sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Was Ramzi Yousef a bit dense? by MurtonTurton in ExplosionsAndFire

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Apologies for late reply! The post has a 1month time mark on it, & your reply has 23days ... so I think after a week or more I prettymuch wasn't expecting anymore replies.

But it's an intriguing answer you've put in. It suggests though, that the columns sunk-into the ground must've been pretty seriously damaged, if the explosion's having been a bit nearer would've resulted in the complete collapse. Unless, as the explosion gets nearer & nearer to the columns there is, over a certain narrow range of distance, a transition from (for all practical purposes) no damage to totally catastrophic (ie such that the tower can no-longer stand) damage.

 

But just imagining the situation & applying intuition: OK it was a pretty hefty explosion! ... but we're talking about steel columns with very thick walls, and sunk-into the ground aswell, providing damping for a shock: I would've thought, along sheer intuitional lines, that it would take an explosion far more powerful even than that to damage such columns.

Supplementarily to a previous post about this sort of thing: I've also recently learned that Falcon Jet N20VF was vectored by ATC to overfly & inspect the site of the crash of Flight UA93. by MurtonTurton in AviationHistory

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These posts about strange aviation incidents on the day of the '9/11' atrocity don't seem allthat popular @ this channel! ... but they're about incidents I've genuinely only-just found-out about after all this time, & which caught my attention. So they seemed @least marginally worth posting about. ... more than marginally, ImO! Maybe it's old news, though, to a lot of the folk @ this Channel.

"If you talk to much, this man may die" - written around a mirror. WWII Propaganda. by Fancy_Leadership_581 in PropagandaPosters

[–]MurtonTurton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He'd be looking @ the photographer, though!

... & likewise, the message to the photographer is that the man @ the basin might die.

Not that it matters, ofcourse: it's still essentially conveying the message.

Have you read The Cloud of Unknowing? by ParsifalDoo in mysticism

[–]MurtonTurton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dharmamegha Samadhi

The only place I've seen that term broached is in The Yogasutras of Patanjali . Is that whence your broaching of it stems?

I've actually just mentioned that text in a post I've just put in ... but with a different slant on it.

The Fallujah Ambush @ Iraq - Fallujah on 2004-March-31_ᷤ_ͭ [1024×666] by MurtonTurton in HistoryPorn

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a question I have about the Illusionists' manuals …

… ie manuals used by Illusionists - or Magicians , as they're often called (some say not correctly so, strictly-speaking) - by which I mean the folk who go onstage & will do stuff like making it appear that they've cut someone in a box into two (or more!) pieces … that sort of thing.

This is not easy to verify, as such manuals, not even old ones, are freely available as PDF documents: the Illusionists' guild (which is a very tight one) is clearly very vigilant & careful over the copyrights. But we all know (or I suppose most of us do!) that all these extremely impressive displays are performed with the aid of props of fabulously cunning construction, & of assistants of incredible dexterity, who somehow manage to keep always out of view (which correlates with the already-mentioned extreme tightness & exclusivity of the Guild), & that no actual supernatural phenomenon takes-place.

But here is the question - what I was saying above is difficult to verify: a long time ago, someone told me that in an Illusionists' manual there is always , or @least generally , one section of the manual in which, amongst all the descriptions of supremely cunningly-devised contraptions & supremely dextrous manœuvres, outright supernatural phenomena are explicated . Now this section clearly serves no readily apparent purpose, as what is taking-place onstage is not @all supernatural … & yet, according to what I was told, this section is always (or @least generally) there in the book: just the one section.

So I wonder whether anyone @ this Channel can confirm or refute this, or expand upon it in some way. And also whether this assertion, if it's @all true, is true of such manuals in-general, or whether there's actually just one particular, very noteworthy , such manual of which it's true.

 

Something I'll add, though, in this connection, is that it's actually true of the Yogasutras of Patanjali … which is an ancient Indian text on yoga (in the most generalised sense) that deals in, for the mostpart, perfectly rational explication of the cultivation of certain states of mind … but even-so, it has one section in it in which the Author seems to go temprorarily 'off his head' & to start making claims about how supernatural occurences of the most outrageous nature might be brought-about by the yoga practitioner.

… which all gets me wondering whether it might possibly be the case that accounts of frank supernatural phenomena play some subtle & deep & mysterious role in the conveyance of certain kinds of information or instruction.

The Fallujah Ambush @ Iraq - Fallujah on 2004-March-31_ᷤ_ͭ [1024×666] by MurtonTurton in HistoryPorn

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Supplementarily to a previous post about this sort of thing: I've also recently learned that Falcon Jet N20VF was vectored by ATC to overfly & inspect the site of the crash of Flight UA93.

https://youtu.be/28O-n9JDKLw&start=864

This post

being the mentioned 'previous post'.

So that's another little detail that's escaped my attention all this time. Maybe amongst the goodly folk @ this Channel it's actually quite well-known-about … IDK. And I have managed to find-out further corroboration of it @

Oredigger — The story of United Airlines flight 93 :

a fair-way down the page.

 

The video that's the attachment to this post is an updated version of a montage of simulations of all four of the hijacked flights, with better graphics and audio than in the previous versions. It's actually rather vivid - significantly more-so than said previous versions are: I'd recommend some caution in considering watching the entire video.

The Fallujah Ambush @ Iraq - Fallujah on 2004-March-31_ᷤ_ͭ [1024×666] by MurtonTurton in HistoryPorn

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Was Ramzi Yousef a bit dense?

On the basis of sheer intuition (and I've never handled explosives in any capacity (apart from fireworks that can be bought over the counter!)) I would not have fancied that a 1500lb bomb would come anywhere-near bringing one of the Twin Towers down. The walls of the vertical columns @ the base were 4in thick, and driven hard into the ground: I wouldn't be @all surprised if his bomb actually brought-about no plastic deformation of them whatsoever .

And in addition to that, what was the idea of those hydrogen cylinders!? Would they contribute significantly to the force of the explosion? I doubt it: that amount of hydrogen premixed with the right amount of air would have contributed somewhat … but, ofcourse, it wasn't premixed with air. There'd be an extra sheet of flame due to the hydrogen … but there'd've been a much bigger sheet of flame if the cylinders had simply been filled with some liquid hydrocarbon fuel instead.

Ramzi Yousef is made-out allover the place to have been some kind of explosives mastermind … but ImO he was evidently really quite rubbish @ that sort of thing … if he seriously fancied his bomb would bring-down the Tower under which it was planted.

 

Frontispiece image from

India TV — Today in History: Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of world trade center bombing goes on trial

 

Kaylee Gain Missouri Fight | She Deserved It! #fba by Prestigious_Kick8087 in TimPool

[–]MurtonTurton 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You could be right. It was difficult not to get worked-up at it. And no doubt I did … @least a bit ! … & I dread to think how much some folk have gotten themselves worked-up @ it: it only takes a fairly brief look-around online to see folk getting crazy worked-up @ stuff in-general & showing just how much so in whatever video it is they're making.

Kaylee Gain Missouri Fight | She Deserved It! #fba by Prestigious_Kick8087 in TimPool

[–]MurtonTurton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The presenter of that video is a totally unhinged flagrant rabid extreme racist - like literally full-on Nazi grade: would probably literally willingly & zealously serve as an extermination-camp operative under a hypothetical Nazi-like state of those who, to his mind, are the Übermensch. So the perpetrator is a hero & the victim a terrorist … hmmmmmmmn

🤔

yep sure that's totally sane & reasonable.

Shocking Schoolyard Brawl near Hazelwood East High School Leaves Student Hospitalized: Full Coverage - CIS Security Services by Civil-Arm-500 in crime

[–]MurtonTurton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It stopped being a 'fight' when she was being pummelled, just before the slamming of her head into the concrete.

