They gather consensus because wish to overwhelm by the superiority of numbers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. gwynedd1 says:
    @Thirdeye
    Sorry chump, you're the one with your ignorance flapping in the breeze. I am quite acquainted with Newtonian physics after completing a year at university level (straight-A in case you were wondering) plus geophysics. You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers, with horizontal, vertical, and lateral velocity being the integrals of their X ,Y, and Z inputs. The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum. Most gyroscopic systems use feedback from the gimball suspension to correct orientation of the craft, either as a pilot aid (artificial horizon) or automated system (autopilot, etc). The WWII gyroscopic gun sights were examples of mechanical computers that used the the rate of perturbation for lead correction. In the case of gyroscopic stabilization (distinct from autopilot), the feedback is, like the old gun sights, proportional to the rate of perturbation to counteract the inertia of the craft during such perturbations.

    Copying information off the web is one thing and understanding it is another, as you should have learned by now. You are a blowhard with an inflated notion of his understanding of physics.

    OK I am not following. Granted I am not in my field of expertise. I am trying to see which of you has any credibility.

    Your fist comment appeared to be correcting FB by correcting a cat comment by saying its a Russian Blue. All motion is going to axiomatically follow laws of physics involving motion and you said its “wrong”.??? It would seem that inertia does apply to gyroscopes and it could only be criticized for a lack of precision , if applicable.

    Now this one you say ” gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning”

    Well no , not relative to an independent object. That is the idea of them.

    “It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum”

    I think what you mean is a gyroscope responds to torque forces when pulling on the string on my childhood toy, but that is just to create the gyroscopic effect. The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them. Its an on board independent reference is it not.

    This does not make FB wrong about gyroscopes by changing the context of what is being discussed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye

    The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them.
     
    Certain mechanical devices such as lead-correcting gun sights and stabilizer control systems use the reactive torque from gyroscopes. Anyone who rides a two-wheeled vehicle uses the reactive torque of gyroscopes for steering.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. gwynedd1 says:
    @FB
    You really have a lot of nerve for a RETARD...

    Let's review here...

    First you stated that gyros don't run on the principle of inertia...which is complete bullshit...it is a spinning wheel's inertia...rotational inertia to be specific...that keeps a gyro from resisting a change of direction to its spinning axis...

    Saying that it is not inertia, but angular momentum that keeps the spinning wheel from resisting a change in its axis is nonsensical...

    You obviously do not understand the relationship between inertia and angular momentum...

    So for the benefit of readers on this thread...[not for an obvious idiot like you who is incapable of learning]...I will explain the physics involved...

    Let's first start by defining inertia and then momentum...and what these two terms actually mean and how they are related...


    '...Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest...'
     
    Newton articulated inertia thus...

    '...The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line...'
     
    This is known as the First Law of Motion...

    Newton was talking about motion in a straight line here...but the same property of inertia applies to a rotating object...ie its rotational inertia is what 'endeavours to preserve its present state'...in the words of the Great Man himself...


    '...Another form of inertia is rotational inertia (→ moment of inertia), the property that a rotating rigid body maintains its state of uniform rotational motion...'
     
    Now let's precisely define momentum...both linear and rotational...so that we may see how the property of inertia...ie a body's tendency to keep [or conserve] its original state of motion...arises out of momentum...

    Linear momentum [or translational momentum] is simply mass x velocity...so a person of 100 kg running at 5 meters per second will have a momentum of 500 kg*m/s...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/u6ptpng65/Linear_Momentum.jpg


    --Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 248...

    Or From a similar text by Knight...page 242...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/xrlp8qn8t/Linear_Momentum_Knight.jpg

    p being momentum...and mass being m...v being velocity...


    For those who do not have this book or similar...wikipedia entry on momentum is adequate to understanding this...

    Let us consider now that runner above and imagine that he is a football player...another player runs into him and shoves him off his course and out of bounds...

    What has happened here is that the inertia of the runner was disturbed by the force of the collision with another player...

    If that runner was a truck that had a mass of 10,000 kg instead of 100...obviously that other player running into such a truck would not be able to shove the truck aside...

    That is due to the inertia of that moving truck...

    It is the same thing with a rotating object which has inertia also...and it is the inertia that resists force that is applied to it...

    So we see that inertia is a function of momentum...ie the greater the momentum the more inertia the moving object possesses...not the other way around...


    It is the inertia that is the property that resists any force applied to it...

     

    Now let's look at rotational [or angular] momentum...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/e23ewnab1/Angular_Momentum_Serway.jpg


    We see here that angular momentum is defined as...


    L = I x ώ
     
    Where L is the angular momentum...I is the moment of inertia...and ώ is the angular velocity...

    We compare this equation to linear momentum where P = m x v

    P being momentum...m being mass...and v being linear velocity...

    We notice that these two equations are the same except that there is no mass in the angular momentum equation...

    The mass is replaced by the moment of inertia...I...


    '...Notice that moment of inertia is the rotational equivalent of mass...'
     
    --Knight, page 346...[Knight's emphasis not mine]

    Knight goes on to articulate the nuances of this distinction...


    '...Recall that the quantity we call mass was actually defined as the inertial mass. Objects with larger mass have a larger inertia, meaning that they're harder to accelerate. Similarly, an object with a larger moment of inertia is harder to rotate. The fact that moment of inertia retains the word "inertia' reminds us of this...'
     
    --Knight, page 346-7 [all emphasis by Knight]

    So like I already pointed out to you...you are only causing confusion with your stupidity...

    The reason that a spinning gyro...or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqHXFKJddfM

    As for your other gibberish about gyroscopes in inertial nav systems...you squawked this...


    '...You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers...'
     
    What a complete and utter asswipe you are...

    What does that piece of gibberish even mean...?

    Where did I ever 'attribute' positioning [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean] to gyroscopes...?

    Please look at my comment #102...

    I clearly explained how inertial nav systems are able to use gyroscopes to determine their geographical position...


    '...Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight…the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one…'
     
    And...

    '...A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…'

     

    What an idiot you are...what do you think a 'sensor' means...?

    How any person with even a retarded tiny brain could come away with that from my clear and precise explanation is beyond comprehension...

    And let's look at what you just shat out here...


    '...The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum...'
     
    What an utter idiot...you think you can bullshit here because you assume some of the readers may not understand your meaningless bird squawks...

    Again...my explanation of how an inertial nav system works on the basis of gyros is 100 percent correct...you are either completely retarded or cannot read or comprehend...

    I think it is a combination of both...as you are unable to express yourself in a precise way that is required of the subject matter...

    No...the gyroscope does not 'respond to torque forces'...because there are none acting on it you idiot...the gyroscope is mounted in a gimbal which isolates it from the accelerations experienced by the craft...and allows it to remain in its orientation...ie its inertial frame of reference you utter idiot...


    '... I am quite acquainted with Newtonian physics after completing a year at university level (straight-A in case you were wondering) plus geophysics...'
     
    Wow...a whole year of undergrad physics...that's impressive...[yet you showed you are not even able to solve a triangle on the other thread...]

    So since you have such a strong 'acquaintance' with physics and gyroscopes...and even aircraft autopilot systems and inertial nav systems...then you should not have any problem in solving for the moment of inertia of a disk on an axis...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/dj2x18qbh/Disk_Moment_of_Inertia.jpg


    Good luck moron...

    “So for the benefit of readers on this thread”

    So you are not accused of making an assumption…

    “Saying that it is not inertia, but angular momentum that keeps the spinning wheel from resisting a change in its axis is nonsensical…”

    Again I used the principle of fundamentals.

    I am left to wonder how angular momentum has nothing to do with inertia myself?

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#mi

    “Moment of inertia”

    I am an amoral and irreligious, but I still like this quote:

    18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”

    I notice when I form arguments based upon my own actions I am accused as having no authority by the peanut galleries . Then after citing my sources I am accused for lacking my own content.

    Anyway I can appreciate the length of your threads are difficult to defend and it creates many snipping opportunities.

    Anyway my reply is state they you have certainly convinced my that the lay public assumes much about cruse missiles while being in error.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    I am left to wonder how angular momentum has nothing to do with inertia myself?
     
    I spent quite a bit of time explaining the relationship between momentum and inertia did I not...?

    ...including defining mathematically both linear and rotational momentum and how they relate to inertia...

    Maybe you missed all that while scanning the Bible Gateway site...?

    Inertia is an easy concept to grasp...as is the way it relates to momentum...

    An object in motion...whether translating in a straight line...or rotating about an axis will have momentum...depending on its mass and velocity if translating...and its moment of inertia and angular velocity if rotating...

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia...ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it...

    The way this applies to a spinning wheel [gyroscope] is that it is the inertia that is the thing doing the resisting...

    That is all we need to understand if we are talking about gyroscopes because the key thing here is that they are designed to keep spinning in their orientation and not move...

    In other words...they are a reference frame...one for each axis of three dimensional space...or more precisely the three axes of the rigid body flight vehicle...

    The asswipe 'Turdeye 'jumped in like a monkey waving a banana because he doesn't understand that conservation of momentum is not relevant to the gyroscope in a nav system...UNLESS a torque is applied to that gyro's axis of rotation...

    But this does not happen because the gyro is on gimbals that isolate it from outside torques...

    The whole idea of the gyro as a spatial and axial reference is for it to remain always in its orientation...

    You seem to have caught on to this already in your previous comment addressed to Turdeye...

    '...I think what you mean is a gyroscope responds to torque forces when pulling on the string on my childhood toy, but that is just to create the gyroscopic effect. The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them. Its an on board independent reference is it not...'
     

    Bingo...

    So it is a matter of where do we apply these ideas of 'inertia' and 'conservation of momentum'...?

    That's what this is all about...science is precise and the language is nuanced...

    Also the math is meant to be applied to specific problems...

    For instance...conservation of linear momentum is used in collisions...such as car collisions...where we apply the math to determine what happened AFTER a collision...

    There is no need to think about conservation of momentum while driving along...it is enough to say the moving body has inertia...

    The same in rotational dynamics...the gyroscope is specifically designed to NOT have any forces or torques acting on it...

    But a spinning helicopter rotor is a different matter...it is also a large gyroscope but it has all kinds of outside torques and forces acting on it...

    Hence...we need to now apply the math of conservation of momentum in order to solve these questions...

    Kapish...?

    I hope this makes sense...you seem like exactly the kind of reader that I had in mind when I responded to the nitwit Turdeye...

    PS...I wish you hadn't given him that link to the equations for moment of inertia...now he'll be able to solve the problem I gave him that he otherwise never would have...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. FB says:
    @gwynedd1
    "So for the benefit of readers on this thread"

    So you are not accused of making an assumption...

    "Saying that it is not inertia, but angular momentum that keeps the spinning wheel from resisting a change in its axis is nonsensical…"

    Again I used the principle of fundamentals.

    I am left to wonder how angular momentum has nothing to do with inertia myself?

    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html#mi

    "Moment of inertia"

    I am an amoral and irreligious, but I still like this quote:


    18 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’ 19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look, a glutton and a winebibber, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is justified by her children.”

    I notice when I form arguments based upon my own actions I am accused as having no authority by the peanut galleries . Then after citing my sources I am accused for lacking my own content.

    Anyway I can appreciate the length of your threads are difficult to defend and it creates many snipping opportunities.

    Anyway my reply is state they you have certainly convinced my that the lay public assumes much about cruse missiles while being in error.

    I am left to wonder how angular momentum has nothing to do with inertia myself?

    I spent quite a bit of time explaining the relationship between momentum and inertia did I not…?

    …including defining mathematically both linear and rotational momentum and how they relate to inertia…

    Maybe you missed all that while scanning the Bible Gateway site…?

    Inertia is an easy concept to grasp…as is the way it relates to momentum…

    An object in motion…whether translating in a straight line…or rotating about an axis will have momentum…depending on its mass and velocity if translating…and its moment of inertia and angular velocity if rotating…

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…

    The way this applies to a spinning wheel [gyroscope] is that it is the inertia that is the thing doing the resisting…

    That is all we need to understand if we are talking about gyroscopes because the key thing here is that they are designed to keep spinning in their orientation and not move…

    In other words…they are a reference frame…one for each axis of three dimensional space…or more precisely the three axes of the rigid body flight vehicle…

    The asswipe ‘Turdeye ‘jumped in like a monkey waving a banana because he doesn’t understand that conservation of momentum is not relevant to the gyroscope in a nav system…UNLESS a torque is applied to that gyro’s axis of rotation…

    But this does not happen because the gyro is on gimbals that isolate it from outside torques…

    The whole idea of the gyro as a spatial and axial reference is for it to remain always in its orientation…

    You seem to have caught on to this already in your previous comment addressed to Turdeye…

    ‘…I think what you mean is a gyroscope responds to torque forces when pulling on the string on my childhood toy, but that is just to create the gyroscopic effect. The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them. Its an on board independent reference is it not…’

    Bingo…

    So it is a matter of where do we apply these ideas of ‘inertia’ and ‘conservation of momentum’…?

    That’s what this is all about…science is precise and the language is nuanced…

    Also the math is meant to be applied to specific problems…

    For instance…conservation of linear momentum is used in collisions…such as car collisions…where we apply the math to determine what happened AFTER a collision…

    There is no need to think about conservation of momentum while driving along…it is enough to say the moving body has inertia…

    The same in rotational dynamics…the gyroscope is specifically designed to NOT have any forces or torques acting on it…

    But a spinning helicopter rotor is a different matter…it is also a large gyroscope but it has all kinds of outside torques and forces acting on it…

    Hence…we need to now apply the math of conservation of momentum in order to solve these questions…

    Kapish…?

    I hope this makes sense…you seem like exactly the kind of reader that I had in mind when I responded to the nitwit Turdeye…

    PS…I wish you hadn’t given him that link to the equations for moment of inertia…now he’ll be able to solve the problem I gave him that he otherwise never would have…

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    In case it was not clear, I gathered you were making the points you were trying to make while they were fishing for weakness because they really don't like you. I gave the reasons why I have come to believe this in a few posts.
    , @Thirdeye

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…
     
    That statement is 180 degrees backwards. All that is required for a body to have inertia is mass. We're back to good old F=MA here. Solve for M. F proportional to M is required to achieve a given A and A is achieved for a given F inversely proportional to M. That is a succinct description of inertia as related to mass. You should not be pontificating if you need these rudiments explained to you.
    , @Thirdeye

    I spent quite a bit of time explaining the relationship between momentum and inertia did I not…?
     
    .....and you got it wrong, wrong, wrong! To make it more explicit for a certain numbskull who thinks he knows everything:

    every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line......(Newton's First Law, "the law of inertia")
     
    At rest. Get it? No momentum required for an object to have inertia.

    Say, since you like asking about formulae for MOI of rotating bodies, tell us the (1) mathematical relationship between the MOI of a sphere and that of a cylinder of the same radius and same mass, and (2) the length of the cylinder relative to the radius that would be required to contain the same mass as the sphere (density constant). No partial credit will be given.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. gwynedd1 says:
    @FB

    I am left to wonder how angular momentum has nothing to do with inertia myself?
     
    I spent quite a bit of time explaining the relationship between momentum and inertia did I not...?

    ...including defining mathematically both linear and rotational momentum and how they relate to inertia...

    Maybe you missed all that while scanning the Bible Gateway site...?

    Inertia is an easy concept to grasp...as is the way it relates to momentum...

    An object in motion...whether translating in a straight line...or rotating about an axis will have momentum...depending on its mass and velocity if translating...and its moment of inertia and angular velocity if rotating...

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia...ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it...

    The way this applies to a spinning wheel [gyroscope] is that it is the inertia that is the thing doing the resisting...

    That is all we need to understand if we are talking about gyroscopes because the key thing here is that they are designed to keep spinning in their orientation and not move...

    In other words...they are a reference frame...one for each axis of three dimensional space...or more precisely the three axes of the rigid body flight vehicle...

    The asswipe 'Turdeye 'jumped in like a monkey waving a banana because he doesn't understand that conservation of momentum is not relevant to the gyroscope in a nav system...UNLESS a torque is applied to that gyro's axis of rotation...

    But this does not happen because the gyro is on gimbals that isolate it from outside torques...

    The whole idea of the gyro as a spatial and axial reference is for it to remain always in its orientation...

    You seem to have caught on to this already in your previous comment addressed to Turdeye...

    '...I think what you mean is a gyroscope responds to torque forces when pulling on the string on my childhood toy, but that is just to create the gyroscopic effect. The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them. Its an on board independent reference is it not...'
     

    Bingo...

    So it is a matter of where do we apply these ideas of 'inertia' and 'conservation of momentum'...?

    That's what this is all about...science is precise and the language is nuanced...

    Also the math is meant to be applied to specific problems...

    For instance...conservation of linear momentum is used in collisions...such as car collisions...where we apply the math to determine what happened AFTER a collision...

    There is no need to think about conservation of momentum while driving along...it is enough to say the moving body has inertia...

    The same in rotational dynamics...the gyroscope is specifically designed to NOT have any forces or torques acting on it...

    But a spinning helicopter rotor is a different matter...it is also a large gyroscope but it has all kinds of outside torques and forces acting on it...

    Hence...we need to now apply the math of conservation of momentum in order to solve these questions...

    Kapish...?

    I hope this makes sense...you seem like exactly the kind of reader that I had in mind when I responded to the nitwit Turdeye...

    PS...I wish you hadn't given him that link to the equations for moment of inertia...now he'll be able to solve the problem I gave him that he otherwise never would have...

    In case it was not clear, I gathered you were making the points you were trying to make while they were fishing for weakness because they really don’t like you. I gave the reasons why I have come to believe this in a few posts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    You are exactly right...and your comments are appreciated...

    It is rather annoying when people jump in and start 'sniping' as you put it...but my annoyance is that they are sowing confusion where I am trying to bring clarity...

    I felt it was necessary to explain the self-contained guidance system of cruise missiles because laypeople generally do have these misconceptions that they rely on satellites only...they do make use of satnav for greater precision...but any radio signal can be interfered with and so there is a science behind that which I felt was worth explaining...

    I really don't care about yahoos like Turdeye...except that they are disruptive mischief makers...and thanks for confirming that intelligent readers do in fact have an interest in discerning some scientific facts about these matters...

    Regards,

    FB

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. FB says:
    @gwynedd1
    In case it was not clear, I gathered you were making the points you were trying to make while they were fishing for weakness because they really don't like you. I gave the reasons why I have come to believe this in a few posts.

    You are exactly right…and your comments are appreciated…

    It is rather annoying when people jump in and start ‘sniping’ as you put it…but my annoyance is that they are sowing confusion where I am trying to bring clarity…

    I felt it was necessary to explain the self-contained guidance system of cruise missiles because laypeople generally do have these misconceptions that they rely on satellites only…they do make use of satnav for greater precision…but any radio signal can be interfered with and so there is a science behind that which I felt was worth explaining…

    I really don’t care about yahoos like Turdeye…except that they are disruptive mischief makers…and thanks for confirming that intelligent readers do in fact have an interest in discerning some scientific facts about these matters…

    Regards,

    FB

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. DC says:

    It may be that Trump knows exactly what he is doing and has tricked the neo-cons/noe-liberals in to thinking he’s tough on Syria and Russia while behind their backs colluding with Putin to avoid ww3 and working to pull out of Syria regardless.

    The strike was really just a $150million advertising opportunity for Russian missil defense systems. The idiot general that announced 100% success should be fired as spokesperson for the pentagon-deep state. His ploy might have had a chance at being credible with a 93% success rate but 100% was never going to be credible!

    As for Bolton and Pompeo, keep your enemies close so you know what they are doing, tell them what they want to hear, let them imagine they are powerful and then take them down when they least expect it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    Anything is possible here. Ya can't just mate the king in a castled position. Ya have to pin, skewer, fork and threat to win. Bolton could be neocon prophylactic . He could be Sheldon brand ,TM oven mitts for red hot neocon buttons. Maybe he will toss Bolton after this at some point. I mean to do neocon stuff without a Bolton would tend to stick more to Trump. That would be really Machiavellian stuff....

    It would also be really kind of funny if Russia baited this for their arms industry. What will really be telling is their sales of these systems in the next few years. It was a weapons demo.

    As for domestically?

    scenario #1
    Our missiles are crap and need to be updated?
    They are? Prove it.
    Fire some missile at Syria and see what happens.

    scenario #2
    Sheldon has some cash.
    for what?
    You have to take in Bolton and take his advice.
    Trump does so with disinterest , an lobs a few..

    scenario #3

    Trump had a spicy meal last night....

    scenario #4
    He has eyes for Bibi and his playboy life style is just a front....or he is a regular old crypto-zionist.


    I mean what is to make of lobbing a few in half hearted , neocon fashion?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. gwynedd1 says:
    @DC
    It may be that Trump knows exactly what he is doing and has tricked the neo-cons/noe-liberals in to thinking he’s tough on Syria and Russia while behind their backs colluding with Putin to avoid ww3 and working to pull out of Syria regardless.

    The strike was really just a $150million advertising opportunity for Russian missil defense systems. The idiot general that announced 100% success should be fired as spokesperson for the pentagon-deep state. His ploy might have had a chance at being credible with a 93% success rate but 100% was never going to be credible!

    As for Bolton and Pompeo, keep your enemies close so you know what they are doing, tell them what they want to hear, let them imagine they are powerful and then take them down when they least expect it.

    Anything is possible here. Ya can’t just mate the king in a castled position. Ya have to pin, skewer, fork and threat to win. Bolton could be neocon prophylactic . He could be Sheldon brand ,TM oven mitts for red hot neocon buttons. Maybe he will toss Bolton after this at some point. I mean to do neocon stuff without a Bolton would tend to stick more to Trump. That would be really Machiavellian stuff….

    It would also be really kind of funny if Russia baited this for their arms industry. What will really be telling is their sales of these systems in the next few years. It was a weapons demo.

    As for domestically?

    scenario #1
    Our missiles are crap and need to be updated?
    They are? Prove it.
    Fire some missile at Syria and see what happens.

    scenario #2
    Sheldon has some cash.
    for what?
    You have to take in Bolton and take his advice.
    Trump does so with disinterest , an lobs a few..

    scenario #3

    Trump had a spicy meal last night….

    scenario #4
    He has eyes for Bibi and his playboy life style is just a front….or he is a regular old crypto-zionist.

    I mean what is to make of lobbing a few in half hearted , neocon fashion?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Thirdeye says:
    @FB
    You really have a lot of nerve for a RETARD...

    Let's review here...

    First you stated that gyros don't run on the principle of inertia...which is complete bullshit...it is a spinning wheel's inertia...rotational inertia to be specific...that keeps a gyro from resisting a change of direction to its spinning axis...

    Saying that it is not inertia, but angular momentum that keeps the spinning wheel from resisting a change in its axis is nonsensical...

    You obviously do not understand the relationship between inertia and angular momentum...

    So for the benefit of readers on this thread...[not for an obvious idiot like you who is incapable of learning]...I will explain the physics involved...

    Let's first start by defining inertia and then momentum...and what these two terms actually mean and how they are related...


    '...Inertia is the resistance of any physical object to any change in its state of motion. This includes changes to the object's speed, direction, or state of rest...'
     
    Newton articulated inertia thus...

    '...The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting by which every body, as much as in it lies, endeavours to preserve its present state, whether it be of rest or of moving uniformly forward in a straight line...'
     
    This is known as the First Law of Motion...

    Newton was talking about motion in a straight line here...but the same property of inertia applies to a rotating object...ie its rotational inertia is what 'endeavours to preserve its present state'...in the words of the Great Man himself...


    '...Another form of inertia is rotational inertia (→ moment of inertia), the property that a rotating rigid body maintains its state of uniform rotational motion...'
     
    Now let's precisely define momentum...both linear and rotational...so that we may see how the property of inertia...ie a body's tendency to keep [or conserve] its original state of motion...arises out of momentum...

    Linear momentum [or translational momentum] is simply mass x velocity...so a person of 100 kg running at 5 meters per second will have a momentum of 500 kg*m/s...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/u6ptpng65/Linear_Momentum.jpg


    --Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 248...

    Or From a similar text by Knight...page 242...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/xrlp8qn8t/Linear_Momentum_Knight.jpg

    p being momentum...and mass being m...v being velocity...


    For those who do not have this book or similar...wikipedia entry on momentum is adequate to understanding this...

    Let us consider now that runner above and imagine that he is a football player...another player runs into him and shoves him off his course and out of bounds...

    What has happened here is that the inertia of the runner was disturbed by the force of the collision with another player...

    If that runner was a truck that had a mass of 10,000 kg instead of 100...obviously that other player running into such a truck would not be able to shove the truck aside...

    That is due to the inertia of that moving truck...

    It is the same thing with a rotating object which has inertia also...and it is the inertia that resists force that is applied to it...

    So we see that inertia is a function of momentum...ie the greater the momentum the more inertia the moving object possesses...not the other way around...


    It is the inertia that is the property that resists any force applied to it...

     

    Now let's look at rotational [or angular] momentum...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/e23ewnab1/Angular_Momentum_Serway.jpg


    We see here that angular momentum is defined as...


    L = I x ώ
     
    Where L is the angular momentum...I is the moment of inertia...and ώ is the angular velocity...

    We compare this equation to linear momentum where P = m x v

    P being momentum...m being mass...and v being linear velocity...

    We notice that these two equations are the same except that there is no mass in the angular momentum equation...

    The mass is replaced by the moment of inertia...I...


    '...Notice that moment of inertia is the rotational equivalent of mass...'
     
    --Knight, page 346...[Knight's emphasis not mine]

    Knight goes on to articulate the nuances of this distinction...


    '...Recall that the quantity we call mass was actually defined as the inertial mass. Objects with larger mass have a larger inertia, meaning that they're harder to accelerate. Similarly, an object with a larger moment of inertia is harder to rotate. The fact that moment of inertia retains the word "inertia' reminds us of this...'
     
    --Knight, page 346-7 [all emphasis by Knight]

    So like I already pointed out to you...you are only causing confusion with your stupidity...

    The reason that a spinning gyro...or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqHXFKJddfM

    As for your other gibberish about gyroscopes in inertial nav systems...you squawked this...


    '...You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers...'
     
    What a complete and utter asswipe you are...

    What does that piece of gibberish even mean...?

    Where did I ever 'attribute' positioning [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean] to gyroscopes...?

    Please look at my comment #102...

    I clearly explained how inertial nav systems are able to use gyroscopes to determine their geographical position...


    '...Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight…the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one…'
     
    And...

    '...A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…'

     

    What an idiot you are...what do you think a 'sensor' means...?

    How any person with even a retarded tiny brain could come away with that from my clear and precise explanation is beyond comprehension...

    And let's look at what you just shat out here...


    '...The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum...'
     
    What an utter idiot...you think you can bullshit here because you assume some of the readers may not understand your meaningless bird squawks...

    Again...my explanation of how an inertial nav system works on the basis of gyros is 100 percent correct...you are either completely retarded or cannot read or comprehend...

    I think it is a combination of both...as you are unable to express yourself in a precise way that is required of the subject matter...

    No...the gyroscope does not 'respond to torque forces'...because there are none acting on it you idiot...the gyroscope is mounted in a gimbal which isolates it from the accelerations experienced by the craft...and allows it to remain in its orientation...ie its inertial frame of reference you utter idiot...


    '... I am quite acquainted with Newtonian physics after completing a year at university level (straight-A in case you were wondering) plus geophysics...'
     
    Wow...a whole year of undergrad physics...that's impressive...[yet you showed you are not even able to solve a triangle on the other thread...]

    So since you have such a strong 'acquaintance' with physics and gyroscopes...and even aircraft autopilot systems and inertial nav systems...then you should not have any problem in solving for the moment of inertia of a disk on an axis...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/dj2x18qbh/Disk_Moment_of_Inertia.jpg


    Good luck moron...

    1/2MR(squared) , i.e. the mass, M, times the integral, 1/2 R(squared), of the radius R.

    Where did I ever ‘attribute’ positioning [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean] to gyroscopes…?

    You answered in your next self-quote:

    ‘…A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…’

    So not only are you wrong in attributing navigational data to the gyroscope, you have trouble remembering what you wrote and you can’t understand what you yourself wrote when you read it again. Great!

    it is a spinning wheel’s inertia…rotational inertia to be specific…that keeps a gyro from resisting a change of direction to its spinning axis

    Putting your incorrect terminology aside, your words make absolutely no sense. All of the useful properties of gyroscopes arise from their resisting changes to direction of their spinning axis under conservation of angular momentum.

    The reason that a spinning gyro…or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia…

    Wrong. It is due to conservation of angular momentum. A gyroscope, like anything else with mass, has inertia even when stationary. It has angular momentum only when spinning. When a torque is exerted on the axis of a gyroscope it exerts an equal torque back on the source of the torque so that angular momentum is conserved in the entire system (a case of Newton’s Third Law). Do you even understand the difference between vector and scalar quantities? (Hint: inertia is scalar, momentum is vector.)

    As for your other gibberish about gyroscopes in inertial nav systems…you squawked this…

    ‘…You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers…’

    What a complete and utter asswipe you are…

    What does that piece of gibberish even mean…?

    Seriously? You have no business pontificating about inertial guidance systems if you don’t know what accelerometers are.

    And let’s look at what you just shat out here…

    ‘…The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum…’

    What an utter idiot…you think you can bullshit here because you assume some of the readers may not understand your meaningless bird squawks…

    If you don’t understand the language of the Cartesian co-ordinate system, the basic language of kinematics in three-dimensional space, you are in way, way over your head.

    Let me acquaint you with one more rule, The Rule of Holes. When you’ve dug yourself into a hole, stop digging.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Shaddup Turdeye...

    Nobody wants to hear monkey noises from someone whose education in physics reaches the lofty heights of the freshman level...

    Nobody's buying your crapola...like the commenter 'gwynedd1' who pegged you quite accurately as a member of the peanut gallery...

    You're not qualified to be in this discussion in the first place...a little knowledge is a dangerous thing as the saying goes...

    You're not even able to solve the simple problem I presented even though gwynedd1 pointed to a physics website with the formulas for inertia...what a loser...

    All you did was give the formula...I asked you to evaluate the solution based on the numbers I gave...

    But a twerp like you can't even do that...

    Let me make it more interesting...just so we all see what your capabilities in physics actually are...

    Suppose that spinning wheel of 1 m diameter and 1 kg weight I presented earlier was spun up to 10 revolutions per second in 3 seconds...

    How much power is required to do that...?

    Good luck hockey puck...show everyone here just how far that freshman physics knowledge goes...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Thirdeye says:
    @FB

    I am left to wonder how angular momentum has nothing to do with inertia myself?
     
    I spent quite a bit of time explaining the relationship between momentum and inertia did I not...?

    ...including defining mathematically both linear and rotational momentum and how they relate to inertia...

    Maybe you missed all that while scanning the Bible Gateway site...?

    Inertia is an easy concept to grasp...as is the way it relates to momentum...

    An object in motion...whether translating in a straight line...or rotating about an axis will have momentum...depending on its mass and velocity if translating...and its moment of inertia and angular velocity if rotating...

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia...ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it...

    The way this applies to a spinning wheel [gyroscope] is that it is the inertia that is the thing doing the resisting...

    That is all we need to understand if we are talking about gyroscopes because the key thing here is that they are designed to keep spinning in their orientation and not move...

    In other words...they are a reference frame...one for each axis of three dimensional space...or more precisely the three axes of the rigid body flight vehicle...

    The asswipe 'Turdeye 'jumped in like a monkey waving a banana because he doesn't understand that conservation of momentum is not relevant to the gyroscope in a nav system...UNLESS a torque is applied to that gyro's axis of rotation...

    But this does not happen because the gyro is on gimbals that isolate it from outside torques...

    The whole idea of the gyro as a spatial and axial reference is for it to remain always in its orientation...

    You seem to have caught on to this already in your previous comment addressed to Turdeye...

    '...I think what you mean is a gyroscope responds to torque forces when pulling on the string on my childhood toy, but that is just to create the gyroscopic effect. The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them. Its an on board independent reference is it not...'
     

    Bingo...

    So it is a matter of where do we apply these ideas of 'inertia' and 'conservation of momentum'...?

    That's what this is all about...science is precise and the language is nuanced...

    Also the math is meant to be applied to specific problems...

    For instance...conservation of linear momentum is used in collisions...such as car collisions...where we apply the math to determine what happened AFTER a collision...

    There is no need to think about conservation of momentum while driving along...it is enough to say the moving body has inertia...

    The same in rotational dynamics...the gyroscope is specifically designed to NOT have any forces or torques acting on it...

    But a spinning helicopter rotor is a different matter...it is also a large gyroscope but it has all kinds of outside torques and forces acting on it...

    Hence...we need to now apply the math of conservation of momentum in order to solve these questions...

    Kapish...?

    I hope this makes sense...you seem like exactly the kind of reader that I had in mind when I responded to the nitwit Turdeye...

    PS...I wish you hadn't given him that link to the equations for moment of inertia...now he'll be able to solve the problem I gave him that he otherwise never would have...

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…

    That statement is 180 degrees backwards. All that is required for a body to have inertia is mass. We’re back to good old F=MA here. Solve for M. F proportional to M is required to achieve a given A and A is achieved for a given F inversely proportional to M. That is a succinct description of inertia as related to mass. You should not be pontificating if you need these rudiments explained to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    First my credentials: I am a frisbee throwing and a hula-hoop physicist with a minor in bowling.

    Now that I have completely intimidated you...

    I will go on with my observation about when I have noticed inertia and momentum being used. It would seem to me inertia is considered when acting on an object where as momentum appears to be a description of the object action on anything else. That is to say momentum has a frame of reference between twp points where as inertia is the pile of sandbags without respect to know what is incoming.

    https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-momentum-and-vs-inertia/



    – Momentum is a physically calculable property, while inertia cannot be calculated using a formulae.

    – Inertia is just a concept to help us understand and define mechanics better.

    – While, momentum comes in the forms of linear momentum and angular momentum, the inertia comes only in one form.


    FB says :

    "This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…"

    Perhaps it would be more clear if he had said "the moving object's own independent inertia" .

    Out of context it appears FB is wrong because he seems to be suggesting that momentum is a primitive that leads to inertia. However I believe he is not talking about theoretical frame works. This is in regard to the stateful nature of the engineering problem. Momentum creates the gyroscopic effect. That results in its independent inertia. , independent of the rest of the system.

    Just so you know that would tend to piss me off too.

    If I were to suggest that CO2 is required to make fire with wood , one could easily assault me for suggesting a well know fire suppressant does not make fire by taking me out of context. However as a stateful engineering problem, I am going to need CO2 to make fire because of the krebs cycle . If there is no CO2, then there can be no wood, and hence no fire.

    Anyway, I was thinking of flying a kite next to brush up on string theory.


    Anyway, best of luck with FB..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Thirdeye says:
    @gwynedd1
    OK I am not following. Granted I am not in my field of expertise. I am trying to see which of you has any credibility.

    Your fist comment appeared to be correcting FB by correcting a cat comment by saying its a Russian Blue. All motion is going to axiomatically follow laws of physics involving motion and you said its "wrong".??? It would seem that inertia does apply to gyroscopes and it could only be criticized for a lack of precision , if applicable.

    Now this one you say " gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning"

    Well no , not relative to an independent object. That is the idea of them.

    "It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum"

    I think what you mean is a gyroscope responds to torque forces when pulling on the string on my childhood toy, but that is just to create the gyroscopic effect. The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them. Its an on board independent reference is it not.

    This does not make FB wrong about gyroscopes by changing the context of what is being discussed.

    The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them.

    Certain mechanical devices such as lead-correcting gun sights and stabilizer control systems use the reactive torque from gyroscopes. Anyone who rides a two-wheeled vehicle uses the reactive torque of gyroscopes for steering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    I do not think that would be denied as an engineering application when using it as a stabilizing force. in that application a gyroscope is used as a cane for an independent force to supplement the legs . in this case the Gyro functioning like a bubble balancer. So its not going to be applicable for a navigation system where an independent reference is required . It would be detrimental to have any force acting on the latter application. So it seems to me that you are attempting to argue physics when the argument is over engineering application. FB is not saying it cannot. He is saying it is not, according to the engineering application.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Thirdeye says:

    The asswipe ‘Turdeye ‘jumped in like a monkey waving a banana because he doesn’t understand that conservation of momentum is not relevant to the gyroscope in a nav system…UNLESS a torque is applied to that gyro’s axis of rotation…

    Conservation of angular momentum is the reason gyroscopes hold orientation in space. It is highly relevant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  183. Thirdeye says:
    @FB

    I am left to wonder how angular momentum has nothing to do with inertia myself?
     
    I spent quite a bit of time explaining the relationship between momentum and inertia did I not...?

    ...including defining mathematically both linear and rotational momentum and how they relate to inertia...

    Maybe you missed all that while scanning the Bible Gateway site...?

    Inertia is an easy concept to grasp...as is the way it relates to momentum...

    An object in motion...whether translating in a straight line...or rotating about an axis will have momentum...depending on its mass and velocity if translating...and its moment of inertia and angular velocity if rotating...

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia...ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it...

    The way this applies to a spinning wheel [gyroscope] is that it is the inertia that is the thing doing the resisting...

    That is all we need to understand if we are talking about gyroscopes because the key thing here is that they are designed to keep spinning in their orientation and not move...

    In other words...they are a reference frame...one for each axis of three dimensional space...or more precisely the three axes of the rigid body flight vehicle...

    The asswipe 'Turdeye 'jumped in like a monkey waving a banana because he doesn't understand that conservation of momentum is not relevant to the gyroscope in a nav system...UNLESS a torque is applied to that gyro's axis of rotation...

    But this does not happen because the gyro is on gimbals that isolate it from outside torques...

    The whole idea of the gyro as a spatial and axial reference is for it to remain always in its orientation...

    You seem to have caught on to this already in your previous comment addressed to Turdeye...

    '...I think what you mean is a gyroscope responds to torque forces when pulling on the string on my childhood toy, but that is just to create the gyroscopic effect. The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them. Its an on board independent reference is it not...'
     

    Bingo...

    So it is a matter of where do we apply these ideas of 'inertia' and 'conservation of momentum'...?

    That's what this is all about...science is precise and the language is nuanced...

    Also the math is meant to be applied to specific problems...

    For instance...conservation of linear momentum is used in collisions...such as car collisions...where we apply the math to determine what happened AFTER a collision...

    There is no need to think about conservation of momentum while driving along...it is enough to say the moving body has inertia...

    The same in rotational dynamics...the gyroscope is specifically designed to NOT have any forces or torques acting on it...

    But a spinning helicopter rotor is a different matter...it is also a large gyroscope but it has all kinds of outside torques and forces acting on it...

    Hence...we need to now apply the math of conservation of momentum in order to solve these questions...

    Kapish...?

    I hope this makes sense...you seem like exactly the kind of reader that I had in mind when I responded to the nitwit Turdeye...

    PS...I wish you hadn't given him that link to the equations for moment of inertia...now he'll be able to solve the problem I gave him that he otherwise never would have...

    I spent quite a bit of time explaining the relationship between momentum and inertia did I not…?

    …..and you got it wrong, wrong, wrong! To make it more explicit for a certain numbskull who thinks he knows everything:

    every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line……(Newton’s First Law, “the law of inertia”)

    At rest. Get it? No momentum required for an object to have inertia.

    Say, since you like asking about formulae for MOI of rotating bodies, tell us the (1) mathematical relationship between the MOI of a sphere and that of a cylinder of the same radius and same mass, and (2) the length of the cylinder relative to the radius that would be required to contain the same mass as the sphere (density constant). No partial credit will be given.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Thirdeye says:
    @FB
    Thanks Nosey...science is fun...and not that difficult to understand...

    …science is fun…and not that difficult to understand…

    But you don’t understand it!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. FB says:
    @Thirdeye
    1/2MR(squared) , i.e. the mass, M, times the integral, 1/2 R(squared), of the radius R.

    Where did I ever ‘attribute’ positioning [whatever the hell that is supposed to mean] to gyroscopes…?
     
    You answered in your next self-quote:

    ‘…A computer is used to do the math…namely two integrations [calculus] which are required to take the gyro sensor inputs and convert them to a position fix…’
     
    So not only are you wrong in attributing navigational data to the gyroscope, you have trouble remembering what you wrote and you can't understand what you yourself wrote when you read it again. Great!

    it is a spinning wheel’s inertia…rotational inertia to be specific…that keeps a gyro from resisting a change of direction to its spinning axis
     
    Putting your incorrect terminology aside, your words make absolutely no sense. All of the useful properties of gyroscopes arise from their resisting changes to direction of their spinning axis under conservation of angular momentum.

    The reason that a spinning gyro…or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia…

     

    Wrong. It is due to conservation of angular momentum. A gyroscope, like anything else with mass, has inertia even when stationary. It has angular momentum only when spinning. When a torque is exerted on the axis of a gyroscope it exerts an equal torque back on the source of the torque so that angular momentum is conserved in the entire system (a case of Newton's Third Law). Do you even understand the difference between vector and scalar quantities? (Hint: inertia is scalar, momentum is vector.)

    As for your other gibberish about gyroscopes in inertial nav systems…you squawked this…

    ‘…You are wrong in attributing positioning to the gyroscope. That role is filled by the accelerometers…’

     

    What a complete and utter asswipe you are…

    What does that piece of gibberish even mean…?
     

    Seriously? You have no business pontificating about inertial guidance systems if you don't know what accelerometers are.

    And let’s look at what you just shat out here…

    ‘…The gyroscope does not respond to changes in X, Y, or Z positioning or velocity. It responds to torque forces that perturb its rotational axis, i.e. angular momentum…’
     

    What an utter idiot…you think you can bullshit here because you assume some of the readers may not understand your meaningless bird squawks…
     
    If you don't understand the language of the Cartesian co-ordinate system, the basic language of kinematics in three-dimensional space, you are in way, way over your head.

    Let me acquaint you with one more rule, The Rule of Holes. When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging.

    Shaddup Turdeye…

    Nobody wants to hear monkey noises from someone whose education in physics reaches the lofty heights of the freshman level…

    Nobody’s buying your crapola…like the commenter ‘gwynedd1′ who pegged you quite accurately as a member of the peanut gallery…

    You’re not qualified to be in this discussion in the first place…a little knowledge is a dangerous thing as the saying goes…

    You’re not even able to solve the simple problem I presented even though gwynedd1 pointed to a physics website with the formulas for inertia…what a loser…

    All you did was give the formula…I asked you to evaluate the solution based on the numbers I gave…

    But a twerp like you can’t even do that…

    Let me make it more interesting…just so we all see what your capabilities in physics actually are…

    Suppose that spinning wheel of 1 m diameter and 1 kg weight I presented earlier was spun up to 10 revolutions per second in 3 seconds…

    How much power is required to do that…?

    Good luck hockey puck…show everyone here just how far that freshman physics knowledge goes…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. yurivku says:
    @Philip Owen
    Your source is Lavrov who constantly lies. His team is the source of a large proportion of Russian fake news. 2000 dead in Tsinkhvali as a starter. Try some other sources on BZ.

    You are a good provement how stupid all brits are. But you can proudly say – I’m not a bit more stupid than may/johnson/williamson.
    Good job philip, keep it going.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    Well, there goes Britain along the the Balkans ...However I would content that there might be some hope among the Welsh. The joke and prankster prisons have littered Scotland with hostile fortifications, and I fear the region is lost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. FB says:

    For the benefit of readers here who may now be somewhat confused due to Turdeye’s disruptive monkey squawks regarding inertia and conservation of momentum…

    Let’s review here what I said about inertial nav systems [INS] and how they work…in the case of an aircraft or missile it is a self-contained navigation device that uses gyroscopic principles to determine its geographic location or position in three dimensional space at any time during its flight…

    I explained that a gyroscope is a device that relies on inertia in order to keep its orientation regardless of any orientation changes in the vehicle itself…

    Since there are three axes in three dimensional space…three onboard gyroscopes oriented along the three respective axes of the flight vehicle will provide a reference frame that does not change…

    As I explained in my original comment…

    ‘…Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight…the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one…’

    Unfortunately a ‘Turdeye’ who has completed freshman physics [monkeys clapping]…decided to jump in at that point and spurt out a whole bunch of incoherent babble that only served to muddy the waters…

    [this is even dumber than a monkey who starts shrieking...because a monkey's shrieks at least serve a useful purpose...usually to warn fellow monkeys of predators nearby...]

    Turdeye’s main bone of contention seems to be that a gyroscope remains spinning due to ‘conservation of angular momentum’…not inertia…

    An example is his comment #179…

    ‘… The reason that a spinning gyro…or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia…

    Wrong. It is due to conservation of angular momentum.

    And again at his comment #180…

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…

    That statement is 180 degrees backwards.

    Of course this is completely FALSE…

    Inertia is the only reason that a moving object like a spinning gyro continues moving…it has nothing to do with angular momentum…as well shall prove…

    It is unfortunate that this monkeyboy chooses to be disruptive here…without regard to serious participants here…upon whose heads he is squatting and shitting…

    …making it necessary for me to continue to debunk his useless noise for the sake of readers who now have Turdeye shit all over this thread…

    Fortunately it is quite simple to debunk his monkey-level knowledge of physics…and bring clarity to this question…

    I had already stated that inertia and conservation of momentum are closely related…but there is a major distinction…

    Conservation of momentum is applied when a change happens…for instance two objects collide in the case of linear momentum…

    In the case of angular momentum…the change to the system might be a wheel that is moving at a certain rotational speed and a torque is applied to spin it up to higher speed or change its axis of rotation…this could be a flywheel or gyroscope or a propeller or a control moment gyroscope used to stabilize spacecraft and keep it in its proper attitude…

    So the idea behind conservation of momentum applies only when a change has occurred…and that is important because the idea of physics is to provide math that can solve these problems…

    Clearly that is not the case in an inertial reference system…the gyro is designed to be isolated completely from any forces or torque acting on the craft…there are no torques or forces acting on the gyro.

    It is an inertial reference frame…and hence is called an ‘inertial’ system…not a ‘conservation of angular momentum system’…perhaps Turdeye should contact Honeywell and tell them how wrong they are in calling it an ‘INERTIAL’ system…

    Now Turdey…whose knowledge is limited to freshman physics [what an astounding dolt]…tells us that the gyro spins due to conservation of momentum…not inertia…

    ‘…Conservation of angular momentum is the reason gyroscopes hold orientation in space. It is highly relevant…’

    This same question has been asked by many with regard to why does the earth spin when there are no forces on it…?

    Here is why…the reason is inertia…Turdeye does not want to accept this…but accept it he must…because it is fact…

    In this article the author explains the answer as to why the earth spins…[and maintains its exact orientation...]

    It has nothing whatever to do with conservation of momentum…although conservation of momentum did play a part in how the earth and other planets were formed from swirling particles…

    ‘…Earth spins because it formed in the accretion disk of a cloud of hydrogen that collapsed down from mutual gravity and needed to conserve its angular momentum.

    It continues to spin because of inertia…’

    The author does a nice job of explaining how conservation of angular momentum played a key role in the formation of our solar system…and by the same means also galaxies…

    ‘…Think about the individual atoms in the cloud of hydrogen. Each particle has its own momentum as it drifts through the void. As these atoms glom onto one another with gravity, they need to average out their momentum. It might be possible to average out perfectly to zero, but it’s really really unlikely.

    Which means, there will be some left over. Like a figure skater pulling in her arms to spin more rapidly, the collapsing proto-Solar System with its averaged out particle momentum began to spin faster and faster.

    This is the conservation of angular momentum at work…’

    The figure skater analogy is one that is often used in introductory physics texts to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum…a good online explanation is here…

    ‘…When a figure skater draws her arms and a leg inward, she reduces the distance between the axis of rotation and some of her mass, reducing her moment of inertia.

    Since angular momentum is conserved, her rotational velocity must increase to compensate. …’

    The same is true for the converse case…slowing down from a spin, the skater pushes his arms and a leg outward to move his mass to a greater distance from his spin axis…thereby moment of inertia decreases and the rotation speed must naturally decrease…



    –Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 346

    Now it is obvious that a spinning gyroscope does not have arms and legs and is not able to change its inertia…

    Which illustrates perfectly the reason why conservation of angular momentum is irrelevant to inertial nav systems…

    The gyro…like our earth continues to spin due to inertia…not conservation of momentum…

    This is nicely illustrated in this video where a young man who does understand physics talks about why a globe made out of solid granite and floating on a thin layer of water continues to spin…

    Notice that many of the respondents are as confused as Turdeye…offering up explanations about some force or other…

    Notice the text on screen at the 2:23 mark…

    ‘…Earth spins because it formed out of dust that was spinning. It continues spinning because mass maintains its state of motion unless acted upon by a force.

    This property is called inertia…’

    To sum up…we see clearly here the distinction between inertia and conservation of momentum…

    The earth is spinning because the cosmic dust clouds from the planets formed were spinning in a particular direction…

    When those dust particles collided with one another…the conservation of momentum applied…

    Once the system had reached equilibrium and no more collisions were involved…the planets continued to spin due solely to inertia…

    The same is true of the figure skater…once the skater is spinning there is no conservation of momentum involved…UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES…like the skater changing the position of his arms and leg…

    If the skater does not change, he or she will continue spinning due to inertia…until he or she tires and lets his or her arms down, or gets dizzy or whatever…

    This is the important distinction here…and is quite easy to understand…[at least for someone more intelligent than a tree monkey...]

    It is quite amazing that a monkey turd with a physics background that consists of some freshman level course takes it upon himself to pick an argument with someone who could be the teacher of his teacher…

    As Erebus said on the other thread…’On the Internet no one knows you’re a dog…’

    In this case…no one knew that Turdeye is dumber than a tree monkey…until now…proven beyond all doubt…

    QED

    Read More
    • Replies: @gwynedd1
    "When those dust particles collided with one another…the conservation of momentum applied…

    Once the system had reached equilibrium and no more collisions were involved…the planets continued to spin due solely to inertia…
    "

    With this I believe I did indeed understand what you are saying correctly.
    , @Thirdeye

    ... a gyroscope is a device that relies on inertia in order to keep its orientation...
     
    WRONG! Inertia helps sustain the spin of the gyroscope, but the reason the spinning keeps the gyroscope oriented in three-dimensional space is conservation of angular momentum.

    So the idea behind conservation of momentum applies only when a change has occurred
     
    WRONG! Conservation of angular momentum applies to a single-element system such as a rotating celestial body as well as more complex systems where forces arise from interacting elements.

    Now Turdey…whose knowledge is limited to freshman physics [what an astounding dolt]…tells us that the gyro spins due to conservation of momentum…not inertia…
     
    A year of physics for science majors, plus geophysics. And you mis-represented my argument amidst all your coprophilic spewing. Of course anyone who reads the next quote block after that statement can see that you have done a false representation. Conservation of angular momentum is the reason a spinning object holds orientation in space, not the reason a gyroscope spins.



    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…
     
    That statement is 180 degrees backwards.
     
    Of course this is completely FALSE…
     
    Argument by assertion after conveniently omitting the explanation of why your argument is backwards (You don't even understand Newton's First Law or the relationship between inertia and mass!), followed by another muddled and coprophilic tangent that is nothing more than a smokescreen to disguise the fact that you do not understand conservation of angular momentum.

    QED? Good one!

    It's a sunny spring day and I've wasted enough of it, although watching the antics of an ignorant blowhard who puts his fragile ego above actually learning something has provided me with a sort of morbid entertainment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl4zXroojwM
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. gwynedd1 says:
    @Thirdeye

    The inertia of the gyro is not supposed to have forces acting on it after creating the gyroscopic effect. That is the point of them.
     
