Do you agree, something massive is about to happen ?
- Thread starter stinka
- Start date
of course but we still now the same rules of nuclear physics we did back when the w48 was designed.
But please tell me how they made a nuclear device with no residual radiation whatsoever and no gamma burst?
Because if they've done that they would be wheeling it out as the ultimate in
clean energy and guarantied their economies dominance for the next few decades.
We are at
DEFCON 4
Nothing to see, move along folks.
Plus the last thing the world needs is another World War, kiss goodbye your family life, kiss goodbye going to the shops for a a weekly shop, say hello to working in factorys or being signed up to the army.
DEFCON 4
Nothing to see, move along folks.
Plus the last thing the world needs is another World War, kiss goodbye your family life, kiss goodbye going to the shops for a a weekly shop, say hello to working in factorys or being signed up to the army.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 688
Well, i tried to watch that video all the way to the end, but it started getting a bit subjective for my liking.
Am I open to the possibility that things didn't happen exactly as US GOV said they did? Well, yes, but it's more likely they are trying to cover up gross incompetency than that they actually planned it.
Also, 7/7 didn't happen, the three or four thousand of us on Euston Road were paid £5 each to mingle for the cameras.
Stinka - please, please, please don't tell me you actually think they used a nuclear device in 9/11 - do you actually know how a nuclear explosion happens? It wouldn't have just blown some small holes in the structure, it would have blown the top of the ******* building off.
And a nuke small enough to not do that simply isn't practically possible to make; the whole point of a nuclear explosion is that it's a runaway chain reaction based upon a mass required to create fission - the smallest succesfully made being the aforementioned W54 Davy Crockett. Even a device the size of a baseball [as used in the davy crocket] would have over twice the explosive power of the bomb used in the Oklahoma City bomb that tore the front off government office.
I think with a bit of common logic and an understanding of how nuclear explosions work you should be able to see that the concept of the planes having small tactical nukes on them is simply preposterous.
Anyway, the preferred high yeild explosive de jour is the fuel-air bomb [AKA the MOAB of FOAB], which generates an air pressure shockwave not unlike that of a very low level tactical nuke by mixing high explosives in the air above the target it, then detonating with a massive shockwave, but without leaving any of the nuclear yukkynes behind it, making it an excellent building dropper and, if necessary, suitable for disposing of large groups of fleshys in one shot. Stuff magical, non-existant small nukes - that is cool tech
Am I open to the possibility that things didn't happen exactly as US GOV said they did? Well, yes, but it's more likely they are trying to cover up gross incompetency than that they actually planned it.
Also, 7/7 didn't happen, the three or four thousand of us on Euston Road were paid £5 each to mingle for the cameras.
Stinka - please, please, please don't tell me you actually think they used a nuclear device in 9/11 - do you actually know how a nuclear explosion happens? It wouldn't have just blown some small holes in the structure, it would have blown the top of the ******* building off.
And a nuke small enough to not do that simply isn't practically possible to make; the whole point of a nuclear explosion is that it's a runaway chain reaction based upon a mass required to create fission - the smallest succesfully made being the aforementioned W54 Davy Crockett. Even a device the size of a baseball [as used in the davy crocket] would have over twice the explosive power of the bomb used in the Oklahoma City bomb that tore the front off government office.
I think with a bit of common logic and an understanding of how nuclear explosions work you should be able to see that the concept of the planes having small tactical nukes on them is simply preposterous.
Anyway, the preferred high yeild explosive de jour is the fuel-air bomb [AKA the MOAB of FOAB], which generates an air pressure shockwave not unlike that of a very low level tactical nuke by mixing high explosives in the air above the target it, then detonating with a massive shockwave, but without leaving any of the nuclear yukkynes behind it, making it an excellent building dropper and, if necessary, suitable for disposing of large groups of fleshys in one shot. Stuff magical, non-existant small nukes - that is cool tech
Why did the FBI immediately confiscate all the CCTV footage from various buildings in the area, and the only footage which has been released is garbage low quality which proves nothing?
Are we led to believe that the Pentagon has lower quality CCTV than my local Off Licence?
*shakes head*
Your wondering why the FBI didnt want to publicly release CCTV footage of the Pentagon to the world?
You know, The Pentagon, that building that is America's base of military operations. Do you realise how stupid that sounds? I mean, this is after a huge terrorist attack.I'm glad all the 9/11 conspiracy crackpots arent heads of national security...
come on....
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,793
- Location
- London
*shakes head*
Your wondering why the FBI didnt want to publicly release CCTV footage of the Pentagon to the world?
I'm glad all the 9/11 conspiracy crackpots arent heads of national security...
come on....
Never mind the thousands of eye-witnesses that saw the plane go into the building.
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 1,332
- Location
- Aotearoa
Would it be a conventional World War though? Iraq appeared to involve a lot of munitions dropped on strategic targets and then infantry went in for the clean up. If we did end up with another large scale war, how long would it be until nuclear weapons were deployed?
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 13,300
- Location
- Near Winchester
Didn't happen in the 80s, the last recovery period.
Anyone think we'll be rationing electricity? I don't.
