Comments by "Larre Valentine" (@internetuser881) on "WSJ News"
channel.
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
16
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
You are missing a lot of common sense, for starters, this happened inside a movie set. Secondly, in this video it describes the specific case against the person who was responsible and legitimately licensed and obligated to follow safety regulations and standard procedures... which means she was indeed supposed to know what is going on with her prop department. On the other hand, the actor's job does not require any of that, he was not responsible for the prop gun nor did he knew what was going to happen. What do I mean by responsible? The actor's job does not require him to test or create props materials, his job is to act and follow the director's orders. now If you believe the actor's actions were intentional, then you are making serious accusations that require evidence...evidence that would have been helpful in court, and yet where were you? So just because you are looking at it from an audience perspective doesn't mean that what you are saying is the complete true of what actually happened. Fyi, the film armorer was found guilty while another individual was charged for tampering evidence but was not found guilty*
Update; For an example, do I believe tampering evidence is crucial to the investigation? Yes, but do I need to say that the system is rigged because the defendant was not found guilty? No. I know I am not qualified enough, nor do I have the ability to provide an expert opinion, or factual statements as to whether or not, Guitierrez Reed should be a free person. I have the common sense to know that I need sufficient amount of proof in order to be able to reach a proper conclusion. To know what is right, and to know what actually happened are two seperate aspects, and it looks like you are taking it based on faith and morality rather than logically, which I comprehend that both are two types of common sense. However, under the rule of law one of them is realistically taking upon consideration. In this matter, you should learn about innocent until proven guilty, since this is the common sense you should be using. @JinNani224
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@BobBilly506 As a general rule of thumb, from pretty much any guided missile, a third of the missile's weight is in guidance and flight control, a third is in the warhead, and a third of the weight is in fuel. Sometimes on interceptors, that number is even lower. That number could be as low as like 10 to 20% in the warhead, because you need to pack that missile with as much fuel as possible to get it up to speed.
So this isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's a good rule of thumb. It's a good way to estimate because you can't really cheat physics. So if an Iron Dome rocket is 90 kilos, then a rough estimate of the warhead is about 30 kilos or roughly 66 pounds.
In all honesty, Israel doesn't really give out the specifications of its weapons. But I would say that the Iron Dome warhead is probably more like ten percent so we might be dealing with a nine kilo warhead on that rocket because again these iron dome interceptors are actually maneuvering it's one of the few
interceptors that can actually maneuver and you need to pack that thing with as much fuel as possible so they can maneuver in midair Now, let's talk about this warhead. The Iron Dome has a proximity warhead. We know that. That means as it gets closer to its target, it explodes in a bunch of shrapnel so that it can hit that incoming warhead. It has a better chance of hitting that incoming warhead like a shotgun hitting a sporting clay. You don't pack a lot of high explosive into an interceptor with a proximity warhead, at least not enough to make a gigantic explosion.
You need enough to kind of push that shrapnel out to create a cloud of shrapnel that the incoming warhead can hit. And then there's the other issue of self-destruction. Surface-to-air missiles self-destruct when they lose track. And they do this to avoid exactly what people think happened,
to avoid this missile from coming down in a populated area and hurting people that it's supposed to protect. Now, there is a non-zero chance that self-destruct wouldn't work. As far as I know, there's only one video I've seen where this has happened.
And in a case like this, where self-destruct doesn't work, the biggest issue is fuel, not warhead. Remember, packing this interceptor with as much fuel as possible, it's probably going to be the fuel that detonates, not the actual proximity warhead because the proximity warhead is made up of
shrapnel and you just need enough explosive to push the shrapnel out. Still, the Iron Dome has fired thousands of missiles over its lifetime of service, and I've seen one video, one video of an interceptor failing to self-destruct. I think that's a pretty reliable system. So we have a missile that's not designed to explode with explosive force,
and a missile with a good track record of self-destructing if it does go off course. That being said, if I use ICD-203, which is a standard in the intelligence community for determining probability, I would say that it is unlikely that this is the impact of an Iron Dome missile.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@LAJiini As a general rule of thumb, from pretty much any guided missile, a third of the missile's weight is in guidance and flight control, a third is in the warhead, and a third of the weight is in fuel. Sometimes on interceptors, that number is even lower. That number could be as low as like 10 to 20% in the warhead, because you need to pack that missile with as much fuel as possible to get it up to speed.
So this isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's a good rule of thumb. It's a good way to estimate because you can't really cheat physics. So if an Iron Dome rocket is 90 kilos, then a rough estimate of the warhead is about 30 kilos or roughly 66 pounds.
In all honesty, Israel doesn't really give out the specifications of its weapons. But I would say that the Iron Dome warhead is probably more like ten percent so we might be dealing with a nine kilo warhead on that rocket because again these iron dome interceptors are actually maneuvering it's one of the few
interceptors that can actually maneuver and you need to pack that thing with as much fuel as possible so they can maneuver in midair Now, let's talk about this warhead. The Iron Dome has a proximity warhead. We know that. That means as it gets closer to its target, it explodes in a bunch of shrapnel so that it can hit that incoming warhead. It has a better chance of hitting that incoming warhead like a shotgun hitting a sporting clay. You don't pack a lot of high explosive into an interceptor with a proximity warhead, at least not enough to make a gigantic explosion.