    Certain mechanical devices such as lead-correcting gun sights and stabilizer control systems use the reactive torque from gyroscopes. Anyone who rides a two-wheeled vehicle uses the reactive torque of gyroscopes for steering.

    I do not think that would be denied as an engineering application when using it as a stabilizing force. in that application a gyroscope is used as a cane for an independent force to supplement the legs . in this case the Gyro functioning like a bubble balancer. So its not going to be applicable for a navigation system where an independent reference is required . It would be detrimental to have any force acting on the latter application. So it seems to me that you are attempting to argue physics when the argument is over engineering application. FB is not saying it cannot. He is saying it is not, according to the engineering application.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Some sensible comments there...

    Turdeye's reply to you regarding the fact of the gyro being used as a reference shows just how deceitful he is...

    This resort to deception and obfuscation is the part that rankles in any honest discussion...

    Let's review this snippet...you initially replied to Turdeye... saying sensibly and quite correctly that the nav gyro's entire point is to be isolated [independent] of outside forces...

    Yet he comes back with the bicycle...where the gyro effect is used as a 'cane to supplement the legs' as you put it in your fine analogy...ie the complete opposite of being isolated and a reference...

    So it is clear he is trying to bamboozle us with BS...[hence his throwing in all kinds of other irrelevant crap like vectors etc...]

    I will just note here that even his understanding of the bicycle falls well short of your own understanding of the gyroscopic effect as a stabilizer...

    Turdeye incoherently yaps about 'torque' through the handlebars...a clueless dolt as always...

    Just to illustrate...the stabilizing gyroscopic effect of the bicycle is most clearly evident without a rider...ie give it a push and it will roll forward upright under the stabilizing influence of the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels...instead of just falling over when not moving...

    So much for Turdeye's monkey gibberish about 'handlebar torque'...what a complete and utter know-nothing...

    A similar analogy is the long bar held by the tightrope walker...the gyroscopic effect [rotational inertia] does not come into play here but translational inertia does...

    Most people assume incorrectly that the bar is so the walker can balance himself by moving the bar side to side...

    The fact is that the walker is holding onto the bar to steady himself...as the bar has inertia...ie he has the analog of a handrail...he is not moving the bar but moving his own body as he holds on to the 'handrail'...

    Thanks also for that link on the difference between inertia and momentum...a nice bullet point snippet there at the bottom...


    – Momentum is a physically calculable property, while inertia cannot be calculated using a formulae.

    – Inertia is just a concept to help us understand and define mechanics better.

    – While, momentum comes in the forms of linear momentum and angular momentum, the inertia comes only in one form.

    – Momentum is conserved in some cases. Momentum conservation can be used to solve problems. Inertia doesn’t have to be conserved in any case.
     

    All of these are points I have covered and stressed...especially the part about conservation of momentum solving engineering problems...

    The bottom line is that Turdeye has jumped in for no reason and babbled a lot of nonsense only for the sake of being contrarian...

    ...and also thinking that he could fool people by throwing up a lot of dust...

    And finally about my previous statement...


    '...This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…'
     
    I have highlighted 'quantity' because momentum can be quantified ie L = I * ω...the faster the gyro spins the greater will be its momentum...and thus the greater its inertia...which cannot be quantified...and which does not need to be quantified unless there is an interaction of some kind...such as an outside force...only then do we turn to conservation laws as you also pointed out...

    Now what is interesting here is the apparent chicken and egg dichotomy...and which you illustrated with the case of fire and carbon...

    Here is an interesting comment on a forum that tries to put this into perspective...


    '...Even though the conservation of angular momentum is a good and practical way of explaining the (nearly) conservation of the Earth's spin, the deep physical intuition is in the concept of inertia.

    In the limit that the moment of inertia goes to zero, the torque needed to accelerate (or decelerate) the body tends towards zero. It means that if there were no inertia (more precisely, when it tends towards zero) the spin of the Earth could increase or decrease arbitrarily fast even for external torque approaching zero. This can be seen from the Newton's second law for a rigid body rotating along a fixed axis,

    τ=Iα,

    where τ is the external torque, α is the angular acceleration and I is the moment of inertia. When I→0 and τ→0, then α is arbitrary. Note that the angular momentum would still be conserved, since its rate is

    https://s20.postimg.cc/7y9hgzzfh/Momentum.jpg

    However the angular momentum itself (as well as linear momentum) would be meaningless without inertia since it depends on mass.

    It is the existence of inertial mass that makes the dynamical quantities L and p=mv the relevant ones. Therefore, although the explanations are closely related, the meaning of inertia is more fundamental than the meaning of angular momentum or its conservation...'
     

    Note that this commenter astutely mentioned 'inertial' mass...as I have already remarked previously in quoting Knight...

    I agree with this distinction that inertia is the more fundamental concept...but it is also far less useful in actually solving engineering problems...as I have already stated...

    The conservation of momentum is a fundamental tool in this...not just for rotational dynamics...but for any kind of motion that involves a change in momentum...such as thrust from a jet engine for instance...

    Newton's Second law F= mass x acceleration applies here as the air mass going into the engine is accelerated to a higher velocity creating thrust...which is a force...

    However F = m a was actually formulated by Newton as a 'change of momentum'...ie imparting a change of momentum to the air going through a jet engine is what causes thrust...we see this formulation thus...

    https://s20.postimg.cc/6r052qw6l/Second_Law.jpg


    So we see that F = ma is really the derivative of velocity with respect to time...ie a change of momentum...

    This is how Newton actually stated the Second Law in the Principia...

    And from this was derived the conservation of momentum...as can be clearly seen in the relationship above...

    https://s20.postimg.cc/exs4txopp/Conservation_Momentum.jpg


    --Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 247

    The same holds true for rotational motion problems...for instance in designing a helicopter rotor...here the rotational equivalent of force is torque and the rotational equivalent of mass is moment of inertia...

    https://s20.postimg.cc/6tk0p5ckd/Second_Law_rotational_motion.jpg

    --Knight, page 356

    So an example application here might be the kinds of problems encountered with a helicopter rotor or airplane or ship propeller...

    These math tools allow us to create these kinds of engineering solutions...

    So there is no question that the practical application of conservation laws...[there is also conservation of mass and conservation of energy]...these three are the essential tools in the practitioner's toolbox...

    But the whole point is knowing when to pull the right tool out of the box...in order to do that one must understand what those tools are and what they are used for...

    Like I said...it is utterly nonsensical to get into conservation of momentum in the context of a discussion of inertial reference frames...which is what a gyro does in a nav system...it simply has no place in this discussion...

    If someone came to me with this...I would say 'okay what are you going to analyze here in terms of conservation of momentum...?'

    The result would be a blank stare...the accelerations of the aircraft are simply measured and recorded by reference to the inertial reference frame...ie the gyros...

    The math involved in calculating velocity and position has nothing to do with conservation of momentum...it has to do with kinematics...[ie the accelerations are integrated over time to get velocity, and velocity and direction in turn integrated over distance to get position]...

    The fact that an utter know-nothing can pipe up like a moron here and shit all over the place is simply disgusting...

    Anyway...thanks for your interesting comments and good luck with that kite and the string theory...LOL

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. gwynedd1 says:
    @yurivku
    You are a good provement how stupid all brits are. But you can proudly say - I'm not a bit more stupid than may/johnson/williamson.
    Good job philip, keep it going.

    Well, there goes Britain along the the Balkans …However I would content that there might be some hope among the Welsh. The joke and prankster prisons have littered Scotland with hostile fortifications, and I fear the region is lost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @yurivku

    Well, there goes Britain along the the Balkans …
     
    From Balkans we have here the dumb Croatian moron peterAus, all others seem to me be nice and clever.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. gwynedd1 says:
    @Thirdeye

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…
     
    That statement is 180 degrees backwards. All that is required for a body to have inertia is mass. We're back to good old F=MA here. Solve for M. F proportional to M is required to achieve a given A and A is achieved for a given F inversely proportional to M. That is a succinct description of inertia as related to mass. You should not be pontificating if you need these rudiments explained to you.

    First my credentials: I am a frisbee throwing and a hula-hoop physicist with a minor in bowling.

    Now that I have completely intimidated you…

    I will go on with my observation about when I have noticed inertia and momentum being used. It would seem to me inertia is considered when acting on an object where as momentum appears to be a description of the object action on anything else. That is to say momentum has a frame of reference between twp points where as inertia is the pile of sandbags without respect to know what is incoming.

    https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-momentum-and-vs-inertia/

    – Momentum is a physically calculable property, while inertia cannot be calculated using a formulae.

    – Inertia is just a concept to help us understand and define mechanics better.

    – While, momentum comes in the forms of linear momentum and angular momentum, the inertia comes only in one form.

    FB says :

    “This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…”

    Perhaps it would be more clear if he had said “the moving object’s own independent inertia” .

    Out of context it appears FB is wrong because he seems to be suggesting that momentum is a primitive that leads to inertia. However I believe he is not talking about theoretical frame works. This is in regard to the stateful nature of the engineering problem. Momentum creates the gyroscopic effect. That results in its independent inertia. , independent of the rest of the system.

    Just so you know that would tend to piss me off too.

    If I were to suggest that CO2 is required to make fire with wood , one could easily assault me for suggesting a well know fire suppressant does not make fire by taking me out of context. However as a stateful engineering problem, I am going to need CO2 to make fire because of the krebs cycle . If there is no CO2, then there can be no wood, and hence no fire.

    Anyway, I was thinking of flying a kite next to brush up on string theory.

    Anyway, best of luck with FB..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. gwynedd1 says:
    @FB
    For the benefit of readers here who may now be somewhat confused due to Turdeye's disruptive monkey squawks regarding inertia and conservation of momentum...

    Let's review here what I said about inertial nav systems [INS] and how they work...in the case of an aircraft or missile it is a self-contained navigation device that uses gyroscopic principles to determine its geographic location or position in three dimensional space at any time during its flight...

    I explained that a gyroscope is a device that relies on inertia in order to keep its orientation regardless of any orientation changes in the vehicle itself...

    Since there are three axes in three dimensional space...three onboard gyroscopes oriented along the three respective axes of the flight vehicle will provide a reference frame that does not change...

    As I explained in my original comment...


    '...Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight…the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one…'
     
    Unfortunately a 'Turdeye' who has completed freshman physics [monkeys clapping]...decided to jump in at that point and spurt out a whole bunch of incoherent babble that only served to muddy the waters...

    [this is even dumber than a monkey who starts shrieking...because a monkey's shrieks at least serve a useful purpose...usually to warn fellow monkeys of predators nearby...]

    Turdeye's main bone of contention seems to be that a gyroscope remains spinning due to 'conservation of angular momentum'...not inertia...

    An example is his comment #179...



    '... The reason that a spinning gyro…or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia…

     

    Wrong. It is due to conservation of angular momentum.
     
    And again at his comment #180...


    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…
     
    That statement is 180 degrees backwards.
     

     Of course this is completely FALSE...

    Inertia is the only reason that a moving object like a spinning gyro continues moving...it has nothing to do with angular momentum...as well shall prove...

    It is unfortunate that this monkeyboy chooses to be disruptive here...without regard to serious participants here...upon whose heads he is squatting and shitting...

    ...making it necessary for me to continue to debunk his useless noise for the sake of readers who now have Turdeye shit all over this thread...

    Fortunately it is quite simple to debunk his monkey-level knowledge of physics...and bring clarity to this question...

    I had already stated that inertia and conservation of momentum are closely related...but there is a major distinction...

    Conservation of momentum is applied when a change happens...for instance two objects collide in the case of linear momentum...

    In the case of angular momentum...the change to the system might be a wheel that is moving at a certain rotational speed and a torque is applied to spin it up to higher speed or change its axis of rotation...this could be a flywheel or gyroscope or a propeller or a control moment gyroscope used to stabilize spacecraft and keep it in its proper attitude...

    So the idea behind conservation of momentum applies only when a change has occurred...and that is important because the idea of physics is to provide math that can solve these problems...

    Clearly that is not the case in an inertial reference system...the gyro is designed to be isolated completely from any forces or torque acting on the craft...there are no torques or forces acting on the gyro.

    It is an inertial reference frame...and hence is called an 'inertial' system...not a 'conservation of angular momentum system'...perhaps Turdeye should contact Honeywell and tell them how wrong they are in calling it an 'INERTIAL' system...

    Now Turdey...whose knowledge is limited to freshman physics [what an astounding dolt]...tells us that the gyro spins due to conservation of momentum...not inertia...


    '...Conservation of angular momentum is the reason gyroscopes hold orientation in space. It is highly relevant...'
     
    This same question has been asked by many with regard to why does the earth spin when there are no forces on it...?

    Here is why...the reason is inertia...Turdeye does not want to accept this...but accept it he must...because it is fact...

    In this article the author explains the answer as to why the earth spins...[and maintains its exact orientation...]

    It has nothing whatever to do with conservation of momentum...although conservation of momentum did play a part in how the earth and other planets were formed from swirling particles...


