Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

What has Trump done right so far?

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Thu Apr 13, 2017 8:44 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Eyal wrote:OTOH, my understanding is that Sarin is usually stored as two seperate chemicals and mixed only immediately before use (or in the bomb as it's dropped). Unitary Sarin exists but typically (at least that's what I get from most sources, a few disagree, although it seems to depend on the manufacturing quality) has a very short shelf life. In additionan, at least one of the precoursers is flammable. In that case bombing a storehouse should not have released any significant amount of actual Sarin. Also, do the rebels even have Sarin? I though they were mainly using mustard gas and chlorine.


http://www.unz.com/article/the-nerve-ag ... hun-syria/

If the pictures used are genuine, which they appear to be, then the probability that this was an air-dropped bomb is absolute ZERO.

And it is almost guaranteed that the attack was performed by people on the ground placing the improvised weapon where it was.

Which means Assads regime are effectively out of the running for possible culprits. Sneaking an improvised and volatile C-weapon into enemy territory, not really no. Especially when it´s already unlikely due to being close to political suicide, something Assad is definitely NOT known to mess around with.

So, just like the use of chemical weapons in 2013, which USA also said was "Assad", when the regime didn´t even have any troops that were in range of that attack(and ergo, were incapable of being behind it), it´s rubbish.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:56 am

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:45 am

Interesting similarities.

Look at the photo of the spent SARIN container in:

http://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/poss ... igence.pdf

Now look at the spent container in:

http://www.unz.com/article/the-nerve-ag ... hun-syria/

There are similarities.

As best I can tell, both types analyzed in both reports are impact fused. If that is so, they can be dropped from aircraft as well as fired as warheads on unguided rockets.

But let's for a moment assume both of these analyses are correct. What does that mean?

Its means that the "intelligence" agencies, including all foreign services, are in collusion and are deliberately providing false assessments to steer political policy and actions to their own ends.

Now that is scary...

Especially when considering Rice, monitoring, unmasking and the Deep State hypothesis...
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:38 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

As best I can tell, both types analyzed in both reports are impact fused. If that is so, they can be dropped from aircraft as well as fired as warheads on unguided rockets.


Wait, WHAT?

I think you missed something. They didn´t use an artillery rocket. They cut up an artillery rocket to use parts from it.

Go back and check on how it was "set off", and what it almost certainly looked like before that.

A bomb, quite probably the warhead part of the rocket was mounted or placed on top as the explosive device of the setup. The two parts put together crosswise, forming an X.
That´s the easy way to do it if you´re moving it around on the ground.

If you try to drop that from an airplane, the probability that it lands with the explosive part on top and correctly explodes just as it lands to manage that result, are minimal to zero. Unless you want to add a fictional parachute to the deal.

However, trying to somehow mount that contraption on an airplane? You´re more likely to accidentally set it off during take-off than anything else!

Summary, it´s an improvised contraption extremely unsuitable to be carried by aircraft. More likely to cause "friendly fire" than working as a weapon.

There´s a good reason why improvised bombs went out of fashion during the FIRST world war.

But let's for a moment assume both of these analyses are correct. What does that mean?

Its means that the "intelligence" agencies, including all foreign services, are in collusion and are deliberately providing false assessments to steer political policy and actions to their own ends.

Now that is scary...

Especially when considering Rice, monitoring, unmasking and the Deep State hypothesis...


Apparently, the 2013 report was delivered to Obama before it had been verified, and the majority of intelligence people apparently thought it was pathetic and amateurish, based on the several that spoke out about just how poorly it was done.

And that was the one where Obama was interrupted during a press conference to be notified that no, the supposed evidence was actually NOT at all clearcut.

It´s worse, a part of the US establishment has "grand designs" and looks at the world as "the great game", and they have enough influence to throw around craploads of fake evidence, along with making sure that "things happen" that can be used as provocations.

While hiding "in the crowd".


