Agent0range Posted January 4, 2014 #2126 Share Posted January 4, 2014 And you and yours keep posting as though we are talking about 1945 nuclear science, as though no progress at all has been made in 50+ years of research. It's like you're saying "Oh, it's impossible that the computing power of an IBM mainframe computer could be contained in a device that fits into a person's hand". "Oh, it's impossible that any progress has been made in nuclear science and technology, because 1945 devices would have blown all of New York off the map" Well, that might suit somebody who believes the official story, but for those of us with more discerning tastes, it's an absurd statement, typical of the mindset of the cognitively dissonant. Did I ever say that I don't think mini-nukes exist? That wasn't even what my post is regarding. My post is saying that NO amount of research and development can rid a nuclear explosion (no matter how small) of the properties that occur when a nuclear reaction occurs. What you are describing is like making water not wet. An EMP is a side effect of a nuclear reaction. You don't get rid of that. Period. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted January 4, 2014 #2127 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Did I ever say that I don't think mini-nukes exist? That wasn't even what my post is regarding. My post is saying that NO amount of research and development can rid a nuclear explosion (no matter how small) of the properties that occur when a nuclear reaction occurs. What you are describing is like making water not wet. An EMP is a side effect of a nuclear reaction. You don't get rid of that. Period. Let's not forget that BR also postulated that melted paint and tires off cars on the street was proof of a nuclear explosion. Yet doesn't explain how there were people who survived in the stairwell and rescue crews who survived in closer proximity. 50+ years of R&D has created a nuke that selectively burns cars and not people. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Czero 101 Posted January 4, 2014 #2128 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) 50+ years of R&D has created a nuke that selectively burns cars and not people. And produces an EMP that only effects some electronic devices / systems and even then, only temporarily disables them. Cz Edited January 4, 2014 by Czero 101 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted January 4, 2014 #2129 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Did I ever say that I don't think mini-nukes exist? That wasn't even what my post is regarding. My post is saying that NO amount of research and development can rid a nuclear explosion (no matter how small) of the properties that occur when a nuclear reaction occurs. What you are describing is like making water not wet. An EMP is a side effect of a nuclear reaction. You don't get rid of that. Period. Not knowing a thing about nuclear science or research, I am not qualified to judge any of the technical details, but it seems to me we're all in the same category. We've not seen one bit of data from anybody regarding the strength of EMP, but it would not be astounding if it turned out that EMP might be modulated by certain means? In technology it seems the bounds are nearly limitless. Considering the reality of all that was seen (not necessarily televised) at WTC that day, the nuclear theory is the only one that explains it all. Do you work at Los Alamos? Cool new format here at UM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted January 4, 2014 #2130 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Let's not forget that BR also postulated that melted paint and tires off cars on the street was proof of a nuclear explosion. Yet doesn't explain how there were people who survived in the stairwell and rescue crews who survived in closer proximity. 50+ years of R&D has created a nuke that selectively burns cars and not people. Yeah, and miraculously survived the raging office furniture fires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted January 4, 2014 #2131 Share Posted January 4, 2014 Yeah, and miraculously survived the raging office furniture fires. Your own sarcasm is ironic considering the amount of stupidity you placed in this thread. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted January 4, 2014 #2132 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Not knowing a thing about nuclear science or research, I am not qualified to judge any of the technical details, but it seems to me we're all in the same category. That list would also include Prager. Actually, there is a participant in this thread, although not active as most here that has relevant experience. Guess what BR, he already stated multiple times that both you and Prager are wrong. We've not seen one bit of data from anybody regarding the strength of EMP, but it would not be astounding if it turned out that EMP might be modulated by certain means? In technology it seems the bounds are nearly limitless. Nobody here other than YOU stated an EMP event occurred. I find it fascinating that you are expecting US to provide you information on the strength of an event that none of us here, OTHER THAN YOU, thinks occurred! In fact, your attempts at reversing the burden of proof is getting old, again! Considering the reality of all that was seen (not necessarily televised) at WTC that day, the nuclear theory is the only one that explains it all.Do you work at Los Alamos? Cool new format here at UM. BR, are you willing to admit you are wrong? Or will you continue to parade around with your ignorance in full view, again? Edited January 4, 2014 by RaptorBites 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babe Ruth Posted January 4, 2014 #2133 Share Posted January 4, 2014 What's funny is that the Mossad guys were bragging to the Russian about it over breakfast in Bangkok. Priceless funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent0range Posted January 4, 2014 #2134 Share Posted January 4, 2014 What's funny is that the Mossad guys were bragging to the Russian about it over breakfast in Bangkok. Priceless funny. Oh yes..a conversation with no recording, no video, or even a transcript. Well I heard that someone said that someone said that someone said.