That's a good one. Kind of reminds me of a poster I saw during the anti-Vietnam protest days of the '60's and '70's which said "War is not healthy for children and other living things".
Maybe if more kids got hugs, then we'd have less wars...
Well, I notice that yesterday Koffi Annan issued a warning to the US (that is to the Bush administration) to cool their "rhetoric" concerning Iran. Apparently, it is against the UN Charter for one member country to threaten another with military action.
So, expect the rhetoric to experience a sudden drop off in intensity that is coming out of the White House. However, the lack of rhetoric and threats will, most likely, not delay the war planners in the Pentagon and CIA. I would say that it is highly probable that they already have a complete air campaign against Iran's nuclear processing facilities already mapped out and ready for implementation. These plans nowadays are actually made by computer that run countless simulations until then find one that maximizes the damage against and enemy while minimizing the cost and fatalities for the attackers. It's all a outgrowth from years of using computers in war games.
Anyway, all that is needed at this point is the "Go" orders from the President. What will it take to issue those. Well, I doubt if, like Iraq, it will take years of Iran ignoring or violating UN resolutions. It might just take one bit of reliable intelligence (yes, that still exists!) that Iran is getting ready to test their first nuclear weapon. I'm still predicting that event will happen sometime this year.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Concerning the Iranian government's complaints about the US's use of threatening "rhetoric" about military action against Iran...
It seems that while the UN came down against the Bush administration for the use of such rhetoric, next to nothing was said to Iran for their previous remarks that the state of Israel should be destroyed or wiped off of the map. Isn't that "threatening rhetoric" too?
A friend told me the other day that he considered the concern over Iran's attempt to enrich its own nuclear fuel as being grossly exaggerated. His attitude was "So what if they eventually develop nuclear weapons?".
He quickly changed his mind when I told him that the Iranian government run television network was actually running 10 minute long cartoon commercials. The purpose? To try to recruit children as young as 12 to become suicide bombers!
Is that the kind of government that should have access to nuclear weapons?
As far as the diplomatic negotiations that are attempting to get the Iranian government to cease uranium enrichment are concerned, they are, as I predicted weeks ago, going nowhere fast.
The Iranian government wants the world to acknowledge that they have have the soveign "right" to pursue nuclear technology. The next thing they will be insisting on is that the world acknowledge that they are a "responsible" member of the UN!
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
ken_behrendt wrote:A friend told me the other day that he considered the concern over Iran's attempt to enrich its own nuclear fuel as being grossly exaggerated. His attitude was "So what if they eventually develop nuclear weapons?".
He quickly changed his mind when I told him that the Iranian government run television network was actually running 10 minute long cartoon commercials. The purpose? To try to recruit children as young as 12 to become suicide bombers.
It wasn't a "commercial" it was the story of a young boy who sees his mother and father murdered in cold blood by the Israeli army, and goes to seek revenge.
Perhaps instead of the word "commercial", I should have used the word "propaganda". But, in essence, the two are the same in this case.
A lot of people have forgotten completely by now about the war that went on between Iran and Iraq during the 1980's. In that war, when the Iranians started to lose, their unelected, theocratic "government" decided to try using "human wave" attacks to repel the invading Iraqi army. Tens of thousands of volunteers, carefully conditioned for suicide with non-stop religious propaganda, were recruited to attack Iraqi positions. Most of these volunteers were children who were expected to charge machine gun nests without weapons or other equipment.
Yes, this suicidal tactic in the name of religion was successful. Iraqi troops, after they had exhausted their supplies of ammuntion, were forced to retreat or face being overrun. In the process they left thousands of wounded and dying children behind on the battlefields.
Now, let's imagine this same government equipped with intermediate range ballistic missiles that can deliver multiple nuclear warheads. Would they hesitate to use them against defenseless civilians in a battle if the ayatollahs in charge decided those people were "infidels" or not practicing the "right" form of Islam? Bolstered by the delusion that Allah had equipped them with nuclear weapons to fulfill some twisted "end times" version of Islam, would they hesitate to start a war and then use them?
If this nightmare scenario ever became reality, the rest of the world would then be wondering why someone did not stop them long before the nuclear mushrooms started sprouting all over the Middle East...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
At this moment in time, following your link and then following their link and selecting 'Play Video' plays a Pepto Bismol commercial ! Is this supposed to be some sort of political comment on the release of this footage ? Is it going to settle the rumblings from those who find it incomprehensible that such a large aircraft could have left so little wreckage ?
