Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    Bugger. Wish I'd read that bit before my last response. I like that bit about us trying to make the world a better place. Never really considered it like that, but then I tend not to see anything I do in a particularly positive light.
     
  2. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Well constructive criticism on how to do it better is appreciated. Do you have specific examples of the rudeness you're talking about?
    Why do you think 'myth-busting' provokes hate, is it the fault of the myth-buster or the myth-believer?

    ETA
    Well you should - although it may be a slightly grandiose justification, anything that advances understanding and counter-acts misunderstanding should be seen that way.
     
  3. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    "sprayed with nanogases"

    WTF? What's a nano gas? You can't use nanotech on gases, although the uses of gases in nanotech is common enough. I once built a website for a nanotech company in Cambridge, MA, and part of my work was to build a glossary. Over the six months I worked with that physicist, and his staff, I managed to get a decent appreciation and understanding of how nanotechnology works and how it has evolved.

    It's not half as interesting as people think. Atomic Layer Deposition, ALD, is the cutting edge, and the machines that can do nano are far more interesting than the applications thus far. Of course, the future applications will be amazing. But when you think about it, medicine will be where the rewards are reaped, not weapons.
     
  4. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Nanogases is a scary sounding term you can use to intimidate an audience that is not particularly tech savvy.
     
  5. marcosbuuk

    marcosbuuk New Member

    haha, that's common language among most people, that's what we can remember after reading about nanotechnology, because of the chemtrail myth, and it's scary for sure.
    ...

    I agree about the uses for medicine... but I still believe it's inocent to think that weapons aren't in the plans too... hmmm. And probably the rewards here are more interesting of course.
     
  6. Alhazred The Sane

    Alhazred The Sane Senior Member

    What you believe and what is predictable from available understanding of the science are different things. The future of weaponry is heading towards robotics, drones etc. Nanotech works at the molecular level. Perhaps it could be used to make better robotics, in the sense that circuitry might be able to self-repair. But it's really not the way forward in destruction and death. For that, you look towards automation and chemistry/biology. Existing viruses and existing chemical weapons are sufficient. Nanotech is a different branch of mechanics, and if you really fear it then I'd suggest studying it and its applications. It's not what you think.
     
  7. marcosbuuk

    marcosbuuk New Member

    Well, I said before I am not the one who is afraid, I just try to answer the most obvious to give an idea. And it actually works... Thank you. I'll have to leave this trend, it's getting adictive.
     
  8. macbroadcast

    macbroadcast New Member

    Yes and ? Its a future forcast for depopulating the planet earth till 2025 did you even took a closer look at the technologies involved ?

    Nanotech, Low frequency generators and microwaves ? have you ever heard of Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars ? its from the 70th and if Silent weapons is the vision this NASA dokument is the manual.


    https://let.de/index.php/nasa-future-strategic-issues-future-warfare-circa-2025/

    You might have a look at some papers or videos from Barry Trower http://geopathology-za.wikidot.com/barrie-trower

    He simply explains how microwaves willd be use as weapons allready.

    Have a nice day
     
  9. Vivek

    Vivek New Member

    I find that interesting, that you want to "rebut this stuff", without even knowing whether it has merit or not. Seems like a knee-jerk reaction that you are programmed with, since you apparently don't want to learn anything, but want to rebut it right off the bat! I'm not a conspiracy-theorist by any means, having spent most of my life arguing against wacko theories. But something that has happened in the past 30-40 years leads me to believe that there is something amiss. I don't know what it is, but I'm open to listening to anything that might shed light. What bothers me, and what I seek that light for, is the rapid acquisition of enormous wealth by a few at the very top, which has enabled them to acquire massive properties which are secured from all sorts of attack, from ground to air to nuclear to- and this is where my interest in comets is- meteor strikes, and incredible(and extremely expensive) technologies embedded there. I could see if a couple of extremely wealthy paranoids were doing this(like Howard Hughes used to do), but my observation has been that too many wealthy people(i.e., people with a lot more than just a few million) are setting up these "impenetrable underground fortresses", complete with autonomous redundant power generation and air quality/life support systems, that I just get a feeling that they know more than others do. And I want to know what that is, whether it is global anarchy, meteor strikes or disease epidemics. So when I read or hear about something, my instinct is not to "rebut this stuff", but to see if there is any merit in it. As we've found out lately, our government and its agencies routinely lie to us in the most egregious manner. You should be open-minded, not a foot-soldier.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 27, 2013
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    The subsequent posts discuss the merits quite well. Chuck recognized it as likely bunk, as it's the type of thing that has been covered many times before.