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaptorBites Posted January 4, 2014 #2135 Share Posted January 4, 2014 What's funny is that the Mossad guys were bragging to the Russian about it over breakfast in Bangkok. Priceless funny. Evidence? Other than Khalezov's word? Oh wait, forgot who in was responding to. Might as well have asked my 2 year old son to fix my broken microwave. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted January 4, 2014 #2136 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Theory: A is the truth that must kept hidden. B is the cover story to keep A hidden. There are A/B keeper and there are B doubter because they assume A. The B doubter got a toy C from the A/B keeper but the B doubter don´t know that the toy was send by the A+B keeper. They never will know. As toy C is so much fun, the B doubter playing with it the whole day long. C is the nuke story. Edited January 4, 2014 by toast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted January 4, 2014 #2137 Share Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) What's funny is that the Mossad guys were bragging to the Russian about it over breakfast in Bangkok. That is not evidence because there have been others who have bragged about it as well such as Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda,. ][/b]Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks A tape aired by Al-Jazeera television Friday showed al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden admitting for the first time that he orchestrated the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks and saying the United States could face more. http://www.pbs.org/n...n_10-29-04.html It is no mystery as to why you cannot be taken seriously. ... Priceless funny. What is so funny about the death of thousands of innocent people during the 9/11 terrorist attack?! Edited January 4, 2014 by skyeagle409 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skyeagle409 Posted January 5, 2014 #2138 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Not knowing a thing about nuclear science or research, I am not qualified to judge any of the technical details,.... Your own highly flawed comments regarding nukes have proven that beyond a shadow of a doubt We've not seen one bit of data from anybody regarding the strength of EMP That can be explained by the fact that no EMP was generated during the 9/11 terrorist attack. After all, computers, video cameras, vehicles and even radios continued to operate normally as the WTC buildings collapsed. Considering the reality of all that was seen (not necessarily televised) at WTC that day, the nuclear theory is the only one that explains it all. How can a nuclear hoax story explain the collapse of the WTC buildings when there was no nuclear explosion in the first place? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaniac Posted January 5, 2014 #2139 Share Posted January 5, 2014 It's like the trolls and/or shills are out full force. It's one thing to have an alternative viewpoint. It's another to attack a poster for believing in something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted January 5, 2014 #2140 Share Posted January 5, 2014 To whom are referring to? By Shrill I imagine you mean this probably fictitious notion of Government agents that are paid to pose as ordinary members of the People on internet forums and discredit those whoa re dangerously close to the truth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted January 5, 2014 #2141 Share Posted January 5, 2014 It's like the trolls and/or shills are out full force. It's one thing to have an alternative viewpoint. It's another to attack a poster for believing in something. Well then, perhaps YOU could help the conversation along by providing evidence that there was any kind of nuclear explosion at 911. I'll be waiting... You can find me waiting on a bench on the outskirts of Hell, also waiting for the Satanic Skating Rink to open...I'm quite sure I will be ice-skating in hell before I see one iota of evidence. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaniac Posted January 5, 2014 #2142 Share Posted January 5, 2014 To whom are referring to? By Shrill I imagine you mean this probably fictitious notion of Government agents that are paid to pose as ordinary members of the People on internet forums and discredit those whoa re dangerously close to the truth? Seems like a useful strategy, does it not? In a situation such as 9/11, that's what I'd do if I wanted to discredit the masses. My understanding of a shill is one who works to spread disinformation and misinformation, in an effort to distort or cover the truth about a particular event. These same agents will attempt to oppose or undermine anyone who speaks out against their purpose. This seems to be taking place rather well, considering whenever Babe Ruth offers an alternate suggestion or theory on what took place, he gets scolded, mocked and attacked for it. Well then, perhaps YOU could help the conversation along by providing evidence that there was any kind of nuclear explosion at 911. Perhaps you could help the conversation along by providing evidence that I claimed there was any kind of nuclear explosion on 9/11? You can find me waiting on a bench on the outskirts of Hell, also waiting for the Satanic Skating Rink to open...I'm quite sure I will be ice-skating in hell before I see one iota of evidence. LMAO. Calm down. We can work things out. There's no need to get so upset, mate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted January 5, 2014 #2143 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Seems like a useful strategy, does it not? In a situation such as 9/11, that's what I'd do if I wanted to discredit the masses. My understanding of a shill is one who works to spread disinformation and misinformation, in an effort to distort or cover