Anyone think we'll be rationing electricity? I don't.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Aug 2004
- Posts
- 8,369
- Location
- England
**** happens so deal with it, oh wait we are.
I think you're forgetting something OP: yes, history tends to be cyclical but we now live in present time, post-20th Century where great shifts have taken place. Before these last major conflicts there was nothing like them in comparison, nor was there notable movements in individuality and liberalism; we lived in a time of colonial expansion where if you wanted something, you took if from your neighbour even if it was their own sweat and blood. Today we have a guise of neo-colonialism, but even that is eroding and that is what you can see. The only traces of colonialism exist purely in terms of trade agreements and even these are becoming harder to retain as the world inevitably divides itself into trading blocs and spheres. Some of you may find this scary, I don't; but one day the world will be a whole. Always remember: borders are man-made; they are not right and they are not natural. Borders in time will slowly become an outdated conception, just as human sacrifice and aristocracy have become.
Indeed, non-conventional warefare was not an issue prior to these great conflicts; WMDs, chemical and biological warefare have all more or less sprung in the past century. Post-1945, the world was shook to its very core, and the status quo was shifted and finally 'evolved' into what we witness today. But - and we must remember this - every bubble bursts and the West's time will one day end. Whether that means a rise of the East or NICs remains to be seen, but it is unlikely that they will develop beyond or beyond the West's capability. Sure, such states are following their own path but we live in an increasingly smaller, globalised world; we simply cannot afford to be enemies - our weapons and economy will not allow it. China for example is now the USA's banker, whereas once the USA was the world's banker and before that the Sterling was all-powerful and the world depended upon the gold-standard. Times change, there is no need to be afraid.
My point is this: we live in a time 'post-paradigm' where we now have historical lessons to draw upon. As a race in the 21st C. I do believe that by and large we have developed culturally to a point where we now know to take heed of such warnings. Of course there will be tensions, as our very system of economy still largely depends on the raping of others, but in time this too will change; we live in a world in flux and one day - probably not in our lifetime - a true equilibrium will be reached.
Any real threat today does not exist between states and their desire to increase national borders; it exists in the threat of our dwindling resources and our reluctance to shift away from the carbon-based economy while we continually waste black gold. Here's some food for thought: most of that oil we 'supposedly' have left is actually nothing more than hypothetical; in some cases we don't even have the technolgy to reach it. As such, we are running dry and our very life depends on it and this won't slow down as more and more people are taking sips. As a race, we're smart enough and old enough to work our way through it: but does not a hungry man turn lash out when pressed? When it comes - and it will come - it will be interesting to see how and indeed, if we can; work through these problems as one rather than as selfish nationalities. I hope we can, because I really don't think we have any other choice. I honestly do not think as a species - Western countries especially - ever really want to know war on that scale again. If anyone ever thinks war is worthy, then you clearly do not know its true cost. If such a war ever does come, I almost hope we do wipe ourselves out; we should know better by now - we have no excuse.
Indeed, non-conventional warefare was not an issue prior to these great conflicts; WMDs, chemical and biological warefare have all more or less sprung in the past century. Post-1945, the world was shook to its very core, and the status quo was shifted and finally 'evolved' into what we witness today. But - and we must remember this - every bubble bursts and the West's time will one day end. Whether that means a rise of the East or NICs remains to be seen, but it is unlikely that they will develop beyond or beyond the West's capability. Sure, such states are following their own path but we live in an increasingly smaller, globalised world; we simply cannot afford to be enemies - our weapons and economy will not allow it. China for example is now the USA's banker, whereas once the USA was the world's banker and before that the Sterling was all-powerful and the world depended upon the gold-standard. Times change, there is no need to be afraid.
My point is this: we live in a time 'post-paradigm' where we now have historical lessons to draw upon. As a race in the 21st C. I do believe that by and large we have developed culturally to a point where we now know to take heed of such warnings. Of course there will be tensions, as our very system of economy still largely depends on the raping of others, but in time this too will change; we live in a world in flux and one day - probably not in our lifetime - a true equilibrium will be reached.
Any real threat today does not exist between states and their desire to increase national borders; it exists in the threat of our dwindling resources and our reluctance to shift away from the carbon-based economy while we continually waste black gold. Here's some food for thought: most of that oil we 'supposedly' have left is actually nothing more than hypothetical; in some cases we don't even have the technolgy to reach it. As such, we are running dry and our very life depends on it and this won't slow down as more and more people are taking sips. As a race, we're smart enough and old enough to work our way through it: but does not a hungry man turn lash out when pressed? When it comes - and it will come - it will be interesting to see how and indeed, if we can; work through these problems as one rather than as selfish nationalities. I hope we can, because I really don't think we have any other choice. I honestly do not think as a species - Western countries especially - ever really want to know war on that scale again. If anyone ever thinks war is worthy, then you clearly do not know its true cost. If such a war ever does come, I almost hope we do wipe ourselves out; we should know better by now - we have no excuse.
AcidHell2 believes in conspiracy theories - specifically the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of Saudis with box cutters.
Except it didn't go into the building, 'it' (whatever it was) disintegrated on impact, leaving the building standing
On one plane at least it was because the terrorists slit the throat of a stewardess they had as a hostage, then said that they would keep doing the same until the door was opened. Since the pilots could not guess this was a suicide mission, they presumably decided that being hijacked was the lesser evils.
M
The military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has been amply explained. The military action in Iraq is not unjustified, but the military action in Afghanistan certainly is. There is no suggestion that anyone is taking military action against Iran.
The world economy has not collapsed; the US dollar is not in any danger of collapsing; the recession is not global (Australia, for example, has completely avoided recession) and unemployment is not rising all over the developed world.
No it's not, and no they don't.
Difference is, the evidence supports my view. The same can not be said about yours, as shown yet again, in yet another thread. But there we go if you are can't understand basic science and how to weight evedince then what can we expect.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,769
- Location
- Staffordshire
Don't watch TV.