Operation Vigilant Guard: Connect the Dots in Georgia

a reply to: kosmicjack

That lawyer was assassinated in broad daylight on crowded Peachtree Street in downtown with people around everywhere. This is a hit, pure and simple. The minute she asked for state records, her life wasn't worth a plug nickle.

a reply to: Bedlam

What I have read on the subject seems to suggest the red mercury mythology is based on a loose understanding of mercury (II) oxide combined with fantastic (unsubstantiated) claims surrounding Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. In other words, a bunch of hooey.

Which is why the report initially caught my eye. Since there's really no such thing as red mercury, was that claim as to the substance's identity by the guy who had it? A description made by the cops? A little editorial license by a reporter? Did anyone run a test on the substance to determine what it actually was?

TheRedneck

a reply to: flatbush71

Sam Cohen the musician?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: roadgravel
Contrary to current thinking, every event is not a conspiracy. There are still plenty of humans to make mistakes and do stupid things. In this case it was a crack user. Seems acceptable.

If that's really all it was, then why assassinate a lawyer trying to obtain state records in connection to this event?

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: roadgravel
Contrary to current thinking, every event is not a conspiracy. There are still plenty of humans to make mistakes and do stupid things. In this case it was a crack user. Seems acceptable.

If that's really all it was, then why assassinate a lawyer trying to obtain state records in connection to this event?

If it's really a massive conspiracy to what...drop a bridge span?...then why do the records exist to be obtained?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: flatbush71

Sam Cohen the musician?

TheRedneck

Not that I've ever heard of.

Sam Cohen the proponent of small tactical nukes and neutron bombs.

a reply to: Bedlam

Ah, gonna need a linky then. Never heard of him, and all I found on a search was a musician.

TheRedneck

en.wikipedia.org...



Buck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Bedlam

Ah, gonna need a linky then. Never heard of him, and all I found on a search was a musician.

TheRedneck

Well, it's wiki, but start there and groove in. Cohen the Barbarian

I've heard two different stories on Sam and RM.

1. The disinfo guys need a person of standing to endorse and he volunteered.

2. It was his idea and they exploited it.

Either way its Bravo Sierra.

Buck

a reply to: FissionSurplus

This ten year thing is a lie.

From another angle (of the same fire and cables spot) you can see a photo from jul/2011, and there no cable under the bridge at that time.

jul/2011 photo

originally posted by: flatbush71
I've heard two different stories on Sam and RM.

1. The disinfo guys need a person of standing to endorse and he volunteered.

2. It was his idea and they exploited it.

Either way its Bravo Sierra.

Buck

I'd go with #1, the statements he made about it reveal a few basic mistakes that have been perpetuated since. Hard to believe Cohen would screw up something that basic.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

originally posted by: roadgravel
Contrary to current thinking, every event is not a conspiracy. There are still plenty of humans to make mistakes and do stupid things. In this case it was a crack user. Seems acceptable.

If that's really all it was, then why assassinate a lawyer trying to obtain state records in connection to this event?

If it's really a massive conspiracy to what...drop a bridge span?...then why do the records exist to be obtained?

Yeah but on the flip side, why murder someone investigating a bridge collapse due to only stored supplies becoming flammable or a crackhead smoking crack?

When looking at all the ins and outs of the situation, you can't honestly say the story being fed to us through the mainstream is 100% truth. There's something fishy here, no denying that.

a reply to: flatbush71
a reply to: Bedlam

It might be Wiki, but it was pretty informative. It seems to me after reading that description, that red mercury would fulfill Cohen's claims if it released high-energy neutrons in response to pressure increases. I may not be a nuclear physicist, but what I do know on the subject indicates such a material is not impossible. However possible in theory, it does appear to be unknown, at least to the layman. That would include the police department.

Thank you both for the link. I have some pondering to do.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TrueMessiah

Yeah but on the flip side, why murder someone investigating a bridge collapse due to only stored supplies becoming flammable or a crackhead smoking crack?

It's your assertion that's true. And one that doesn't strictly make any sense.

When looking at all the ins and outs of the situation, you can't honestly say the story being fed to us through the mainstream is 100% truth. There's something fishy here, no denying that.

Sure you can. I deny it. White crow time.

Now that we have absolutes dealt with, let's consider dispassionately the reason for...what? Hiding the hideous international plot to drop a piece of a bridge?

I have to admit, I find the logical underpinnings of your assumption to be fairly off.