the truth about a particular event. These same agents will attempt to oppose or undermine anyone who speaks out against their purpose. This seems to be taking place rather well, considering whenever Babe Ruth offers an alternate suggestion or theory on what took place, he gets scolded, mocked and attacked for it. Perhaps you could help the conversation along by providing evidence that I claimed there was any kind of nuclear explosion on 9/11? LMAO. Calm down. We can work things out. There's no need to get so upset, mate. I misunderstood what part of the platform you were standing on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingswan Posted January 5, 2014 #2144 Share Posted January 5, 2014 This seems to be taking place rather well, considering whenever Babe Ruth offers an alternate suggestion or theory on what took place, he gets scolded, mocked and attacked for it. Babe Ruth gets mocked for his simultaneous failure to bring any evidence to support his claims and refusal to examine any evidence that counters those claims. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Space Commander Travis Posted January 5, 2014 #2145 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Seems like a useful strategy, does it not? In a situation such as 9/11, that's what I'd do if I wanted to discredit the masses. My understanding of a shill is one who works to spread disinformation and misinformation, in an effort to distort or cover the truth about a particular event. These same agents will attempt to oppose or undermine anyone who speaks out against their purpose. This seems to be taking place rather well, considering whenever Babe Ruth offers an alternate suggestion or theory on what took place, he gets scolded, mocked and attacked for it. the basic problem, I think, is that this alternative theory relies on a rewriting or a considerable altering of the laws of Physics, and when this is pointed out it always seems to be responded to with 'well, they'd have been able to do that by now, I'm sure". 8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stellar Posted January 5, 2014 #2146 Share Posted January 5, 2014 This seems to be taking place rather well, considering whenever Babe Ruth offers an alternate suggestion or theory on what took place, he gets scolded, mocked and attacked for it. Just as I would expect one to get scolded, mocked and attacked if the alternate theory they suggested involved moving a million elephants into the WTC to cause it to collapse. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frenat Posted January 5, 2014 #2147 Share Posted January 5, 2014 This seems to be taking place rather well, considering whenever Babe Ruth offers an alternate suggestion or theory on what took place, he gets scolded, mocked and attacked for it. No, he gets asked to provide proof for his "theory" of which he has none. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insaniac Posted January 5, 2014 #2148 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Babe Ruth gets mocked for his simultaneous failure to bring any evidence to support his claims and refusal to examine any evidence that counters those claims. And that refutes my point how exactly? Some of you are still being disrespectful and seemingly taking pleasure at another's expense. I misunderstood what part of the platform you were standing on. I try not to take sides in debates. I do however find myself agreeing more with those who choose to stand against corruption. the basic problem, I think, is that this alternative theory relies on a rewriting or a considerable altering of the laws of Physics, and when this is pointed out it always seems to be responded to with 'well, they'd have been able to do that by now, I'm sure". I understand your point. However, with the understanding that this is a cover-up, it comes as no surprise being unable to provide proof when it's mostly kept hidden by the powers that be. Why else did Bush destroy a crime scene? We wouldn't even be having this confusing discussion if the events of 9/11 were as simple as the Official Story claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oniomancer Posted January 5, 2014 #2149 Share Posted January 5, 2014 Seems like a useful strategy, does it not? In a situation such as 9/11, that's what I'd do if I wanted to discredit the masses. My understanding of a shill is one who works to spread disinformation and misinformation, in an effort to distort or cover the truth about a particular event. These same agents will attempt to oppose or undermine anyone who speaks out against their purpose. This seems to be taking place rather well, considering whenever Babe Ruth offers an alternate suggestion or theory on what took place, he gets scolded, mocked and attacked for it. When your otherwise bright child stubbornly insists 2+2 = Kitty, do you pat him on the head or shove him in the corner with a dunce cap on it? You may not have noticed too but babe hasn't exactly been pulling any punches of his own, or missed an opportunity to throw them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted January 5, 2014 #2150 Share Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) And that refutes my point how exactly? Some of you are still being disrespectful and seemingly taking pleasure at another's expense. I try not to take sides in debates. I do however find myself agreeing more with those who choose to stand against corruption. I understand your point. However, with the understanding that this is a cover-up, it comes as no surprise being unable to provide proof when it's mostly kept hidden by the powers that be. Why else did Bush destroy a crime scene? We wouldn't even be having this confusing discussion if the events of 9/11 were as simple as the Official Story claims. The 'corruption' would only be 'corruption' if the premise were proven. The premise cannot be proven and isn't even being attempted to be proven. Therefore, there is no corruption! I personally just stand on the side of truth. Edited January 5, 2014 by joc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts