J

20.6K posts

J banner
J

J

@THX_PK

All opinions are mine unless they're not.

Katılım Ekim 2019
267 Takip Edilen449 Takipçiler
J
J@THX_PK·
@_The_Prophet__ It is written for the libs who already support Iran
English
0
0
0
99
SightBringer
SightBringer@_The_Prophet__·
⚡️Now that the full letter is visible, the signal is even clearer. This is a political reclassification attempt under pressure. The whole letter is built to do five things at once. First, it tries to separate Iranian civilization from the regime’s operational behavior. That is why it keeps talking about history, dignity, ancient continuity, and the Iranian people rather than just the state. It is trying to widen sympathy while narrowing blame. Second, it tries to flip Iran from threat actor into injured respondent. The constant repetition of “we never initiated aggression,” “measured self-defense,” and “we were attacked” is not there because it is persuasive on the merits. It is there because they need a new frame fast. Third, it tries to shift the battlefield from missiles, proxies, Hormuz, and nuclear leverage into morality, history, and public conscience. That is a major tell. You do that when the hard-power balance is going against you. Fourth, it tries to split America from Israel. That part is not incidental. The “proxy for Israel” language is the core strategic payload of the letter. It is aimed directly at American voters and elites who are already uneasy about paying costs for someone else’s regional agenda. Fifth, it tries to make stopping look rational, humane, and even noble for the U.S. side. The letter is basically saying: you can stop now, call this misguided aggression, and still preserve your moral self-image. That is the real thing. And the tone matters. This is not revolutionary triumph language. It is not even strong deterrence language. It is polished grievance mixed with civilizational dignity and an invitation to step away. That is a regime trying to survive a narrowing corridor. The most revealing part is not any single sentence. It is the structure of the whole document. It barely reads like something written for mobilizing domestic fury. It reads like something written for foreign political effect. That means Tehran thinks the most important remaining battlefield is now external perception and coalition cohesion, not just direct force exchange. So what is really going on? The regime understands that it is in a losing squeeze and is trying to convert military pressure into political hesitation on the other side. It wants Washington and allied publics to ask: why keep going why pay more why absorb the fuel shock why own the aftermath why do this for Israel why not stop here That is the mission of the letter. Do I think the claims are honest? No. Do I think the letter is structurally important? Yes. Because propaganda changes form when pressure changes form. Earlier the energy was defiance, resistance, punishment, endurance. Here the energy is misunderstanding, civilization, humanity, restraint, engagement. That transition is the signal. The deepest truth is simple: This letter is not written from confidence. It is written from compression. They are trying to turn battlefield weakness into political friction before the next rung hits.
Joe Weisenthal@TheStalwart

Full text of the letter from the Iranian President to the American people presstv.ir/Detail/2026/04…

English
28
40
224
42.9K
J
J@THX_PK·
@jb1002x @SuitablePolitic Which would be ironic because they ended tariffs because they didn't think Congress could garner enough support to stop a POTUS vetoing them ending tariffs
English
0
0
0
9
jb
jb@jb1002x·
@SuitablePolitic I feel like SCOTUS is going to punt this to Congress. They will say an amendment must be passed to solve this issue.
English
2
0
0
1.9K
J
J@THX_PK·
@unseen1_unseen Something changed with that recent bombing
English
0
0
0
98
Browning Machine
Browning Machine@BrowningMachine·
AGAIN: If you think Iran's subjugation will require anything less than: 1,000,000+ troops on the ground, 50,000+ deaths, and/or nukes... You're an idiot. Iran's isn't Afghanistan plus Iraq. It's A * I. We DO NOT have the finances, will, or time to see it through.
English
23
5
63
2.6K
J
J@THX_PK·
@ClassicSpyChic The problem HIMYM had was Josh had amazing chemistry with Cristin Milioti, and none with Cobie so it just doesn't work him ending up with Robin
English
2
0
26
1.1K
J
J@THX_PK·
@johnddavidson Kills enemy, destroys everything they have, leaves @johnddavidson "less than an outright defeat" You people are fucking retarded
English
1
1
7
84
John Daniel Davidson
John Daniel Davidson@johnddavidson·
Unilaterally declaring victory would not be ideal, but it would be less than an outright defeat, and it would avoid a quagmire like Vietnam or a decades-long misadventure like Afghanistan. It also would be a settlement the American people would probably welcome. And it might be as good as Trump is going to get in this war.
John Daniel Davidson tweet media
English
49
12
55
15.5K
Hans Mahncke
Hans Mahncke@HansMahncke·
President Trump is dealing with a situation a lot of parents might recognize. It’s like you’ve paid for years of swimming lessons, but the kid stayed in the shallow end, splashing and complaining because he knew you’d always be there to bail him out. At some point, you realize the constant rescue has become the problem. So you take him out into deep water and let go, not to hurt him, but because it’s the only way he might finally learn to swim. The dilemma is that there are no good options. Step in too soon and you prove nothing has changed. Step back and you’re watching someone who can’t save himself and may not even want to. It's an intractable problem, and in the end the US will have to take care of it again.
The White House@WhiteHouse