    If there's something in particular you'd like to discuss, then perhaps start a new thread. Here are the posting guidelines:
    https://www.metabunk.org/threads/posting-guidelines.2064/
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    I've worked with some of the technologies. This is just one of many "what if" studies the government and think tanks produce on a regular basis. We also have contingency plans on what to do if Canada invades the US but I wouldn't get excited about it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    I for one woul love to see a thread started documenting this. Properties which were acquired in the past 30-40 years secured from attacks, and what comets and meteor strikes have to do with it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. JeffreyNotGeoffrey

    JeffreyNotGeoffrey Active Member

    Pretty sure that if a meteor of large enough mass hit the earth, the rich better get used to underground dwelling and have a renewable source of food, water, and energy to produce said things. As well as stockpiles of medicine and the ability to recreate said medicine after its shelf life expires. If the whole world ended except for me, I would have a few months or years of dicking around doing what I wanted, but then I would eat the business end of a .45. The best things in life are shared, and if there is no one to share them with then life becomes far less enjoyable.
     
  14. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    How do you verify:
    ?
    It's to tenuous of a statement to work with. I'm more interested in where this came from:
    The closest thing I could find is an AJ link that is a discussion with the guy that markets that product and claims that powerful people he can't name are buying his shelters but presents no proof to back up his claim and an NBC report about a group preparing for 2012. Jones is right to suggest that something like this would be nice to have if you live in an area prone to tornadoes.
    AJ:

    NBC:
     
  15. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

     
  16. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    I know Vivos and other companies are in the market and a few people have taken advantage of the service they offer, but how do you get from what they talk about to:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    From Pete Tar's external quote:


    Then again, I guess that doesn't explain who is doing the purchasing, if they're rich folk or not. That one Vivek will have to back up.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2013
  18. hemi

    hemi Active Member

    And as is pointed out, "most of the clients so far have purchased space in the community shelters". Not something you'd expect people with "more than a few million" to do when there's family-sized, and presumably more private units available.
     
  19. Pete Tar

    Pete Tar Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah you don't really.
    Supposedly these super rich constructs are commissioned privately and don't need to 'sold' or advertised, but there must be a company that specialises in doing them and has some stats on their orders.
     
  20. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    [
    quote="Hitheycallmejosh, post: 77647, member: 2045"]From Pete Tar's external quote:

    The Vivos Kansas facility runs $16k for a suite that sleeps six plus an additional $1.5k a year for food for each person. I don't think they price individual shelters because the cost is situational.
     
  21. Josh Heuer

    Josh Heuer Active Member

    So basically the Kansas purchasers would have to put down $25k to get a 6 person shelter and food for one year for each individual. An additional $9k for each year after for food. I would say the average middle class American isn't fronting their hard earned money on this product. Probably more so the upper class, where that kind of money would be a drop in the well.
    But also, that's just one example. What about folks who might have purchased a larger shelter (not just the space) that fits more in it?

    Any way you slice it though, there's no substantiation for Vivek's claim:
    Unless Vivek has something to back it up with other than just their observation. What exactly did you observe to bring you to that conclusion?
     
  22. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    The company provides financing. You don't have to provide you $25k in a lump sum. You also have the option of parking your RV or Trailer inside the facility if you don't want to purchase a suite. They are trying to keep the community shelters as inexpensive as possible. If you are genuinely worried about the coming apocalypse $25k isn't bad for a family of six.
     
  23. jealouszealots

    jealouszealots New Member

    The key answer to 1, 2, and 3: Larry Silverstein
    For the details, look here:
    http://wikispooks.com/wiki/9/11:Israel_did_it
    More facts:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/security.html
    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/forget.html
     
  24. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    You are directing us to conspiracy sites that reference news sources for mundane information (who owns what building and who knows who) and other conspiracy sites as proof this mundane information is evidence of a conspiracy. That's not actually evidence. That's cherry picking information that reinforces an existing opinion.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  25. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    So when did Larry Silverstein become and expert in controlled demolition? I can see it now, He hauls thermite in in his brief case and sets the charges when goes to the bathroom. And he did this without anyone noticing it.

    Nope, I can make a better case for the existence of unicorns.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  26. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    From what I can pick up from Wikispooks he doesn't have to be an expert in demolition. He just has to have money and be Jewish.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  27. jealouszealots

    jealouszealots New Member


    Since you reject my "answers" because they exist on conspiracy sites and, hence, obviously didn't even bother to read the information, I'll make the connections that are blatantly obvious even to the most casual (and unbiased) observer.


