Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * - - - 6 votes

America Nuked 9/11


  • Please log in to reply
2239 replies to this topic

#1696    frenat

frenat

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,048 posts
  • Joined:22 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fort Wayne, IN

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:14 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Are you another judging a book you have not read?

Have a good evening.

I am judging YOU.  I said nothing about the book.  YOU are the one here claiming they have a nuclear weapon that does not have those characteristics.  YOU have failed to provide evidence for ANY explosion let alone a nuclear one.  Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

-Reality is not determined by your lack of comprehension.
-Never let facts stand in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
-If I wanted to pay for commercials I couldn't skip I'd sign up for Hulu Plus.
-There are no bad ideas, just great ideas that go horribly wrong.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law

#1697    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,089 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:15 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

No, I am pointing out that 1) you haven't read Prager's book,

Give me a reason why Prager's opinions are more valid than expert studies?

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

and 2) you post as though 50 years worth of secret government R&D has brought no progress in weapons development.


No.  Your claim it was nukes, your burden to show proof of empless, selective fire, hushaboom, flash less nukes being developed.

Supposition does work.



View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

In the first instance your argument against Prager's theory is woefully ignorant, not having read the book you're judging, and in the 2nd, you might be fooling yourself but you're not fooling me.

Actually, Prager fooled you already.

Your claim, your burden.

Continue to dance around that.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1698    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,089 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:17 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 09:13 PM, said:

RB

You can thank Stundie for his word play in coining NISTIAN.

He did that a few days ago, combining the suffix "ian" (as in the religious Christian) with NIST.  It really is a brilliant play on words, describing those who place so much faith in the pseudoscience offered by political appointees in the process of making their masters happy.

Later.

I see you have resorted to hiding behind Stundie and his classless posting manner.

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1699    RaptorBites

RaptorBites

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,089 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2012

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:29 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Are you another judging a book you have not read?

Have a good evening.


A bit of hypocrisy from another thread regard the Sandy Hook police report:

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:


Hot damn!  Maybe the police can also issue a copy of the Warren Report along with it, eh? :tsu:


So BR, seems like you judge things without reading them as well eh?

The amount of hypocrisy is just toooooo good!

No, you surround yourself with a whole different kettle of crazy. - Sir Wearer of Hats

#1700    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:36 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

I also forget if you're in the school that claims the US military has made little progress in its nuclear weapon R&D program.  I think RB thinks we're still using 1945 technology in that area. :whistle:

Let's see. You are implying that the U.S. military has created a nuclear bomb that:

*   Does not create a blinding flash of light

*   Does not generate EMP

*   Does not generate shockwaves

*   Does not generate temperatures in the millions of degrees

Ok, so let's take a look.



I stand corrected. I just don't know what ever came over me to have ever doubted you. :innocent:

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1701    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:38 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 09:11 PM, said:

Are you another judging a book you have not read?

Just judging by what Prager's book of fiction did not provide, and that is, evidence of a nuclear detonation in New York City.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1702    skyeagle409

skyeagle409

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,156 posts
  • Joined:14 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Keep Your Mach Up and Check Six

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:48 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

.... but you're not fooling me.

Since you have been doing an outstanding job of fooling yourself on the screen without anyone's help, all we need to do is to just sit back and watch.

KEEP YOUR MACH UP AND CHECK SIX

#1703    Tiggs

Tiggs

    Relax. It's only me.

  • 9,143 posts
  • Joined:30 Jan 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orange County, California

  • Universe Service Pack 2 still needs patching.

Posted 21 November 2013 - 09:50 PM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 21 November 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

I forget if you're one of the NISTIANS that actually read Prager's book.  Could you bring me up to speed on that?  FYI, half of his book contains the FEMA and other photos you claim do not exist.
FYI - no, it doesn't.

Obviously - feel free to link the photo of said beam mid-air, otherwise.


Quote

I also forget if you're in the school that claims the US military has made little progress in its nuclear weapon R&D program.  I think RB thinks we're still using 1945 technology in that area
I'm from the "You cannae change the laws of Physics" school.

Because Physics.


#1704    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,109 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 22 November 2013 - 07:31 AM

View Postfrenat, on 21 November 2013 - 09:09 PM, said:

And you're one of those that thinks they have nuclear weapons that have no explosions, shockwaves, seismic or sonic signatures, radiation, EMPs, etc.  Why would it be nuclear then?
What, indeed, as I asked above, would be the point of an explosive at all, let alone a Nuke, that has no blast? :unsure2:

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#1705    Valdemar the Great

Valdemar the Great

    Mainly Spherical in Shape

  • Member
  • 25,109 posts
  • Joined:09 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:there

  • Vampires are people too.

Posted 22 November 2013 - 07:37 AM

If you're not a Nistian, does that mean you're a Nagnostic, or a Natheist?