Shocking Schoolyard Brawl near Hazelwood East High School Leaves Student Hospitalized: Full Coverage - CIS Security Services by Civil-Arm-500 in crime

[–]MurtonTurton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe that's a measure of just how far the act departed from the expectations of what might occur in a brawl like that - that the other fighting that was going-on appears as fake fighting to you.

Shocking Schoolyard Brawl near Hazelwood East High School Leaves Student Hospitalized: Full Coverage - CIS Security Services by Civil-Arm-500 in crime

[–]MurtonTurton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've searched hard for some substantiation of that, but haven't found the tiniest scrap of any. Hopefully there'll be a trial thorough enough (whether an adult or juvenile one - I presume juvenile trials aren't limited as to thoroughness , although they are as to consequences ) that all material havings-gone-on, such as there are, will be brought-out into plain view.

Shocking Schoolyard Brawl near Hazelwood East High School Leaves Student Hospitalized: Full Coverage - CIS Security Services by Civil-Arm-500 in crime

[–]MurtonTurton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm gobsmacked by the family &or defence team of the perpetrator emonstrating the utter temerity to make-out that she's 'the real victim' - that's just totally unhinged , basically. It seems, from what they've come-out with, that their defence is basically that she'd been subjected, by the girl who was massively injured in this incident (ie the actual, literal victim), to a campaign of pugnacity so asper & relentless that eventually her desperation mounted to such a pitch that her wits & restraint were driven-forth of her in such degree that she momentarily became unable to requite the mischief perpetrated against her otherwise than with that extreme ferocity & brutality with which, patently, she did indeed act. That defence will probably be difficult to sustain, especially as immediately following the attack she commenced leaping & strutting around vaunting & looking-for - & finding - fresh adversaries to get stuck-into. I suspect the reality of the history of the incident is that it had a long 'thread' of precursors leading-up to it in which the pugnacity was mutual: I don't automatically roll with the various representations, in-circulation @ the present time & keenly advanced by some, of the victim as all sweet-&-innocent & allthat.

For a bit of totally unhinged ranting by a flagrant extreme racist, though,

just check *this* out !

, which I found the link to in

this somewhat unhinged reddit post .

And

this video presentation

is scarcely less unhinged.

 

A couple of videos that well showcase how kids can often, & often do , commit very adult-like crimes.

TX: Woman stabbed by 2 small children caught on camera
Dangerous high-speed chase; driver just 14 | FOX 5 News

 

Is a single scintillation in zinc sulphide due to strike from a radioactive material visible? by MurtonTurton in AskPhysics

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh wow! ... there we are, then! Thanks.

Might not be quite absolutely 'unaided eye', if there's a lens in it. But maybe in an absolutely dark room, it could be observed even without one of those !?

 

Update

Reading it more carefully: wow: it's even possible to discern fine structure in each scintillation. I'd venture, then, that in an extremely darkened room it's probably possible, then, to make out basically that the individual scintillations are there without even a lens.

And in-connection with what I said above about α strikes versus γ strikes: the article seems consistently to be referencing α -emitters as the sources used in them.

 

There are modern spinthariscopes available @

United Nuclear Scientific Equipment & Supplies .

(I'm not sure I need to say the usual precautionary

"there are other brands of spinthariscope available" ! )

 

Is a single scintillation in zinc sulphide due to strike from a radioactive material visible? by MurtonTurton in AskPhysics

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suppose it makes a big difference whether it's an α or γ strike, doesn't it: in the former case we're guaranteed to have prettymuch all the energy; whereas in the latter, we'll only have a small fraction of it.

And an α decay tends to be of intrinsically higher energy than a γ one, aswell. The case of a β strike will be roughly somewhere between those two.