    1)WHO planted the explosives? Controlled demolition of a building is not something that an untrained (untrained in Controlled demolition) person can do. It would have needed a crew from one of the companies
    The WTC was bought just months before 911. It was known that the buildings required mandated renovations to remove its asbestos to come up to code. The cost of removal would have been astronomical. For this reason, any normal real estate developer would have seen such an investment (ie., buying the WTC) as a bad one. Yet, Silverstein overlooked this problem, seeing instead a means of profit. Why did he see profit when other people saw loss? Because he believed in Mossad's warning* about an al Qaeda attack against the WTC and took action to capitalize on the coming event. He even made sure to buy insurance that covered acts of terrorism. So with a minimum of investment, he came out ahead with 7.1 billions in just a matter of months. Hence, he arranged for a demo crew to prepare for what was to come.

    *http://www.rense.com/general25/moss.htm


    2)HOW did they get the type of access needed to plant hundreds of explosives?
    -- The same security company that provided security for Dulles Airport and United Airlines also was in charge of security for the WTC. Two of the Commandeered 911 flights were United Airlines and one took off from Dulles. (A private Kuwaiti-American investment firm with ties to the Bush family was one of the company's backers.)
    -- Turner Construction Company** occupied the 38th floor of the WTC 1. It had been hired to demolish the Seattle Kingdome in 2000. It had also previously worked on upgrading WTC's fireproofing. It was hired to collect and dispose of the WTC steel wreckage.


    **http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread985658/pg1

    3)WHAT was used to protect the explosives from the fires and WHAT was used to detonate them?
    See Turner Construction Company above.

    These point-by-point answers are anything but mundane. Do I think they absolutely prove a conspiracy occurred? No, but any decent detective would consider these points justification for further investigation. The fact that they haven't been considered by the authorities speaks volumes. Thus we have a conspiracy that refuses to go away.

    For more info: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/silverstein.html
     
  28. Cairenn

    Cairenn Senior Member

    I have read them BEFORE, you are not the first 9/11 truther to come here.

    I just fact checked Turner construction. They did not demolish the Kingdome. They BUILD buildings, so that is major error

     
  29. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  30. jealouszealots

    jealouszealots New Member

    [...]
    Why ridicule something before you actually read the links and put the pieces of the puzzle together? [...]
     
  31. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

  32. jealouszealots

    jealouszealots New Member

    Wikpedia is not 100% accurate. (Which you quote.) It's written by ordinary people. Not experts. Here's the link you should consider:

    http://www.controlled-demolition.com/seattle-kingdome
     
  33. jealouszealots

    jealouszealots New Member

    Actually, it's returning to an issue presented on the very first page of this thread made by Cairenn.
     
  34. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Which was off topic then. Read the posting guidelines.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  35. jealouszealots

    jealouszealots New Member

    I see. Okay. I'll have a better overall look at the forums and see what's up before I jump into the mix again.
     
  36. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    Actually I did read the sites and I read the articles on which they based their claims. I found no substantial evidence to support their claims. Just a lost of innuendo and supposition. When I tried the trace the citation that tied the mundane into a conspiracy I kept getting linked to sites and stories that made claims but provided no original sources. All of this proof you seem to feel is more valid in blue is nothing but supposition and again you link to nothing but conspiracy sites. Where is the original data and documentation that supports these theories so I can read it and make up my mind for myself if their case is supported by the evidence. What I kept finding is sites that refer to each other as proof that the story they are spinning is true. That's not evidence of a conspiracy, it's a gossip circle.
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2013
    • Like Like x 2
  37. Bill

    Bill Senior Member

    I did read it. It's overriding theme is the Jews did it.

    There is no examination of other alternatives and they place heavy emphasis on the Jews and Israel throughout the article.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  38. ksloth84

    ksloth84 New Member

    Maybe I have joined the debate a bit late but still...

    That's pretty impressive... but what about the list of scientists which Steve requested? I know that an official list probably doesn't exist but can you name some?

    I should say that I myself am a supporter of a new investigation :) Actually at this stage I believe in many conspiracies but at the same time i'm open to other theories and opinions :)
     
  39. NZF

    NZF Member

    Are you stating that the PDF documents from NASA are not genuine. Because I can prove that they are.
     
  40. NZF

    NZF Member

    I'd like to know the Debunkers conclusion regarding this subject. What do you Officially declare about the documents from NASA, and also, what is Your reason for the topic to now be 'debunked'. Please bulletpoint in order of conclusion.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.