Starting to get more than a little sick and tired of US false flag operations by now.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Annachie   » Thu Apr 13, 2017 10:58 pm

Annachie
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:36 pm

Saw a report that the US government has averaged 1 false flag operation a year since WW2 ended.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Fri Apr 14, 2017 6:00 am

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

Annachie wrote:Saw a report that the US government has averaged 1 false flag operation a year since WW2 ended.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Yeah, even if I expect that to be the absolute minimum...
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Fri Apr 14, 2017 4:50 pm

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:45 am

Tenshinai wrote:
As best I can tell, both types analyzed in both reports are impact fused. If that is so, they can be dropped from aircraft as well as fired as warheads on unguided rockets.


Wait, WHAT?

I think you missed something. They didn´t use an artillery rocket. They cut up an artillery rocket to use parts from it.

Go back and check on how it was "set off", and what it almost certainly looked like before that.

A bomb, quite probably the warhead part of the rocket was mounted or placed on top as the explosive device of the setup. The two parts put together crosswise, forming an X.
That´s the easy way to do it if you´re moving it around on the ground.

If you try to drop that from an airplane, the probability that it lands with the explosive part on top and correctly explodes just as it lands to manage that result, are minimal to zero. Unless you want to add a fictional parachute to the deal.

However, trying to somehow mount that contraption on an airplane? You´re more likely to accidentally set it off during take-off than anything else!

Summary, it´s an improvised contraption extremely unsuitable to be carried by aircraft. More likely to cause "friendly fire" than working as a weapon.

There´s a good reason why improvised bombs went out of fashion during the FIRST world war.

But let's for a moment assume both of these analyses are correct. What does that mean?

Its means that the "intelligence" agencies, including all foreign services, are in collusion and are deliberately providing false assessments to steer political policy and actions to their own ends.

Now that is scary...

Especially when considering Rice, monitoring, unmasking and the Deep State hypothesis...


Apparently, the 2013 report was delivered to Obama before it had been verified, and the majority of intelligence people apparently thought it was pathetic and amateurish, based on the several that spoke out about just how poorly it was done.

And that was the one where Obama was interrupted during a press conference to be notified that no, the supposed evidence was actually NOT at all clearcut.

It´s worse, a part of the US establishment has "grand designs" and looks at the world as "the great game", and they have enough influence to throw around craploads of fake evidence, along with making sure that "things happen" that can be used as provocations.

While hiding "in the crowd".


Starting to get more than a little sick and tired of US false flag operations by now.


No I didn't miss anything. The chemical warhead on the rocket is a kludge to begin with. It is impact fused. If you take the kludged chemical warhead off of the rocket, drop it off of a plane it will do the same thing. The "X" thing you are talking about is taking the analysis as fact in which a secondary explosive "pipe bomb" was used to "implode" the chemical warhead. I am stepping back and looking at the whole thing from all aspects. This includes the 2013 incident and the reports leaked on data from National Technical Means (NTM). Especially satellite data in 2013 and radar data from 2017.

As far as landing on it's weighted end, shuttle cocks, lawn darts (back in the day) do it all the time. So did the cap powered "Atomic Bomb" that I still wish I had. (Probably worth a fortune now.)



Actually its worse than you can even imagine. This goes far beyond false flags. Your hypothesis is simply that its the Deep State, in most of the western powers as well, is controlling the flow of intelligence and the analysis that goes with it. And these two incidents are being presented as casus belli by those people.

Following this further down the rabbit hole, the 2013 incident was specifically presented as a challenge to the "red line" and was intended to provoke Obama into a military response. He did not bite at the time.

This incident is doing the same thing. It is being presented to provoke a reaction, which it did.

To what end...now that is the interesting question.

Obviously to implicate Assad. Who benefits from a weakened Assad. Israel? ISIS? The rebels? Iraq? Iran? Hezbollah? But the Great Game must have a motive and objective. Reading across the various talking heads, the obvious response desired is to gut the Syrian air force. This obviously benefits the rebels - which possibly means the Deep State is deliberately spinning intelligence data to provoke the US to destroy the Syrian Air Force.

The power this presumes makes everything else moot. It's over. We're all slaves and dupes. Might as well surrender now. There is no future, there is only servicing the state...