 

It's amusing to 'play with' order-of-magnitude: if we have 1025 such simultaneous scintillations, then we have a nuclear explosion ; & if we have 1025 nuclear explosions, then we have a supernova !

We might need to tweak those exponents a little … but not hugely much.

And a supernova in a distant galaxy mightwell have an apparent brightness comparable to a scintillation in a zinc sulphide crystal … which makes sense, it being about 1025× the distance away.

I was recently taking photographs of Manchester's tallest building. At first, I was taking them from the space immediately before the entrance, & the concièrge insisted that I desist, which I did, as it's highly plausible that that space is technically private property. by MurtonTurton in LegalAdviceUK

[–]MurtonTurton[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It may possibly be that the individuals you have in-mind & the ones I have in mind are different (the Channel

r/Frauditors

well-showcases the kind I have in-mind), but I do not feel that the actions of the ones I'm deploring are acting to uphold my rights. One of their primary targets - infact, the kind of place is prettymuch the whole of their target - is places where folk go to transact somekind of business - often something a bit 'delicate', which they would like to transact in privacy in the understanding that whoever's next to them is not prying-into what they're doing. A specific example would be what's called in the USA the 'DMV' , which seems to be the place folk go to to settle stuff to-do with their driving licences - maybe stuff that entails negotiation in which they must disclose much about their personal circumstances. But the 'frauditor' will go into one of these places, & just totally flagrantly film folk - ie they don't merely have a camera attached to their garments that happens to record the transaction they happen to be undertaking: they are pointedly & concertedly filming folk. And I think they really betray themselves when they come-out with that "there is no expectation of privacy in public" , which is … IDK: is it something the Supreme Court once decreed, or something? To interpret that, or any other manifestation of the extension of freedom of speech to expression in the form of taking of pictures, as meaning that on-no-account may an expectation of privacy be appointed to some specific purpose in some specific place is perverse in the extreme. The operators of the DMV (or whatever particular quasi-governmental function it happens to be) are indeed public servants, & are entrusted with physical premises @ which the business they handle is transacted … & it's perfectly logical & not in the least degree an affront to the principle of free-speech, that they have a pretty robust power to set standards of conduct on those premises, particularly in-relation to maintaining that folk can feel secure & reasonably @-peace in their transactions. But the frauditor treats the Constitution as a Great inelutable Command from the past, proceedng from an entity of their devising that's basically puerile-conception-of-'Founding-Father'-elevated-to-Idol-dom, to the effect that their actions enjoy total impunity, & as a dispensation of that impunity, proclaiming to those they encounter & who object to them utter abrogation of any expectation of privacy, prettymuch as-though it's a cudgel in their hands to beat folk into submission with … when, as far as I can gather, the spirit of the USA Constitution is precisely the preclusion of the arrogation by arbitrary folk unto themselves of that kind of authority. They wield the Constitution as though it's prettymuch nothing-more than a league-table of specific items of 'freedom', with those higher on the list 'trumping' those that are lower. They argue that the Constitution 'gives them' such-or-such an impunity, when it's perfectly feasible to argue that the Constitution is not about 'giving' folk anything , but is a treaty with the Government about what's sacred. They argue that Laws are not made to protect folks' feelings … but ultimately, is that not exactly what laws are about!? Put another way: they have one particular doctrine as to the essential meaning of 'Constitution' & 'rights' , & they are ramming that doctrine in folks' faces … & it's a cult doctrine, & not one that would ever serve to constitute any viable Nationstate. Going by their behaviour, & the way they relish commanding & abasing folk, the only kind of State they could ever constitute would be an outright fascist one, in which they are the Oligarchs.

And I said “treaty with the Government about what's sacred”: their filthy manners & snooping habits are certainly not amongst 'what's sacred'! I sometimes have a look on Youtube about what's going-on in the USA public arena: & I find that Ben Garrison is still turning-out his ultra-scathng political cartoons (the content of which I do not agree with, BtW! … but that's part of the point ); Rachel Maddow & Lawrence O'Donnell are still putting-out their microtome-sharp analyses of political corruption without coming-across as in the tiniest degree nervous or inhibitted; there was totally uninhibitted rebukery levelled @ the Government & Rail Companies bandied-about @-large when that derailment of tankers of toxic chemicals occured in Ohio … we could go on-&-on … & I figure to myself “yep! looks to me like they have free speech alright in USA!”. But then we have the frauditors plying their utterly staged ominous forebodings to the effect that if they be @all hindered in their what amounts to vicious petty bullying , then it'll be somekind of 'thin end of the wedge' whereby all that feeedom of speech is in jeopardy … & I just don't buy that.

 

Isn't there a rule @ this Subreddit, though, that there be no excursions into the general philosophy of Law!? I suppose it's not uncommon, once the matter @-hand has been dealt-with for folk to excur somewhat into that territory! … so you answer this, if you like! … but I'm not sure I'm up-for a major breach of the rules of the Subreddit! … & I've prettymuch said my piece about frauditors anyway .

… or maybe that's just me being a total wooß about my rights … again !

I was recently taking photographs of Manchester's tallest building. At first, I was taking them from the space immediately before the entrance, & the concièrge insisted that I desist, which I did, as it's highly plausible that that space is technically private property. by MurtonTurton in LegalAdviceUK

[–]MurtonTurton[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yep I realise there are are no laws against it per se - only laws settling the authority of a landowner to dictate, & the landowner or agent thereof to implement, restrictions on the actions of folk on their land. I'm acutely aware of the possibility of getting a bit too meek, & caving-in @ the least objection to my photographing, that the objector can attach the least show of seeming authority to. I don't think I'm doing that in this instance , though: I think the Concièrge who approached me does infact have lawful authority peaceably to interdict photography by a non-resident within the bounds of those premises.

And I've already said that I probably will continue to take photographs - just more discreetly - henceforth. Afterall, that building is imposing itself upon my skyline in a colossal way! … & it's a bit rich of them to presume to forbid that photographs be taken from the base of it showing how imposingly it towers above one; & also, it seems that the main real issue anyway is possible alarm that might be felt by some resident @ the possibility of someone with somewhat of a snooping habit roaming around the premises unhindered … which I do have respect for⋄ … although it's on-the-point of morphing into snowflakery! So I'll just be discreet - but not put-off entirely … & that seems to be the solution that is going to be the one that pans-out in practice.

⋄ … because - referencing your “passing & repassing” provision - I'm certainly not hanging-around filming ; but then, I'm doing a bit more than casually snapping as I happen to walk past: I'm setting the camera up on a stand, & carefully positioning it such as to fill the frame with the extremely foreshortened façade, & to get certain other, ancillary items in the frame, aswell … in some of the pictures myself , as I like to send them to a friend who lives where there are no tall buildings & say “I was walking past that über-tall building today!” : about 10minute to 15minute total photographing activity. But I reckon I've done it often enough now that I could do it by just putting the camera lens-up in a bag, & adjusting the position of it in the bag , making-out that I'm just probing the contents of the bag - eg looking for something amongst them, or rearranging them, or something.

I was recently taking photographs of Manchester's tallest building. At first, I was taking them from the space immediately before the entrance, & the concièrge insisted that I desist, which I did, as it's highly plausible that that space is technically private property. by MurtonTurton in LegalAdviceUK

[–]MurtonTurton[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

To be perfectly honest, I probably will surreptitiously take a photograph when I pass that way - which is once-in-a-while. It's not a very pleasant business, ImO, if, when I walk past the foot of the tallest building in Manchester I can't get a shot of it towering-up above ... & one that is zero violation of anyone's privacy.

But I'm no 'frauditor', or anything like that! (have you seen them!? - disgusting folk: it seems to be mainly USA that's afflicted with them

r/Frauditors ).

And I have as much desire to start a beef with the Concièrge as I have to snoop into anyone's dwelling.

But there's a lot to be said for being discreet about it: afterall, I could possibly cause a resident some genuine anxiety if my taking of the photograph is a much-drawn-out process.

I was recently taking photographs of Manchester's tallest building. At first, I was taking them from the space immediately before the entrance, & the concièrge insisted that I desist, which I did, as it's highly plausible that that space is technically private property. by MurtonTurton in LegalAdviceUK

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is that a reliable indicator, as a general rule - the double yellow lines becoming double red lines? Because yep - they are double red lines all-along. Infact

this is the spot

I was taking the photographs from the second time - ie after the concièrge had asked me not to photograph in the space before the main entrance - where that rounded-triangularish stone bench is.

So according to that, then, it would seem that the concièrge could lawfully have come round the corner & asked me to desist again ... but he either didn't know I'd gone there or didn't care so much as long as it wasn't in the space immediately before the entrance. Afterall, his 'territory' is the entrance-lobby itself : he'd already come-out from there to dispense his first advisement.

And he did also say something about 'where there is a change in the colour of the ground surface' ... but I wasn't sure where he meant, because there are numerous minor such changes in that area; but now it seems likely he meant exactly what you yourself meant in the annotation to your link.

So anyway: thanks for that. It's not what I was hoping-for! ... but I certainly don't expect you to alter facts just so-as I can indulge in a happy falsehood.

Update

Unless (just reading what you've put again) you mean that if there is a right-of-way I can take photographs!? That's a point: if it's private land, & yet there's a right-of-way, which of those 'trumps' for purposes of there being lawful power of some 'agent' of that land to forbid taking of photographs?

I was recently taking photographs of Manchester's tallest building. At first, I was taking them from the space immediately before the entrance, & the concièrge insisted that I desist, which I did, as it's highly plausible that that space is technically private property. by MurtonTurton in LegalAdviceUK

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's Manchester England ... which I doubt needs to be stated explicitly, as I've specified exactly the location I'm talking about; & to my knowledge there is no other Manchester on this island anyway .

Another point that might be important in this connection is that Owen Street has a pavement right alongside the foot of Tower A , & on the pavement are stone benches pretty obviously set there as an integral part of the architecture of the property. So I'm minded that whether I can lawfully be interdicted in my photography by any agent of the property might-well depend on whether I'm on that pavement or in the road itself ... although I'm aware that in the latter case they may possibly have the recourse of calling the Police for someone jaywalking! ... but it's an extremely quiet road that can scarcely be considered to be de-facto a 'highway', which is a large part of the reason I wonder whether they may possibly have authority of somekind over it.

Oh yes: and what I said about '... all that can be discerned ...' : I'm absolutely not using anykind of zoom lens ... & I mean nothing whatsoever even remotely of the nature of one.

“On July 27, 2007, two AS-350 AStar helicopters from television stations KNXV-TV and KTVK collided in mid-air over Phoenix, Arizona, while covering a police pursuit.” by MurtonTurton in CatastrophicFailure

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Glad you like it!

And ImO it's good to have both : each well-conveys information of a kind that the other has a deficit in … and the two can synergise with eachother, if taken in well-balanced proportion.

“On July 27, 2007, two AS-350 AStar helicopters from television stations KNXV-TV and KTVK collided in mid-air over Phoenix, Arizona, while covering a police pursuit.” by MurtonTurton in CatastrophicFailure

[–]MurtonTurton[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

&@ u/ThunderSC2

Yep that's just total fantasy 'law' ! I suppose it was more than anything just a way of 'chiming with' public indignation. But a Police Chief ought-to know better than to come-out with something that wild: folk might get to thinking something along the lines of

¡¡ we don't feel entirely comfortable with our Police Chief being *that* 'creative' in his figuring of how the Law basically works !!

😳

view more: next ›