Yes, the 'red mercury' part was odd. And, if you'd ever been in one of these exercises, you'd recognize the general outlines. Along with the sudden deafening silence on any more details about that. These exercises OFTEN have little sub-tasks like that. And they're just as contextually shaky, often relying on people from non-existent countries introducing sub-scenarios.

originally posted by: TheRedneckI may not be a nuclear physicist, but what I do know on the subject indicates such a material is not impossible.

TheRedneck

Pressure doesn't do squat to nuclei, until you're up to the sorts of levels that can force nuclei together.

Until that point, it's all electron shells, and you don't get any neutron releases from it.

See also: coulomb barrier.

eta: it's one of the many basic mistakes that Cohen handwaved like a shaggy dog story. It sounds good if you don't think about it.

a reply to: Bedlam

At 'normal' pressure levels, you are correct. Atomic distances are the result of a balance of forces, one of which is the Coulomb barrier. Density is the result of those atomic distances as well as the mass of each atom involved. Pressure can change density, by changing the balance between those forces, but I know of nothing with a nucleus susceptible to the minute force changes that occur with pressure.

Gah, bear with me here... I'm trying to put some pretty technical concepts into layman's language for the benefit of our non-technical members.

Atomic nuclei exist in a state of only local stability, and the degree of this local stability is a function of the geometry and composition of the nuclei. Some isotopes have a low degree of stability and are therefore radioactive, while others have a large degree of stability and are stable. We do not know, to my knowledge, of any material with a degree of stability that would make it susceptible to high-energy neutron emission under even huge pressure changes, but that does not mean such a nucleus cannot exist. The math needed to completely describe nuclear interactions is quite complex and only superficially understood at this time. I see nothing in the equations, however, that preclude the possibility such a nucleus can exist.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Atomic nuclei exist in a state of only local stability, and the degree of this local stability is a function of the geometry and composition of the nuclei. Some isotopes have a low degree of stability and are therefore radioactive, while others have a large degree of stability and are stable. We do not know, to my knowledge, of any material with a degree of stability that would make it susceptible to high-energy neutron emission under even huge pressure changes...

I agree with this part.

...but that does not mean such a nucleus cannot exist. The math needed to completely describe nuclear interactions is quite complex and only superficially understood at this time. I see nothing in the equations, however, that preclude the possibility such a nucleus can exist.

TheRedneck

...but disagree with this one. Pressures at less than a Coulomb barrier rupturing level can affect electron shell activity, including plasmons, which is weird enough. But these interactions don't penetrate to the nucleus.

With ENOUGH pressure, you can get into really bizarre territory like degenerate matter, but you'd need neutron star sorts of pressure to get there.

You CAN do some bizarre crap with nuclear states, though. Nuclei don't just sit there, even if they're stable. You can, in some cases, influence how the individual components in the nucleus arrange themselves. And that's a neat subtopic that's really rabbit-holey, conspiratorial, dark, and hard to track. Oddly, it's one of the trace components in the Tale of Red Mercury.

a reply to: Bedlam

I think you're missing my point. I am not suggesting forces which break the Coulomb barrier, but rather am stating that some component of the forces does penetrate the barrier. Consider a window pane; it will stop any force not greater than its strength from passing through, but not completely. A very tiny portion of the force does pass through, allowing the use of lasers to actually detect sound wave pressure through the glass.

The formula for nuclei stability forms an nth-order polynomial function. For every nucleus we have information on, the energy required to move stability from the local minimum energy level is astronomical compared to any pressures that could normally penetrate the Coulomb barrier. There are no assumptions I see in those equations that requires this; it simply is the way things are, not the way things must be. It is completely possible, although not empirically verified, for the local minimum energy level to be shallow enough to allow high pressure from outside to shift the energy characteristics of the nucleus, allowing it to recombine and, should the energy drop outside the initial stability zone be great enough, potentially eject a neutron.

Such a material would be expected to be extremely unstable, though...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I think you're missing my point. I am not suggesting forces which break the Coulomb barrier, but rather am stating that some component of the forces does penetrate the barrier.

No, I got that, I just don't think you DO get any affect on nuclear stability by altering electron shell states with things like pressure, temperature or chemical bonds, at least not until you get into levels that are Way Over The Top and start forcing electrons into the nucleus or forcing nuclei together. People have fiddled around with all sorts of changes at 'normal' levels to see if they affect nuclear stability by looking at decay rates, nothing seems to have any measurable effect, with, I believe, the sole exception that you can diddle beta decay rates by keeping certain shells either stuffed or empty. You can't capture electrons that aren't there.

eta: you can, however, apparently store quite a bit of energy in the physical arrangement of a nucleus. And you could maybe get that back, although if you got it all at once, it might be a lot to deal with in a small space.