“All of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you…” - President Donald J. Trump

English
54
108
584
22K
Stephen McIntyre
Stephen McIntyre@ClimateAudit·
Most NATO nations disagreed with US war against Vietnam and didn't participate in that war. US didn't "take care" of a problem in that war. Most NATO nations disagreed with US war against Iraq and didn't participate or participated as little as possible. Rather than "taking care" of a problem, the US war created worse problems. The US war against Iran is well on its way to similarly creating worse problems.
English
11
1
16
1.2K
J
J@THX_PK·
@stonetoss You can't just kill your enemies and win cries Stonetoss
English
0
0
2
113
J
J@THX_PK·
@TheTonus The White House is a part of the Executive Branch
English
0
0
0
55
J
J@THX_PK·
@StephenFleming So he discovered this in 2010 and somehow since then absolutely no one else anywhere in the world has done the same thing or has anyone anywhere in the world confirmed his findings 🤡
English
0
0
4
463
Stephen Fleming
Stephen Fleming@StephenFleming·
This is probably experimental error. Nevertheless, a persistent error through this many different KINDS of experiments is itself interesting. Publish and see if other labs can replicate it. If he’s right, give him the Nobel Prize, and we’re off to Saturn. If he’s wrong, we still will learn something.
Jesse Michels@AlchemyAmerican