Black helicopters, CFR, EUCFR, Area 51...

That's pretty depressing...
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Annachie   » Sat Apr 15, 2017 6:11 am

Annachie
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1688
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:36 pm

Typically screw motive. Follow the money.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:04 am

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:45 am

Annachie wrote:Typically screw motive. Follow the money.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


If you follow the money, the first stop is Russia. They would have to supply the new planes for Syria.

Maybe that's it...Trump's intelligence people are manipulating the intelligence so that Trump will destroy the Syrian Air Force so that Master Tranyr Putin will make money selling new jets to Assad...
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by Tenshinai   » Sat Apr 15, 2017 5:08 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 7:34 pm
Location: Sweden

CRC wrote:No I didn't miss anything. The chemical warhead on the rocket is a kludge to begin with.


:roll:

You just proved that YOU DID MISS SOMETHING.

It wasn´t a chemical warhead. It was an IMPROVISED DEVICE using what MAY have started as the pipe of a regular 122mm HE artillery rocket.

There was no impact fuze because it was not a warhead.

CRC wrote:The "X" thing you are talking about is taking the analysis as fact in which a secondary explosive "pipe bomb" was used to "implode" the chemical warhead.


I´m well versed enough in effects of explosives to say that if the pictures are real, then that suggested way of detonation is VERY likely.

Seriously, check the pictures out.

It´s extremely obvious that the explosion was ON TOP of the pipe, and the deformation blatantly shows that the explosion was centered on the middle of the pipe, while the crater shows clear evidence of an equal effect elongated explosive transversal to the pipe.

CRC wrote:I am stepping back and looking at the whole thing from all aspects. This includes the 2013 incident and the reports leaked on data from National Technical Means (NTM). Especially satellite data in 2013 and radar data from 2017.


Uh, you do know that pretty much anything from 2013 that came from USA has been more or less discredited? On the level of evidence as that Powell tried to sell to UN as proof of Saddams WMDs, the evidence that myself and thousands others figured out were fake within minutes of their release because they were such blatantly obvious and crappy fakes...

CRC wrote:The power this presumes makes everything else moot. It's over. We're all slaves and dupes. Might as well surrender now. There is no future, there is only servicing the state...

Black helicopters, CFR, EUCFR, Area 51...

That's pretty depressing...


Hardly. Look at the looong history of US false flag shit, take the time to actually investigate a little.

Then be very astounded at just how amazingly incompetent these people have to be to so repeatedly fail in hiding that it IS fake.

Either they´re incredibly incompetent, or shortsighted enough to need glasses to see their own noses.


CRC wrote:If you follow the money, the first stop is Russia. They would have to supply the new planes for Syria.

Maybe that's it...Trump's intelligence people are manipulating the intelligence so that Trump will destroy the Syrian Air Force so that Master Tranyr Putin will make money selling new jets to Assad...


:lol:

Inventive. But that´s not actually following the money, because if stuff like this keeps happening, Syria isn´t going to have any cash to buy things with.

And, if the US-supported rebels ever get past fighting each other, Assad isn´t going to be around anyway. Which means Russia loses one of their handful of bases outside of ex-USSR.

Which of course goes just perfectly along with the US doctrine of keeping anything from threatening its global domination, of which Russia is considered one of the biggest dangers. And as ex US national security advisor(Brzezinski) wrote, Russia must be surrounded by a zone of "percolating violence" to keep it from actually being able to do anything but focus on domestic troubles and not get any ideas about acting globally.

The really sad part about this is that the above comes from a commercial book, and the asshole was even a "professor of American Foreign Policy" and lauded as someone whose ideas should be followed...

With most of those ideas effectively being to make war on another nation just because it happens to have the potential to be an obstacle for US global domination.
Top
Re: What has Trump done right so far?
Post by CRC   » Sun Apr 16, 2017 11:10 am

CRC
Lieutenant Commander

Posts: 131
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:45 am

Tenshinai wrote:
You just proved that YOU DID MISS SOMETHING.