    '...Earth spins because it formed in the accretion disk of a cloud of hydrogen that collapsed down from mutual gravity and needed to conserve its angular momentum.

    It continues to spin because of inertia...'
     

    The author does a nice job of explaining how conservation of angular momentum played a key role in the formation of our solar system...and by the same means also galaxies...

    '...Think about the individual atoms in the cloud of hydrogen. Each particle has its own momentum as it drifts through the void. As these atoms glom onto one another with gravity, they need to average out their momentum. It might be possible to average out perfectly to zero, but it’s really really unlikely.

    Which means, there will be some left over. Like a figure skater pulling in her arms to spin more rapidly, the collapsing proto-Solar System with its averaged out particle momentum began to spin faster and faster.

    This is the conservation of angular momentum at work...'
     

    The figure skater analogy is one that is often used in introductory physics texts to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum...a good online explanation is here...

    '...When a figure skater draws her arms and a leg inward, she reduces the distance between the axis of rotation and some of her mass, reducing her moment of inertia.

    Since angular momentum is conserved, her rotational velocity must increase to compensate. ...'
     

    The same is true for the converse case...slowing down from a spin, the skater pushes his arms and a leg outward to move his mass to a greater distance from his spin axis...thereby moment of inertia decreases and the rotation speed must naturally decrease...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/en6u5kvq5/Angular_Momentum_Skater.jpg


    https://s20.postimg.cc/x0c0tudkd/Angular_Momentum_Skater_2.jpg

    --Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 346

    Now it is obvious that a spinning gyroscope does not have arms and legs and is not able to change its inertia...

    Which illustrates perfectly the reason why conservation of angular momentum is irrelevant to inertial nav systems...

    The gyro...like our earth continues to spin due to inertia...not conservation of momentum...

    This is nicely illustrated in this video where a young man who does understand physics talks about why a globe made out of solid granite and floating on a thin layer of water continues to spin...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQxeutcYP6I

    Notice that many of the respondents are as confused as Turdeye...offering up explanations about some force or other...

    Notice the text on screen at the 2:23 mark...


    '...Earth spins because it formed out of dust that was spinning. It continues spinning because mass maintains its state of motion unless acted upon by a force.

    This property is called inertia...'
     

    To sum up...we see clearly here the distinction between inertia and conservation of momentum...

    The earth is spinning because the cosmic dust clouds from the planets formed were spinning in a particular direction...

    When those dust particles collided with one another...the conservation of momentum applied...

    Once the system had reached equilibrium and no more collisions were involved...the planets continued to spin due solely to inertia...

    The same is true of the figure skater...once the skater is spinning there is no conservation of momentum involved...UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES...like the skater changing the position of his arms and leg...

    If the skater does not change, he or she will continue spinning due to inertia...until he or she tires and lets his or her arms down, or gets dizzy or whatever...

    This is the important distinction here...and is quite easy to understand...[at least for someone more intelligent than a tree monkey...]

    It is quite amazing that a monkey turd with a physics background that consists of some freshman level course takes it upon himself to pick an argument with someone who could be the teacher of his teacher...

    As Erebus said on the other thread...'On the Internet no one knows you're a dog...'

    In this case...no one knew that Turdeye is dumber than a tree monkey...until now...proven beyond all doubt...

    QED

    “When those dust particles collided with one another…the conservation of momentum applied…

    Once the system had reached equilibrium and no more collisions were involved…the planets continued to spin due solely to inertia…

    With this I believe I did indeed understand what you are saying correctly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. Thirdeye says:
    @FB
    For the benefit of readers here who may now be somewhat confused due to Turdeye's disruptive monkey squawks regarding inertia and conservation of momentum...

    Let's review here what I said about inertial nav systems [INS] and how they work...in the case of an aircraft or missile it is a self-contained navigation device that uses gyroscopic principles to determine its geographic location or position in three dimensional space at any time during its flight...

    I explained that a gyroscope is a device that relies on inertia in order to keep its orientation regardless of any orientation changes in the vehicle itself...

    Since there are three axes in three dimensional space...three onboard gyroscopes oriented along the three respective axes of the flight vehicle will provide a reference frame that does not change...

    As I explained in my original comment...


    '...Knowing the exact geographic coordinates from where you started the flight…the inertial system can thus calculate your position at any time during the flight based on the accelerations of the vehicle that have occurred since moment one…'
     
    Unfortunately a 'Turdeye' who has completed freshman physics [monkeys clapping]...decided to jump in at that point and spurt out a whole bunch of incoherent babble that only served to muddy the waters...

    [this is even dumber than a monkey who starts shrieking...because a monkey's shrieks at least serve a useful purpose...usually to warn fellow monkeys of predators nearby...]

    Turdeye's main bone of contention seems to be that a gyroscope remains spinning due to 'conservation of angular momentum'...not inertia...

    An example is his comment #179...



    '... The reason that a spinning gyro…or any rotating object has resistance to being deflected off its axis of rotation is due to its inertia…

     

    Wrong. It is due to conservation of angular momentum.
     
    And again at his comment #180...


    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…
     
    That statement is 180 degrees backwards.
     

     Of course this is completely FALSE...

    Inertia is the only reason that a moving object like a spinning gyro continues moving...it has nothing to do with angular momentum...as well shall prove...

    It is unfortunate that this monkeyboy chooses to be disruptive here...without regard to serious participants here...upon whose heads he is squatting and shitting...

    ...making it necessary for me to continue to debunk his useless noise for the sake of readers who now have Turdeye shit all over this thread...

    Fortunately it is quite simple to debunk his monkey-level knowledge of physics...and bring clarity to this question...

    I had already stated that inertia and conservation of momentum are closely related...but there is a major distinction...

    Conservation of momentum is applied when a change happens...for instance two objects collide in the case of linear momentum...

    In the case of angular momentum...the change to the system might be a wheel that is moving at a certain rotational speed and a torque is applied to spin it up to higher speed or change its axis of rotation...this could be a flywheel or gyroscope or a propeller or a control moment gyroscope used to stabilize spacecraft and keep it in its proper attitude...

    So the idea behind conservation of momentum applies only when a change has occurred...and that is important because the idea of physics is to provide math that can solve these problems...

    Clearly that is not the case in an inertial reference system...the gyro is designed to be isolated completely from any forces or torque acting on the craft...there are no torques or forces acting on the gyro.

    It is an inertial reference frame...and hence is called an 'inertial' system...not a 'conservation of angular momentum system'...perhaps Turdeye should contact Honeywell and tell them how wrong they are in calling it an 'INERTIAL' system...

    Now Turdey...whose knowledge is limited to freshman physics [what an astounding dolt]...tells us that the gyro spins due to conservation of momentum...not inertia...


    '...Conservation of angular momentum is the reason gyroscopes hold orientation in space. It is highly relevant...'
     
    This same question has been asked by many with regard to why does the earth spin when there are no forces on it...?

    Here is why...the reason is inertia...Turdeye does not want to accept this...but accept it he must...because it is fact...

    In this article the author explains the answer as to why the earth spins...[and maintains its exact orientation...]

    It has nothing whatever to do with conservation of momentum...although conservation of momentum did play a part in how the earth and other planets were formed from swirling particles...


    '...Earth spins because it formed in the accretion disk of a cloud of hydrogen that collapsed down from mutual gravity and needed to conserve its angular momentum.

    It continues to spin because of inertia...'
     

    The author does a nice job of explaining how conservation of angular momentum played a key role in the formation of our solar system...and by the same means also galaxies...

    '...Think about the individual atoms in the cloud of hydrogen. Each particle has its own momentum as it drifts through the void. As these atoms glom onto one another with gravity, they need to average out their momentum. It might be possible to average out perfectly to zero, but it’s really really unlikely.

    Which means, there will be some left over. Like a figure skater pulling in her arms to spin more rapidly, the collapsing proto-Solar System with its averaged out particle momentum began to spin faster and faster.

    This is the conservation of angular momentum at work...'
     

    The figure skater analogy is one that is often used in introductory physics texts to demonstrate conservation of angular momentum...a good online explanation is here...

    '...When a figure skater draws her arms and a leg inward, she reduces the distance between the axis of rotation and some of her mass, reducing her moment of inertia.

    Since angular momentum is conserved, her rotational velocity must increase to compensate. ...'
     

    The same is true for the converse case...slowing down from a spin, the skater pushes his arms and a leg outward to move his mass to a greater distance from his spin axis...thereby moment of inertia decreases and the rotation speed must naturally decrease...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/en6u5kvq5/Angular_Momentum_Skater.jpg


    https://s20.postimg.cc/x0c0tudkd/Angular_Momentum_Skater_2.jpg

    --Serway, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 346

    Now it is obvious that a spinning gyroscope does not have arms and legs and is not able to change its inertia...

    Which illustrates perfectly the reason why conservation of angular momentum is irrelevant to inertial nav systems...

    The gyro...like our earth continues to spin due to inertia...not conservation of momentum...

    This is nicely illustrated in this video where a young man who does understand physics talks about why a globe made out of solid granite and floating on a thin layer of water continues to spin...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQxeutcYP6I

    Notice that many of the respondents are as confused as Turdeye...offering up explanations about some force or other...

    Notice the text on screen at the 2:23 mark...


    '...Earth spins because it formed out of dust that was spinning. It continues spinning because mass maintains its state of motion unless acted upon by a force.

    This property is called inertia...'
     

    To sum up...we see clearly here the distinction between inertia and conservation of momentum...

    The earth is spinning because the cosmic dust clouds from the planets formed were spinning in a particular direction...

    When those dust particles collided with one another...the conservation of momentum applied...

    Once the system had reached equilibrium and no more collisions were involved...the planets continued to spin due solely to inertia...

    The same is true of the figure skater...once the skater is spinning there is no conservation of momentum involved...UNLESS SOMETHING CHANGES...like the skater changing the position of his arms and leg...

    If the skater does not change, he or she will continue spinning due to inertia...until he or she tires and lets his or her arms down, or gets dizzy or whatever...

    This is the important distinction here...and is quite easy to understand...[at least for someone more intelligent than a tree monkey...]

    It is quite amazing that a monkey turd with a physics background that consists of some freshman level course takes it upon himself to pick an argument with someone who could be the teacher of his teacher...

    As Erebus said on the other thread...'On the Internet no one knows you're a dog...'

    In this case...no one knew that Turdeye is dumber than a tree monkey...until now...proven beyond all doubt...

    QED

    … a gyroscope is a device that relies on inertia in order to keep its orientation…

    WRONG! Inertia helps sustain the spin of the gyroscope, but the reason the spinning keeps the gyroscope oriented in three-dimensional space is conservation of angular momentum.

    So the idea behind conservation of momentum applies only when a change has occurred

    WRONG! Conservation of angular momentum applies to a single-element system such as a rotating celestial body as well as more complex systems where forces arise from interacting elements.

    Now Turdey…whose knowledge is limited to freshman physics [what an astounding dolt]…tells us that the gyro spins due to conservation of momentum…not inertia…

    A year of physics for science majors, plus geophysics. And you mis-represented my argument amidst all your coprophilic spewing. Of course anyone who reads the next quote block after that statement can see that you have done a false representation. Conservation of angular momentum is the reason a spinning object holds orientation in space, not the reason a gyroscope spins.

    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…

    That statement is 180 degrees backwards.

    Of course this is completely FALSE…

    Argument by assertion after conveniently omitting the explanation of why your argument is backwards (You don’t even understand Newton’s First Law or the relationship between inertia and mass!), followed by another muddled and coprophilic tangent that is nothing more than a smokescreen to disguise the fact that you do not understand conservation of angular momentum.

    QED? Good one!

    It’s a sunny spring day and I’ve wasted enough of it, although watching the antics of an ignorant blowhard who puts his fragile ego above actually learning something has provided me with a sort of morbid entertainment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB

    '...Argument by assertion...'
     
    Indeed Turdeye...

    You have not cited one single source...much less attempted to explain your endless monkey shrieking of the word 'WRONG'...

    What a bizarre idiot...

    Enjoy your sunny day...


    https://s20.postimg.cc/awb1oj47h/telecommunications-mobile-cell-cell_phone-cellphone-mobile_phone.jpg
    , @gwynedd1
    Here is how I proved chickens come from eggs. I showed some kids the cute, fuzzy, yellow chicks emerging from their shells. Then I proposed to the parents the only way to consider the other angle is by having them watch chickens fucking, and then looking deep into the hen's crag....They said no so I won my point.



    From what I gather , Inertia is basically just a concept to explain that something moving does not lose its motion into nothingness , but that it is simply transfered to something else. It keeps its nature until something acts on it. That what it seems to me. Its like creating a gemotric point which has no existence in the real world without reference.

    It would appear momentum appears in relation to something else. Do I have angular momentum or not? Not until an extra terrestrial object is introduced as a reference I would think.