🚨BREAKING: NASA's Lead Electrostatics Scientist claims he’s discovered a “new force” that counteracts gravity with no fuel necessary. Dr. Charles Buhler has run 2,000 vacuum chamber experiments showing a propellantless thrust force that persists after the power is switched off, and cannot be explained by ion wind, magnetic effects, or classical energy conservation. The input is pure electricity and the output is millinewtons of thrust counteracting gravity. He believes his work vindicates the legacy of midcentury antigravity pioneer Thomas Townsend Brown and will lead to a new paradigm of propellantless deep space travel that transcends chemical combustion rockets🚨 Charles Buhler has a PhD in condensed matter physics from Florida State University, spent over two decades at NASA's Electrostatics and Surface Physics Laboratory at Kennedy Space Center (which he now leads), and is the incoming president of the Electrostatic Society of America. He is NASA’s authority on electrostatics. His colleague Andrew Aurigema, a 35-year veteran engineer working from the Townsend Brown electrogravitics lineage, developed a parallel version of the same experiment independently, and the two discovered each other through a mutual colleague who had been watching both of them work in silence for years. Together, under their company Exodus Propulsion Technologies, they have tested nearly 2,000 variations of what they believe is a previously undocumented force. He’s also developed a quantum electrodynamics based theory to explain his results. Buhler’s patent is now under formal examination by the U.S. Patent Office with affidavit-signing witnesses being contacted independently. This is the future of space travel, beyond chemical combustion. With Rocketry, we can only get to Proxima Centauri B in 80,000 years. And you’d burn through the fuel well before that. It’s completely untenable for interstellar travel. 1. Buhler’s Skeptic Mentor Stopped Cold in 2010 The first demonstration happened in a non-vacuum lab using a laser aimed at a wall to detect small displacements. Buhler had his future brother-in-law run the test. His mentor, Dr. Sid Clements, an electrostatics expert who had dismissed the work entirely, watched the laser move and immediately abandoned what he was doing. He walked over, ran through a series of verification steps on the spot, and never questioned the reality of the effect again. That was 2010. It took two more years working with Drew before Buhler realized the force appeared even without any B field or current present. He wasn't in the field momentum regime at all. He was in pure electrostatics. 2. The Force is Not Explainable by Newton’s Laws or Ion Wind Ion wind produces thrust in the same direction the ionized air is traveling. The “Exodus force” (Buhler’s name for his new force) produces thrust perpendicular to the expected ion wind direction, reverses cleanly when the device is flipped, and remains present inside a sealed enclosure where no ionized air can escape. Buhler documented this publicly with video: a balsa lifter placed inside a sealed plastic box on a scale, powered up, lifts internally while the scale reads flat. That is conservation of momentum. That is what ion wind looks like. The Exodus force is something different, and Buhler, as the person who leads NASA's only electrostatics lab, is in an unambiguous position to make that distinction. 3. 2,000 Variations, All Producing the Same Result Since beginning collaboration with Drew, Buhler has tracked nearly 2,000 distinct test articles, each tested multiple times. Pendulums. Spinners. Rotators. Force plates. Scales. Pendulum deflections inside Faraday cages. Reversed polarity tests. Vacuum chamber runs at multiple pressure levels. DC-only configurations that eliminate magnetic field artifacts entirely. Every geometry, every material, every packaging approach. The force appears consistently. When a confounding variable is proposed, they address it, run the modified test, and the force is still there. Buhler says if an exotic explanation remains, it is not one he or any colleague has been able to name. 4. The Device Generates Thrust With the Power Off This is the finding that breaks the classical framework entirely. After charging the device and disconnecting it from the power supply, the thrust continues. The capacitor does not drain in the way a simple energy storage calculation would predict. Put on a scale, the weight reduction persists. Buhler's description: if placed in space with the power off, the device would accelerate. He cannot explain that to the scientific community and says so directly. David Chester, who has independently interacted with Drew through APEC sessions and private communications, said he cannot think of a prosaic explanation for this. The phenomenon has been reproduced enough times across enough configurations that calling it experimental error is no longer a defensible position. 5. The Implications of This for Past Antigravity Work Buhler believes his work is derivative of and related to Townsend Brown’s midcentury asymmetric capacitor experiments also showing thrust with pure electricity as the input. Chemical combustion is limited - plain and simple - we can’t get to the nearest habitable planet (Proxima Centauri B) in close the amount of time we’d need; it would take us 80,000 years and we’d burn through the fuel before we got there. It’s a checkmate in one argument against anyone claiming rockets are the frontier of efficiency. This was the dream of Thomas Townsend Brown – one that got stifled and suppressed behind the veil of secrecy and subcompartments. The common trope from experiments around the world are high electric field differentials seem to result in thrust. Buhler’s experiment exists in this lineage. 6. The Patent Office is Running the Peer Review Buhler made a deliberate choice not to pursue academic peer review as a primary path. His second patent is currently under examination, and the examiner's office has been reaching out to independent witnesses who have signed affidavits confirming they have seen and reproduced the effect. Buhler describes this as equivalent to scientific peer review, run by people with no financial interest in the outcome. His first patent may have been held under a national security review process before release. He does not confirm this, but he was aware it was a risk when he filed. 7. A QED Theorist Could Poke Holes in the Theory, But Not the Experiment We brought in UCLA PhD David Chester to evaluate Buhler’s ideas on quantum electrodynamics (which might account for the thrust being seen). David Chester's contribution was not to validate the theory Buhler proposed. He found some issues with the specific scalar virtual photon framing Buhler had developed. What Chester could not do was provide a prosaic explanation for the experimental results themselves. He said directly that, of all the anomalous phenomena he has surveyed, Buhler and Drew's work ranks in the top ten for experimental persuasiveness, specifically because of the iteration rate and the self-consistency across configurations. He noted that Drew's innovation rate alone, constantly testing new geometries and material stacks, is unlike anything he has seen from other groups making similar claims. Buhler pointed out that his theories were based on time-independent perturbation theory which Chester admits requires further examination from him. 8. NASA's UAP Investigation Had No Physicists Buhler and his wife, an engineer in NASA's Launch Services Program, were approached to assist with NASA's second UAP follow-on investigation. When Buhler asked to be placed with the physicists on the project, he was told there were none. The group was instrumentation-focused. Buhler says he was genuinely shocked. His reaction, expressed directly: if you are facing objects that defy the laws of physics, why is there not a single physicist in the room. He described the same reaction Eric Davis has expressed publicly. This is either institutional brain death or something else is happening somewhere else. 9. Six Lights Emerged from the Ocean Near Patrick Air Force Base Around 2013, Buhler and his wife were alone on the beach near Cocoa Beach, Florida, three miles south of Patrick Air Force Base. A red light appeared roughly three miles offshore, grew extremely bright, then appeared to explode, lighting the full length of beach. A helicopter launched from Patrick Air Force Base, flew to the location, hovered briefly, and returned to base without intervening. The light did not stop. It began moving toward them. At some point it split from one light into six rotating orange-pink lights that went under the water and re-emerged in a repeating cycle. The lights tracked their movement along the beach for forty minutes, closing to within roughly fifty yards before disappearing. Buhler says similar lights have been reported by others in the same area, and Stephen Greer runs group observation sessions approximately forty minutes south of the same beach. 10. The Force Crosses the Unity Threshold for Space Already The current demonstrated force is in the five to ten millinewton range. For Earth launch, that is not yet sufficient, and Buhler does not claim otherwise. For orbital station-keeping, for preventing satellite orbital decay, for repositioning between orbits in microgravity, the force exceeds what is needed. Buhler calls this hitting unity for space, moon, and Mars applications without any major development beyond what has already been demonstrated. The self-launcher, a device capable of lifting itself from Earth's surface, is the declared goal. No blueprints exist yet for the energy requirements. But the force is real, it is directional, it reverses on command, and it does not require continuous power to sustain. Why This Matters NASA's lead electrostatics scientist ran nearly 2,000 controlled experiments, eliminated every prosaic explanation the field has available, documented a thrust that persists after the power is cut, watched the fine structure constant emerge from the data repeatedly, and submitted a second patent currently under formal examination. A QED theorist with no commercial stake in the outcome reviewed the experimental claims and could not find a conventional explanation. The standard debunking line for this entire lineage of experiments has always been ion wind. That argument has been answered, documented, and filmed. What remains is a force that requires either new physics or an error that two decades of systematic testing has not been able to locate. The patent process will resolve part of this. The vacuum chamber footage will resolve more of it. Full conversation is live now. The next stage in human space travel is here.