You need enough to kind of push that shrapnel out to create a cloud of shrapnel that the incoming warhead can hit. And then there's the other issue of self-destruction. Surface-to-air missiles self-destruct when they lose track. And they do this to avoid exactly what people think happened,
to avoid this missile from coming down in a populated area and hurting people that it's supposed to protect. Now, there is a non-zero chance that self-destruct wouldn't work. As far as I know, there's only one video I've seen where this has happened.
And in a case like this, where self-destruct doesn't work, the biggest issue is fuel, not warhead. Remember, packing this interceptor with as much fuel as possible, it's probably going to be the fuel that detonates, not the actual proximity warhead because the proximity warhead is made up of
shrapnel and you just need enough explosive to push the shrapnel out. Still, the Iron Dome has fired thousands of missiles over its lifetime of service, and I've seen one video, one video of an interceptor failing to self-destruct. I think that's a pretty reliable system. So we have a missile that's not designed to explode with explosive force,
and a missile with a good track record of self-destructing if it does go off course. That being said, if I use ICD-203, which is a standard in the intelligence community for determining probability, I would say that it is unlikely that this is the impact of an Iron Dome missile.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I really need to say this, everyone are starting to see through your motive as much as those who promoted. We know that hamas are connected to Iran. We know that these protests around the world, more inclusively to western nations are connected to hamas and others muslims and liberal organizations involved who are in for various reasons, specially on the internet with some unhinged stuff. We know that Yemen are intentionally for Gaza, and ecommerce, but at the same time, they have an interested doing it. So, We might possibly know that someone is paying them to do it... and no one wants to talk about it. So i think the whole point is that the more this keeps going the more chaos it will happen. So if people think this is a good idea to encourage evil people who manipulate these protestors by saying free palestine, as a form of deception, then they are wrong towards this particular issue. What we need to do is unite people from both sides who suffered the most, and help nursure them during times of need, and communicate with eachother rather than lying or ignoring.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Jeremynano By top military officials, I mean active members who are at the top of the chain of command. So we are talking about people who works for the government. They have access to the most advanced capabilities and are required by the government to use it to protect hundreds and hundreds of millions of Americans from harm, whether at home or abroad. They also have the duty to protect military personnel deployed in partner countries.
So In other words, on a daily basis, these are the people who know what's really going on in the world and what tomorrow will be like because they're the ones providing real time information to Congress and the president about what the heck is going on. in fact they have advisors who gives ideas how they should address this situation. Eventhough I don't personally know what their decisions are, in a glampse, I can tell where this is heading.
On the one hand, I understand that the students' opinion is to stop and cease fire because innocent people should not die, and that Israel must approach this differently, while also preventing innocent people from dying and terror from expanding. On the other hand, I don't think we can or should dictate what a country can or cannot, when it considers innocent people in Israel and their livelihoods to be at risk from proxies.
1
-
@Jeremynano I think I must have written it wrong... you asked two questions, one, who are these senior officials protecting? They protect hundreds and hundreds of millions of Americans from harm, whether at home or abroad. They also have a duty to protect their military personnel deployed in partner countries.
Second question, and who exactly do these senior military officers work for? Answer, they work for the US government using advanced technologies to provide real time information to Congress and the President about what is happening around the world, including Gaza, Israel, South Africa, Ukraine, Europe, etc. The US military have advisors who give ideas or options on how the president or Congress should approach or approve a bill related to this situation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@nikkidixon-fox1907 It is so obvious how much they are putting civilian population at risk with H routing maneuvers and Hstgs... And how much money they have used over the years from others to prepare a war against Israel. Examples such as, Yemen, Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Africa, Turkey, Chechenya, Belarus, Georgia, NK, China, Afghanistan etc are all involved. We can find
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@marcussmith3969 We, as human beings, have not yet fully developed, therefore, we must understand that there is a lot to learn about ourselves and what surrounds us. We create chaos, destruction and violence... We can also show love, compassion and unity all at the same time. On one hand, we cannot underestimate our species because time, opportunities and experiences have been a large part of our core, we can light a fire, speak multiple languages and expand its technologies, and also, feel the sound of the frequencies that travel through everyone's bodies that involves everything that exists. Now, I don't want to criticize your religious thoughts, on the other hand, I would like to discuss about what happens in the video. As we know, based on our current process, I want to say that most of the people around the world contributed to modern technologies, in one way or another... We should know better and trust our conscience, for example, what we have in Our disposition is valuable because we can predict the weather. So if people really care about changing the world according to their religious rights of freedom, why can't they save their families without risking their lives knowing the days are becoming hotter than ever?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1