    I just do not see justification for "wrong" , if the idea is to discredit him. Even if it were, it would be splitting hairs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. FB says:
    @gwynedd1
    I do not think that would be denied as an engineering application when using it as a stabilizing force. in that application a gyroscope is used as a cane for an independent force to supplement the legs . in this case the Gyro functioning like a bubble balancer. So its not going to be applicable for a navigation system where an independent reference is required . It would be detrimental to have any force acting on the latter application. So it seems to me that you are attempting to argue physics when the argument is over engineering application. FB is not saying it cannot. He is saying it is not, according to the engineering application.

    Some sensible comments there…

    Turdeye’s reply to you regarding the fact of the gyro being used as a reference shows just how deceitful he is…

    This resort to deception and obfuscation is the part that rankles in any honest discussion…

    Let’s review this snippet…you initially replied to Turdeye… saying sensibly and quite correctly that the nav gyro’s entire point is to be isolated [independent] of outside forces…

    Yet he comes back with the bicycle…where the gyro effect is used as a ‘cane to supplement the legs’ as you put it in your fine analogy…ie the complete opposite of being isolated and a reference…

    So it is clear he is trying to bamboozle us with BS…[hence his throwing in all kinds of other irrelevant crap like vectors etc...]

    I will just note here that even his understanding of the bicycle falls well short of your own understanding of the gyroscopic effect as a stabilizer

    Turdeye incoherently yaps about ‘torque’ through the handlebars…a clueless dolt as always…

    Just to illustrate…the stabilizing gyroscopic effect of the bicycle is most clearly evident without a rider…ie give it a push and it will roll forward upright under the stabilizing influence of the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels…instead of just falling over when not moving…

    So much for Turdeye’s monkey gibberish about ‘handlebar torque’…what a complete and utter know-nothing…

    A similar analogy is the long bar held by the tightrope walker…the gyroscopic effect [rotational inertia] does not come into play here but translational inertia does…

    Most people assume incorrectly that the bar is so the walker can balance himself by moving the bar side to side…

    The fact is that the walker is holding onto the bar to steady himself…as the bar has inertia…ie he has the analog of a handrail…he is not moving the bar but moving his own body as he holds on to the ‘handrail’…

    Thanks also for that link on the difference between inertia and momentum…a nice bullet point snippet there at the bottom…

    – Momentum is a physically calculable property, while inertia cannot be calculated using a formulae.

    – Inertia is just a concept to help us understand and define mechanics better.

    – While, momentum comes in the forms of linear momentum and angular momentum, the inertia comes only in one form.

    – Momentum is conserved in some cases. Momentum conservation can be used to solve problems. Inertia doesn’t have to be conserved in any case.

    All of these are points I have covered and stressed…especially the part about conservation of momentum solving engineering problems…

    The bottom line is that Turdeye has jumped in for no reason and babbled a lot of nonsense only for the sake of being contrarian…

    …and also thinking that he could fool people by throwing up a lot of dust…

    And finally about my previous statement…

    ‘…This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…’

    I have highlighted ‘quantity’ because momentum can be quantified ie L = I * ω…the faster the gyro spins the greater will be its momentum…and thus the greater its inertia…which cannot be quantified…and which does not need to be quantified unless there is an interaction of some kind…such as an outside force…only then do we turn to conservation laws as you also pointed out…

    Now what is interesting here is the apparent chicken and egg dichotomy…and which you illustrated with the case of fire and carbon…

    Here is an interesting comment on a forum that tries to put this into perspective…

    ‘…Even though the conservation of angular momentum is a good and practical way of explaining the (nearly) conservation of the Earth’s spin, the deep physical intuition is in the concept of inertia.

    In the limit that the moment of inertia goes to zero, the torque needed to accelerate (or decelerate) the body tends towards zero. It means that if there were no inertia (more precisely, when it tends towards zero) the spin of the Earth could increase or decrease arbitrarily fast even for external torque approaching zero. This can be seen from the Newton’s second law for a rigid body rotating along a fixed axis,

    τ=Iα,

    where τ is the external torque, α is the angular acceleration and I is the moment of inertia. When I→0 and τ→0, then α is arbitrary. Note that the angular momentum would still be conserved, since its rate is

    However the angular momentum itself (as well as linear momentum) would be meaningless without inertia since it depends on mass.

    It is the existence of inertial mass that makes the dynamical quantities L and p=mv the relevant ones. Therefore, although the explanations are closely related, the meaning of inertia is more fundamental than the meaning of angular momentum or its conservation…’

    Note that this commenter astutely mentioned ‘inertial’ mass…as I have already remarked previously in quoting Knight…

    I agree with this distinction that inertia is the more fundamental concept…but it is also far less useful in actually solving engineering problems…as I have already stated…

    The conservation of momentum is a fundamental tool in this…not just for rotational dynamics…but for any kind of motion that involves a change in momentum…such as thrust from a jet engine for instance…

    Newton’s Second law F= mass x acceleration applies here as the air mass going into the engine is accelerated to a higher velocity creating thrust…which is a force…

    However F = m a was actually formulated by Newton as a ‘change of momentum’…ie imparting a change of momentum to the air going through a jet engine is what causes thrust…we see this formulation thus…

    So we see that F = ma is really the derivative of velocity with respect to time…ie a change of momentum…

    This is how Newton actually stated the Second Law in the Principia…

    And from this was derived the conservation of momentum…as can be clearly seen in the relationship above…

    –Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 247

    The same holds true for rotational motion problems…for instance in designing a helicopter rotor…here the rotational equivalent of force is torque and the rotational equivalent of mass is moment of inertia…

    –Knight, page 356

    So an example application here might be the kinds of problems encountered with a helicopter rotor or airplane or ship propeller…

    These math tools allow us to create these kinds of engineering solutions…

    So there is no question that the practical application of conservation laws…[there is also conservation of mass and conservation of energy]…these three are the essential tools in the practitioner’s toolbox…

    But the whole point is knowing when to pull the right tool out of the box…in order to do that one must understand what those tools are and what they are used for…

    Like I said…it is utterly nonsensical to get into conservation of momentum in the context of a discussion of inertial reference frames…which is what a gyro does in a nav system…it simply has no place in this discussion…

    If someone came to me with this…I would say ‘okay what are you going to analyze here in terms of conservation of momentum…?’

    The result would be a blank stare…the accelerations of the aircraft are simply measured and recorded by reference to the inertial reference frame…ie the gyros…

    The math involved in calculating velocity and position has nothing to do with conservation of momentum…it has to do with kinematics…[ie the accelerations are integrated over time to get velocity, and velocity and direction in turn integrated over distance to get position]…

    The fact that an utter know-nothing can pipe up like a moron here and shit all over the place is simply disgusting…

    Anyway…thanks for your interesting comments and good luck with that kite and the string theory…LOL

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Actually need to correct a bit of wording on the above comment...

    With respect to the tightrope walker analogy...the bar is indeed a case of rotational inertia as well as translational...its mass is distributed such that rotating that bar about its midpoint where the walker is holding it would involve a rotational dynamics problem...and would be tackled with conservation of angular momentum...

    Also in my explanation of the math behind inertial nav systems I had meant to write that the second integration is an integration of velocity over to distance to solve for position...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. FB says:
    @Thirdeye

    ... a gyroscope is a device that relies on inertia in order to keep its orientation...
     
    WRONG! Inertia helps sustain the spin of the gyroscope, but the reason the spinning keeps the gyroscope oriented in three-dimensional space is conservation of angular momentum.

    So the idea behind conservation of momentum applies only when a change has occurred
     
    WRONG! Conservation of angular momentum applies to a single-element system such as a rotating celestial body as well as more complex systems where forces arise from interacting elements.

    Now Turdey…whose knowledge is limited to freshman physics [what an astounding dolt]…tells us that the gyro spins due to conservation of momentum…not inertia…
     
    A year of physics for science majors, plus geophysics. And you mis-represented my argument amidst all your coprophilic spewing. Of course anyone who reads the next quote block after that statement can see that you have done a false representation. Conservation of angular momentum is the reason a spinning object holds orientation in space, not the reason a gyroscope spins.



    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…
     
    That statement is 180 degrees backwards.
     
    Of course this is completely FALSE…
     
    Argument by assertion after conveniently omitting the explanation of why your argument is backwards (You don't even understand Newton's First Law or the relationship between inertia and mass!), followed by another muddled and coprophilic tangent that is nothing more than a smokescreen to disguise the fact that you do not understand conservation of angular momentum.

    QED? Good one!

    It's a sunny spring day and I've wasted enough of it, although watching the antics of an ignorant blowhard who puts his fragile ego above actually learning something has provided me with a sort of morbid entertainment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl4zXroojwM

    ‘…Argument by assertion…’

    Indeed Turdeye…

    You have not cited one single source…much less attempted to explain your endless monkey shrieking of the word ‘WRONG’…

    What a bizarre idiot…

    Enjoy your sunny day…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. FB says:
    @FB
    Some sensible comments there...

    Turdeye's reply to you regarding the fact of the gyro being used as a reference shows just how deceitful he is...

    This resort to deception and obfuscation is the part that rankles in any honest discussion...

    Let's review this snippet...you initially replied to Turdeye... saying sensibly and quite correctly that the nav gyro's entire point is to be isolated [independent] of outside forces...

    Yet he comes back with the bicycle...where the gyro effect is used as a 'cane to supplement the legs' as you put it in your fine analogy...ie the complete opposite of being isolated and a reference...

    So it is clear he is trying to bamboozle us with BS...[hence his throwing in all kinds of other irrelevant crap like vectors etc...]

    I will just note here that even his understanding of the bicycle falls well short of your own understanding of the gyroscopic effect as a stabilizer...

    Turdeye incoherently yaps about 'torque' through the handlebars...a clueless dolt as always...

    Just to illustrate...the stabilizing gyroscopic effect of the bicycle is most clearly evident without a rider...ie give it a push and it will roll forward upright under the stabilizing influence of the gyroscopic effect of the spinning wheels...instead of just falling over when not moving...

    So much for Turdeye's monkey gibberish about 'handlebar torque'...what a complete and utter know-nothing...

    A similar analogy is the long bar held by the tightrope walker...the gyroscopic effect [rotational inertia] does not come into play here but translational inertia does...

    Most people assume incorrectly that the bar is so the walker can balance himself by moving the bar side to side...

    The fact is that the walker is holding onto the bar to steady himself...as the bar has inertia...ie he has the analog of a handrail...he is not moving the bar but moving his own body as he holds on to the 'handrail'...

    Thanks also for that link on the difference between inertia and momentum...a nice bullet point snippet there at the bottom...


    – Momentum is a physically calculable property, while inertia cannot be calculated using a formulae.

    – Inertia is just a concept to help us understand and define mechanics better.

    – While, momentum comes in the forms of linear momentum and angular momentum, the inertia comes only in one form.

    – Momentum is conserved in some cases. Momentum conservation can be used to solve problems. Inertia doesn’t have to be conserved in any case.
     

    All of these are points I have covered and stressed...especially the part about conservation of momentum solving engineering problems...

    The bottom line is that Turdeye has jumped in for no reason and babbled a lot of nonsense only for the sake of being contrarian...

    ...and also thinking that he could fool people by throwing up a lot of dust...

    And finally about my previous statement...


    '...This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…'
     
    I have highlighted 'quantity' because momentum can be quantified ie L = I * ω...the faster the gyro spins the greater will be its momentum...and thus the greater its inertia...which cannot be quantified...and which does not need to be quantified unless there is an interaction of some kind...such as an outside force...only then do we turn to conservation laws as you also pointed out...

    Now what is interesting here is the apparent chicken and egg dichotomy...and which you illustrated with the case of fire and carbon...

    Here is an interesting comment on a forum that tries to put this into perspective...


    '...Even though the conservation of angular momentum is a good and practical way of explaining the (nearly) conservation of the Earth's spin, the deep physical intuition is in the concept of inertia.

    In the limit that the moment of inertia goes to zero, the torque needed to accelerate (or decelerate) the body tends towards zero. It means that if there were no inertia (more precisely, when it tends towards zero) the spin of the Earth could increase or decrease arbitrarily fast even for external torque approaching zero. This can be seen from the Newton's second law for a rigid body rotating along a fixed axis,

    τ=Iα,

    where τ is the external torque, α is the angular acceleration and I is the moment of inertia. When I→0 and τ→0, then α is arbitrary. Note that the angular momentum would still be conserved, since its rate is

    https://s20.postimg.cc/7y9hgzzfh/Momentum.jpg

    However the angular momentum itself (as well as linear momentum) would be meaningless without inertia since it depends on mass.

    It is the existence of inertial mass that makes the dynamical quantities L and p=mv the relevant ones. Therefore, although the explanations are closely related, the meaning of inertia is more fundamental than the meaning of angular momentum or its conservation...'
     

    Note that this commenter astutely mentioned 'inertial' mass...as I have already remarked previously in quoting Knight...

    I agree with this distinction that inertia is the more fundamental concept...but it is also far less useful in actually solving engineering problems...as I have already stated...

    The conservation of momentum is a fundamental tool in this...not just for rotational dynamics...but for any kind of motion that involves a change in momentum...such as thrust from a jet engine for instance...