English
20
14
235
30.9K
Ryan Caton
Ryan Caton@dpoddolphinpro·
Satellite tracking company @LeoLabs_Space's analysis of the destruction of @Starlink 34343 indicates an "internal energetic source" - in other words, something in/on the satellite exploded. Speculation: Possible sources could be the propulsion system or fuel tank failing. The argon propellant is stored inside of a Composite Overwrapped Pressure Vessel (COPV). If at fault, this would be the latest in a number of high-profile COPV failures over the past few months (Booster 18, Ship 36). The only way to know for certain is if we get an official statement from @SpaceX on the cause. 📊 @LeoLabs_Space
Ryan Caton tweet media
LeoLabs@LeoLabs_Space

2/ We've characterized this event as likely caused by an internal energetic source rather than a collision with space debris or another object. Due to the low altitude of the event, fragments from this anomaly will likely de-orbit within a few weeks.

English
13
50
424
49.8K
Stephen McIntyre
Stephen McIntyre@ClimateAudit·
the correct retort by NATO members is to challenge the notion that US is carrying the defense load for other NATO members. The truth is that the other NATO provide an important addition to US global force projection at no cost to US - actually at a profit to US through sales of US military equipment.
David Stockman@DA_Stockman

Ok. Of course. Shitcan NATO. It's obsolete, unnecessary and encourages small member nation's to poke their larger non-NATO neighbors in the eye owing to Article 5. The latter---collective security---- is pure evil in today's world. So what are you waiting for, Marco. It's way past time to dismantle NATO. Why don't you lead the charge?!

English
11
1
18
2.2K
Ryan Caton
Ryan Caton@dpoddolphinpro·
This looks serious. A @Starlink satellite "experienced an anomaly on-orbit, resulting in loss of communications [...] We will continue to monitor [...] any trackable debris" A comms anomaly doesn't create debris... something popped. What are they not telling us?
Starlink@Starlink

On Sunday, March 29, Starlink satellite 34343 experienced an anomaly on-orbit, resulting in loss of communications with the satellite at ~560 km above Earth. Latest analysis shows the event poses no new risk to the @Space_Station, its crew, or to the upcoming launch of NASA’s Artemis II mission. We will continue to monitor the satellite along with any trackable debris and coordinate with @NASA and the @USSpaceForce. The event also posed no new risk to this morning’s Transporter-16 mission, which was designed to avoid Starlink with payload deploys well above or well below the constellation. The SpaceX and Starlink teams are actively working to determine root cause and will rapidly implement any necessary corrective actions.

English
29
7
272
42.8K
J
J@THX_PK·
@yesnicksearcy Why are they still protesting? they won, America indeed has no kings
English
0
0
0
15
J
J@THX_PK·
@SuitablePolitic You don't understand Iran identifies as winning 😄
English
1
0
15
1.9K
Derek. 🇺🇸
Derek. 🇺🇸@SuitablePolitic·
The thing about religious wars? They're just like any other war. You can't win them while dead.
mb@mbuae

@SuitablePolitic @Natsecjeff 😂 fuck me. Are Americans really this stupid? Iran do not give a fuck about the Mullah. Did you not see what happened after you “Dead AF” the first one?? You are fighting a religious war and you will lose if you don’t cut your losses and call it a win

English
7
2
63
3.1K
Derek. 🇺🇸
Derek. 🇺🇸@SuitablePolitic·
He meant missiles and drones. Iran has fired about 700 total projectiles over the last 7 days. Of course, missiles and drones aren't interchangeable with equal destructive power. So combining them is weird. It's about 100 ballistic missiles over that period.
pilot65 🏛️@Predator_737

@WinnerInvestor @SuitablePolitic 100 missiles a day?? Seriously?

English
3
1
31
11.5K