It wasn´t a chemical warhead. It was an IMPROVISED DEVICE using what MAY have started as the pipe of a regular 122mm HE artillery rocket.

There was no impact fuze because it was not a warhead


Do you know what the definition of "Kludge" is?

I am just reading your references and specifically Chart 14 which shows an explosive in the nose and what looks like an impact fuze.

I also watched video of these things being launched (the 330mm variant). So my reference to a kludge might be a bit harsh, but your claim it is not a warhead is pure ignorance.

Tenshinai wrote:
I´m well versed enough in effects of explosives to say that if the pictures are real, then that suggested way of detonation is VERY likely.

Seriously, check the pictures out.

It´s extremely obvious that the explosion was ON TOP of the pipe, and the deformation blatantly shows that the explosion was centered on the middle of the pipe, while the crater shows clear evidence of an equal effect elongated explosive transversal to the pipe.


Very likely and definitive are two different things. I have checked out the photos. And compared photos in the two or three reports since then, as well as compared photos of impacted rocket pieces, as well as looked carefully at the analysis and calculations.

Tenshinai wrote:Uh, you do know that pretty much anything from 2013 that came from USA has been more or less discredited? On the level of evidence as that Powell tried to sell to UN as proof of Saddams WMDs, the evidence that myself and thousands others figured out were fake within minutes of their release because they were such blatantly obvious and crappy fakes...


Congratulations to you and the thousands. But trying to be objective, I have also perused the Human Rights Watch report:

https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files ... _web_1.pdf

As well as the toxics report:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5df1/c ... c96c07.pdf

As well as the report on the report:

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/09/sy- ... l-misfire/

And the updated report of the report on the report:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/29/world ... l?emc=eta1

as well as a secondary report on the Sarin itself:

http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk/site/w ... antity.pdf

I still find the premise, primarily derived from a simple derivative of Occam's Razor, to be that the Syrian government was the source of the 2013 attack. Maybe not exactly in the manner of what the white house claimed at the time, but enough evidence to convince me. Although I do find the reference to NTM pinpointing the origin of the launch sites to still be compelling as I am familiar with the capabilities of those NTMs.

Tenshinai wrote: Hardly. Look at the looong history of US false flag shit, take the time to actually investigate a little.

Then be very astounded at just how amazingly incompetent these people have to be to so repeatedly fail in hiding that it IS fake.

Either they´re incredibly incompetent, or shortsighted enough to need glasses to see their own noses.


If it is fake. I still find the overall argument and the evidence persuasive. Once can nitpick some of the 'facts' and throw additional rocks at several points, but then some of the 'evidence' for Sasquatches and UFO's can be pretty compelling taken on their own.

Tenshinai wrote: Inventive. But that´s not actually following the money, because if stuff like this keeps happening, Syria isn´t going to have any cash to buy things with.

And, if the US-supported rebels ever get past fighting each other, Assad isn´t going to be around anyway. Which means Russia loses one of their handful of bases outside of ex-USSR.

Which of course goes just perfectly along with the US doctrine of keeping anything from threatening its global domination, of which Russia is considered one of the biggest dangers. And as ex US national security advisor(Brzezinski) wrote, Russia must be surrounded by a zone of "percolating violence" to keep it from actually being able to do anything but focus on domestic troubles and not get any ideas about acting globally.

The really sad part about this is that the above comes from a commercial book, and the asshole was even a "professor of American Foreign Policy" and lauded as someone whose ideas should be followed...

With most of those ideas effectively being to make war on another nation just because it happens to have the potential to be an obstacle for US global domination.


Ahh. Took me a while. US global domination. (LOL!!!!) Wholly crap. Where did that come from? I thought that BS died with Khrushchev.

Considering actual Russian history, keeping it surrounded by a zone of "percolating violence" is not too difficult to do since the internal "percolating violence" is almost self sustaining.

But actually not a bad idea as part of an overall containment strategy. Serves as sort of a counter-counter to the internal revolutionary hotspot misdirection strategy doesn't it?
Top

Return to Politics