The real 'new' footage does not clarify anything, in fact this film is already available on the web. I saw it months ago. There may be one new frame showing a white streak that, if anything, appears to be too small to be the aircraft they claim hit it.
The BBC coverage states that there is another frame from a camera ten feet away also showing this white streak. If the Pentagon has security camera's every ten feet why have they only released two views from virtually the same angle ? If they do only have two camera's covering this side of the building why are they placed only ten feet apart and not at either end for better coverage ?
The conspiricy nuts are going to get all excited again.
The FBI apparently claims it has 84 videos of the pentagon area from sept 11 and none show the impact of flight 77
The video with the newly released added frames is here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4987716.stm
I've studied some of the newly released frames that supposedly show the jet crashing into the Pentagon building.
Unfortunately, only two of the frames show anything. In one you can see what appears to be the nose of the jet just starting to poke into the frame. In the other, there is a white blur close to ground level that appears to be the planes fuselage.
These images are, unfortunately, the best that can be produced with the surveillance cameras that were in use. Those cameras are not really designed to photograph fast moving objects, like jets at ground level, that clearly.
The second frame that shows the blurred fuselage is, however, interesting. I was surprised at how close to the ground the plane actually was before impact. The pilot must have dove toward the building and then leveled the plane off only feet above the ground so that he could hit into the side of the building almost horizontally. Apparently, this was part of their plan to inflict maximum damage to a structure which, unlike the twin towers in NYC, was not that tall.
However, I do accept that it was a jet that hit the Pentagon. Do not be mislead my the apparent lack of debris. If one took the entire structure of a modern jet, which is mostly made from aluminum, and crushed it down, it would probably occupy less volume than that of a tracker trailer. In many air disasters, a LOT of debris gets imbedded in the soil and is never recovered. Fire and explosions destroy any non-metallic materials inside of the plane. In some ground impacts, they are lucky to even find some body "fragments" afterward. Air crashes can often seem a lot more mysterious than they actually are.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Why are people so keen to come up with these conspiricy theories ? Apparently the majority of people still believe Lee Oswald was not a lone gunman. I guess it is just a way of turning a horrendous reality into fantasy.
The trouble is I do start asking questions myself when the evidence is on film and not just hearsay. In the first frame that white thing just does not look like an aircraft - it looks like a white cloud of smoke not the blue and red blur of an American Airlines Boeing.
Also in that first frame there is a black object above the yellow box, outlined against the sky, that does not appear in the other frames. So people are saying it is the tailfin of an aircraft. If it is a tailfin then it means the entire rest of the aircraft is concealed behind that box and so it could not have been a Boeing.
I look at it and find myself thinking that the small aircraft leaving a trail of smoke fits better with the visual evidence than that what looks like white smoke is the nose of a blue and red passenger plane.
But what possible reason could there be for saying it was the 757 if it was not ? To turn the tide of American opinion to get support for a war against Iran ? That is just unthinkable. But I am left with a lot of questions in my mind.
If I were to have imagined this event before it happened I would have thought that fuselage would have had little impact on the building while the engines would have punched two holes in the wall. Instead the major damage seems to have been made by what, I imagine, is the lightest construction.
Presumably this was released to damp down some of the questioning but I think it will have the opposite effect.
Why are people so keen to come up with these conspiricy theories ?
Well, with all of the scandals that seem to continuously emerge on the news every so often, people have become more and more cynical over the last century or so.
We seem to need to believe that we are nothing more than pawns being manipulated on some vast global chessboard by an invisible "they" who are out to use us, abuse us, and impoverish us.
Who or what is this "they"? For some it's Satan and his minions. For others it's secret societies or international bankers or the rich, collectively, or alien forces or......you name it and there will be some group out there that is convinced that it is being victimized by it.
It's been my experience in life that most people tend to be the victims of their own irrational fears and prejudices. I look hopefully forward to a world where such irrationalities can finally be put aside...
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Thank you for the links Trev. That crazy theory approach made me laugh.
How much of either side is verifiable ? Can any physicists here verify that burning jet fuel will not generate the required heat to cause steel to soften. Also does black smoke indicate an oxygen starved fire.
I had not considered before how 'hollywood' the explosions were. Recently I saw Mythbusters trying to set fire to fuel with a lit cigarette and it just would not happen.
However I think it is perfectly feasible for the planes to explode as they did. There must have been plenty of sources for a spark - all the office electrics being smashed would surely result in arcing all over the place. I have no trouble seeing how that kind of impact would result in a lot of fine spray of fuel just like in a carburettor.