    Newton's Second law F= mass x acceleration applies here as the air mass going into the engine is accelerated to a higher velocity creating thrust...which is a force...

    However F = m a was actually formulated by Newton as a 'change of momentum'...ie imparting a change of momentum to the air going through a jet engine is what causes thrust...we see this formulation thus...

    https://s20.postimg.cc/6r052qw6l/Second_Law.jpg


    So we see that F = ma is really the derivative of velocity with respect to time...ie a change of momentum...

    This is how Newton actually stated the Second Law in the Principia...

    And from this was derived the conservation of momentum...as can be clearly seen in the relationship above...

    https://s20.postimg.cc/exs4txopp/Conservation_Momentum.jpg


    --Knight, Physics for Scientists and Engineers, page 247

    The same holds true for rotational motion problems...for instance in designing a helicopter rotor...here the rotational equivalent of force is torque and the rotational equivalent of mass is moment of inertia...

    https://s20.postimg.cc/6tk0p5ckd/Second_Law_rotational_motion.jpg

    --Knight, page 356

    So an example application here might be the kinds of problems encountered with a helicopter rotor or airplane or ship propeller...

    These math tools allow us to create these kinds of engineering solutions...

    So there is no question that the practical application of conservation laws...[there is also conservation of mass and conservation of energy]...these three are the essential tools in the practitioner's toolbox...

    But the whole point is knowing when to pull the right tool out of the box...in order to do that one must understand what those tools are and what they are used for...

    Like I said...it is utterly nonsensical to get into conservation of momentum in the context of a discussion of inertial reference frames...which is what a gyro does in a nav system...it simply has no place in this discussion...

    If someone came to me with this...I would say 'okay what are you going to analyze here in terms of conservation of momentum...?'

    The result would be a blank stare...the accelerations of the aircraft are simply measured and recorded by reference to the inertial reference frame...ie the gyros...

    The math involved in calculating velocity and position has nothing to do with conservation of momentum...it has to do with kinematics...[ie the accelerations are integrated over time to get velocity, and velocity and direction in turn integrated over distance to get position]...

    The fact that an utter know-nothing can pipe up like a moron here and shit all over the place is simply disgusting...

    Anyway...thanks for your interesting comments and good luck with that kite and the string theory...LOL

    Actually need to correct a bit of wording on the above comment…

    With respect to the tightrope walker analogy…the bar is indeed a case of rotational inertia as well as translational…its mass is distributed such that rotating that bar about its midpoint where the walker is holding it would involve a rotational dynamics problem…and would be tackled with conservation of angular momentum…

    Also in my explanation of the math behind inertial nav systems I had meant to write that the second integration is an integration of velocity over to distance to solve for position…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. gwynedd1 says:
    @Thirdeye

    ... a gyroscope is a device that relies on inertia in order to keep its orientation...
     
    WRONG! Inertia helps sustain the spin of the gyroscope, but the reason the spinning keeps the gyroscope oriented in three-dimensional space is conservation of angular momentum.

    So the idea behind conservation of momentum applies only when a change has occurred
     
    WRONG! Conservation of angular momentum applies to a single-element system such as a rotating celestial body as well as more complex systems where forces arise from interacting elements.

    Now Turdey…whose knowledge is limited to freshman physics [what an astounding dolt]…tells us that the gyro spins due to conservation of momentum…not inertia…
     
    A year of physics for science majors, plus geophysics. And you mis-represented my argument amidst all your coprophilic spewing. Of course anyone who reads the next quote block after that statement can see that you have done a false representation. Conservation of angular momentum is the reason a spinning object holds orientation in space, not the reason a gyroscope spins.



    This quantity of momentum is what gives the moving object inertia…ie the propensity to continue its motion and to resist outside forces acting on it…
     
    That statement is 180 degrees backwards.
     
    Of course this is completely FALSE…
     
    Argument by assertion after conveniently omitting the explanation of why your argument is backwards (You don't even understand Newton's First Law or the relationship between inertia and mass!), followed by another muddled and coprophilic tangent that is nothing more than a smokescreen to disguise the fact that you do not understand conservation of angular momentum.

    QED? Good one!

    It's a sunny spring day and I've wasted enough of it, although watching the antics of an ignorant blowhard who puts his fragile ego above actually learning something has provided me with a sort of morbid entertainment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl4zXroojwM

    Here is how I proved chickens come from eggs. I showed some kids the cute, fuzzy, yellow chicks emerging from their shells. Then I proposed to the parents the only way to consider the other angle is by having them watch chickens fucking, and then looking deep into the hen’s crag….They said no so I won my point.

    From what I gather , Inertia is basically just a concept to explain that something moving does not lose its motion into nothingness , but that it is simply transfered to something else. It keeps its nature until something acts on it. That what it seems to me. Its like creating a gemotric point which has no existence in the real world without reference.

    It would appear momentum appears in relation to something else. Do I have angular momentum or not? Not until an extra terrestrial object is introduced as a reference I would think.

    I just do not see justification for “wrong” , if the idea is to discredit him. Even if it were, it would be splitting hairs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thirdeye
    Inertia is a property proportional to mass that resists acceleration. Per Newton's First Law it exists in both moving and resting bodies. It cannot be observed independently of forces acting on the inertial body per Newton's Second Law, F=MA, but it exists in anything that has mass.

    When somebody argues based on a false understanding of inertia, to wit, that it is derived from momentum, they are wrong and correcting that false understanding is not splitting hairs. Reference to Newton's three Laws is all the citation needed to do so.

    Just so somebody doesn't confuse you, the torque that results in gyroscopic steering of two-wheeled vehicles is the torque of leaning into the turn, not the much smaller torque applied to the handlebars. That is why gyroscopic steering is specific to two-wheeled vehicles.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. yurivku says:
    @gwynedd1
    Well, there goes Britain along the the Balkans ...However I would content that there might be some hope among the Welsh. The joke and prankster prisons have littered Scotland with hostile fortifications, and I fear the region is lost.

    Well, there goes Britain along the the Balkans …

    From Balkans we have here the dumb Croatian moron peterAus, all others seem to me be nice and clever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Thirdeye says:
    @gwynedd1
    Here is how I proved chickens come from eggs. I showed some kids the cute, fuzzy, yellow chicks emerging from their shells. Then I proposed to the parents the only way to consider the other angle is by having them watch chickens fucking, and then looking deep into the hen's crag....They said no so I won my point.



    From what I gather , Inertia is basically just a concept to explain that something moving does not lose its motion into nothingness , but that it is simply transfered to something else. It keeps its nature until something acts on it. That what it seems to me. Its like creating a gemotric point which has no existence in the real world without reference.

    It would appear momentum appears in relation to something else. Do I have angular momentum or not? Not until an extra terrestrial object is introduced as a reference I would think.

    I just do not see justification for "wrong" , if the idea is to discredit him. Even if it were, it would be splitting hairs.

    Inertia is a property proportional to mass that resists acceleration. Per Newton’s First Law it exists in both moving and resting bodies. It cannot be observed independently of forces acting on the inertial body per Newton’s Second Law, F=MA, but it exists in anything that has mass.

    When somebody argues based on a false understanding of inertia, to wit, that it is derived from momentum, they are wrong and correcting that false understanding is not splitting hairs. Reference to Newton’s three Laws is all the citation needed to do so.

    Just so somebody doesn’t confuse you, the torque that results in gyroscopic steering of two-wheeled vehicles is the torque of leaning into the turn, not the much smaller torque applied to the handlebars. That is why gyroscopic steering is specific to two-wheeled vehicles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @FB
    Shaddup turdeye...

    You have been shown to be a complete idiot...end of story...

    Like I said...conservation of momentum is a tool we use to solve problems in a mathematical way...ie analysis...

    You have obviously never done this...so shut your stupid yap...you are a faker and a poseur...you have zero qualifications to be in this discussion...

    I already gave you a challenge to work some conservation of momentum math ...here is the problem statement...

    How much power does it take to spin up that 1 meter diameter wheel with a mass of 1 kg to a speed of 10 revolutions per second in the space of three seconds...?

    Here is your chance to prove you are qualified to be talking about conservation of momentum...this is a very simple conservation of momentum problem since the geometry of that wheel is very simple...

    [In a more complex real-world shape such as a spinning helicopter rotor it is significantly more difficult since it is necessary to figure out first the location of the radius of gyration of that complex geometry...]

    Let's see just how qualified you are to even be talking about conservation of momentum you complete idiot...

    PS...I will be glad to take bets that Turdeye fails to rise to this simple challenge...

    , @gwynedd1
    "Inertia is a property proportional to mass that resists acceleration. Per Newton’s First Law it exists in both moving and resting bodies. It cannot be observed independently of forces acting on the inertial body per Newton’s Second Law, F=MA, but it exists in anything that has mass."

    I am sorry but I am too aquatinted with the argumentative methods where people who are not making the point go into the obscurity of the fundamentals. Inertia is much like the verb "to be" . Things that are tend to be. Again the concept is to convey the idea that motion is conserved.

    I see no formulas and therefore conclude it is not quantifiable. if it is not quantifiable then it not interesting to engineering problems

    http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-inertia-and-moment-of-inertia

    You are not going to debunk ones grasp of engineering with these point, even if they un a weak moment had forgotten the formal definition.

    Find something else if you are able.


    "Just so somebody doesn’t confuse you, the torque that results in gyroscopic steering of two-wheeled vehicles is the torque of leaning into the turn, not the much smaller torque applied to the handlebars. That is why gyroscopic steering is specific to two-wheeled vehicles."

    Again, that application ,as it appears to my eyes, seems to not be relevant to a nav system.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. FB says:
    @Thirdeye
    Inertia is a property proportional to mass that resists acceleration. Per Newton's First Law it exists in both moving and resting bodies. It cannot be observed independently of forces acting on the inertial body per Newton's Second Law, F=MA, but it exists in anything that has mass.

    When somebody argues based on a false understanding of inertia, to wit, that it is derived from momentum, they are wrong and correcting that false understanding is not splitting hairs. Reference to Newton's three Laws is all the citation needed to do so.

    Just so somebody doesn't confuse you, the torque that results in gyroscopic steering of two-wheeled vehicles is the torque of leaning into the turn, not the much smaller torque applied to the handlebars. That is why gyroscopic steering is specific to two-wheeled vehicles.

    Shaddup turdeye…

    You have been shown to be a complete idiot…end of story…

    Like I said…conservation of momentum is a tool we use to solve problems in a mathematical way…ie analysis…

    You have obviously never done this…so shut your stupid yap…you are a faker and a poseur…you have zero qualifications to be in this discussion…

    I already gave you a challenge to work some conservation of momentum math …here is the problem statement…

    How much power does it take to spin up that 1 meter diameter wheel with a mass of 1 kg to a speed of 10 revolutions per second in the space of three seconds…?

    Here is your chance to prove you are qualified to be talking about conservation of momentum…this is a very simple conservation of momentum problem since the geometry of that wheel is very simple…

    [In a more complex real-world shape such as a spinning helicopter rotor it is significantly more difficult since it is necessary to figure out first the location of the radius of gyration of that complex geometry...]

    Let’s see just how qualified you are to even be talking about conservation of momentum you complete idiot…

    PS…I will be glad to take bets that Turdeye fails to rise to this simple challenge…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. gwynedd1 says:
    @Thirdeye
    Inertia is a property proportional to mass that resists acceleration. Per Newton's First Law it exists in both moving and resting bodies. It cannot be observed independently of forces acting on the inertial body per Newton's Second Law, F=MA, but it exists in anything that has mass.

    When somebody argues based on a false understanding of inertia, to wit, that it is derived from momentum, they are wrong and correcting that false understanding is not splitting hairs. Reference to Newton's three Laws is all the citation needed to do so.

    Just so somebody doesn't confuse you, the torque that results in gyroscopic steering of two-wheeled vehicles is the torque of leaning into the turn, not the much smaller torque applied to the handlebars. That is why gyroscopic steering is specific to two-wheeled vehicles.

    “Inertia is a property proportional to mass that resists acceleration. Per Newton’s First Law it exists in both moving and resting bodies. It cannot be observed independently of forces acting on the inertial body per Newton’s Second Law, F=MA, but it exists in anything that has mass.”

    I am sorry but I am too aquatinted with the argumentative methods where people who are not making the point go into the obscurity of the fundamentals. Inertia is much like the verb “to be” . Things that are tend to be. Again the concept is to convey the idea that motion is conserved.

    I see no formulas and therefore conclude it is not quantifiable. if it is not quantifiable then it not interesting to engineering problems

    http://www.differencebetween.info/difference-between-inertia-and-moment-of-inertia

    You are not going to debunk ones grasp of engineering with these point, even if they un a weak moment had forgotten the formal definition.

    Find something else if you are able.

    “Just so somebody doesn’t confuse you, the torque that results in gyroscopic steering of two-wheeled vehicles is the torque of leaning into the turn, not the much smaller torque applied to the handlebars. That is why gyroscopic steering is specific to two-wheeled vehicles.”

    Again, that application ,as it appears to my eyes, seems to not be relevant to a nav system.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Mike Whitney Comments via RSS