Life is a hideous business, and from the background behind what we know of it peer daemoniacal hints of truth which make it sometimes a thousandfold more hideous.

H. P. Lovecraft.


:cat:


#1706    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 November 2013 - 08:02 AM

Guys, c'mon...the mods already warned about name-calling.

**Incidentally, man, it must really suck to have one's name used as an insult on the internet!**

In all cases, I can't help but think that there are definitely physical limits imposed by...well, physics, that have to be taken into account.  For instance, unless we are talking about multi-billion dollar exotic isotopes and retaining equipment (usually of the electromagnetic variety), and stick to things terrorists in the movies might be able to get a hold of, then we are talking about a certain minimum amount that is referred to as the "critical mass".  The idea of a suitcase bomb, keep in mind...has yet to be validated.  In other words, they have not yet been shown to exist.

I'm not even going to go into the mathematics of it, being that I don't have the foggiest notion of where to even begin, however I do know that the smallest nuclear yield that was ever made to work in a reliable fashion (and even then, it required specific conditions) is probably the W54, which weighed in at around 23 kg (50 lbs, more or less).  That's about the average load of the total gear of a non-specialist Marine, who I will freely admit can carry about 5 times as much for 10 times as long as my wimpy frame could bear.  Anything less, however, wouldn't really have the fissionable mass to sustain a reaction.  It would blow up, but it wouldn't really "nuke".  It would be a dirty bomb, basically.

Here's a video of a 1 kiloton explosion:

Video of a 1 kiloton explosion

Bear in mind that the smaller size of this explosion required a rather large detonation device to achieve the implosion necessary, far beyond any suitcase size.  Now, with advances in technology and all, we were able to get to the W54 stage I mentioned above, but we still hit the limit at 50 kg.  Even then, at 23 kg of material, we have a detonation of, at a minimum, 5-6 kilotons.

Does the video of the WTC collapse indicate anything on the level of a 5 kiloton explosion?  Of a 1 kiloton explosion?

People can't even decisively show there were demolition explosives in use.  The idea of a nuke is a non-starter.


#1707    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,554 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 November 2013 - 01:58 PM

View Postfrenat, on 21 November 2013 - 09:14 PM, said:

I am judging YOU.  I said nothing about the book.  YOU are the one here claiming they have a nuclear weapon that does not have those characteristics.  YOU have failed to provide evidence for ANY explosion let alone a nuclear one.  Do you have a reading comprehension issue?

No sir, I don't have a reading comprehension issue, but I'm wondering if you might?

Straight question--have you read the book that is the subject of this thread, and no answer from yourself, a dodge.  Many of the questions you and others have posed are answered by that book, the subject of this thread.

I feel like I'm in a fifth grade classroom sometimes here.  All the Nistians are experts about this and that, and not one of them has read the book in question. :innocent:


#1708    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,554 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:04 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 21 November 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

Give me a reason why Prager's opinions are more valid than expert studies?

[/size]

No.  Your claim it was nukes, your burden to show proof of empless, selective fire, hushaboom, flash less nukes being developed.

Supposition does work.





Actually, Prager fooled you already.

Your claim, your burden.

Continue to dance around that.

View PostRaptorBites, on 21 November 2013 - 09:15 PM, said:

Give me a reason why Prager's opinions are more valid than expert studies?

[/size]

No.  Your claim it was nukes, your burden to show proof of empless, selective fire, hushaboom, flash less nukes being developed.

Supposition does work.





Actually, Prager fooled you already.

Your claim, your burden.

Continue to dance around that.

What "expert studies" are you referring to?  NIST, I assume.

What "expert studies" have addressed the nuclear issue?

You base your entire 'argument' on a report issued by an agency having nothing to do with criminal investigations, an agency headed up by a man described by insiders as "like a brother" to the sitting President, the man who appointed him to the office just months before.

And you expect me to take that seriously?  You offer it up as some scientific work when it is clearly a political document meant to protect the guilty parties, obscure the truth, and deceive the gullible and inflamed public.  That sir, is laughable. :w00t:


#1709    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,554 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:06 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 21 November 2013 - 09:17 PM, said:

I see you have resorted to hiding behind Stundie and his classless posting manner.

Better than hiding behind the sophistry of NIST and the White House with everything to gain from deception.

Australians clever with word play are far superior to politicians bent on deception and greed. :tu:


#1710    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 8,554 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 November 2013 - 02:08 PM

View PostRaptorBites, on 21 November 2013 - 09:29 PM, said:



A bit of hypocrisy from another thread regard the Sandy Hook police report:



So BR, seems like you judge things without reading them as well eh?

The amount of hypocrisy is just toooooo good!

Clearly sir, you don't know the difference between hypocrisy and sarcastic humor.  But then, neither do you know the difference between a scientific investigation and a political coverup. :td:





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users