Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #51890 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-16 05:30 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-10-18 19:05 +0200 |
| Articles | 11 on this page of 91 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-16 05:30 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-16 15:05 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-16 06:44 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-16 18:34 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:17 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? JUERGEN <epldfpga@aol.com> - 2016-10-16 09:58 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-16 17:16 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-17 01:13 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:36 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 17:23 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 20:49 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:38 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:31 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 18:34 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:18 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-20 18:53 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:17 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 04:58 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-23 11:18 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-27 19:14 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 01:11 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:15 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? humptydumpty <ouatubi@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 11:02 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 08:08 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:37 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 05:30 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 18:33 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Rod Pemberton <NeedNotReplyHere@xrsevnneqk.cem> - 2016-10-19 04:03 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 19:16 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-21 17:36 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-22 22:06 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-22 23:04 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 01:11 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? jim <anon@example.com> - 2016-10-23 12:36 +0100
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Mark Wills <markwills1970@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 04:55 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Coos Haak <htrofhc@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 17:32 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-23 11:19 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-23 15:41 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-11-05 00:48 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 19:37 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 22:13 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? "Elizabeth D. Rather" <erather@forth.com> - 2016-10-19 13:49 -1000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-20 21:56 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:39 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 14:17 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:05 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:42 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 17:09 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:11 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:26 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-17 22:59 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 01:26 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 01:31 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 22:35 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Cecil Bayona <cbayona@cbayona.com> - 2016-10-18 01:10 -0500
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 21:27 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 22:51 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:01 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:29 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:50 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 08:04 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 18:56 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-10-21 22:02 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-10-22 16:15 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Bernd Paysan <bernd@net2o.de> - 2016-11-04 21:18 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2016-11-04 22:26 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 23:56 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 13:02 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 14:34 +0300
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 15:33 +0200
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Ron Aaron <rambamist@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 16:38 +0300
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:36 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 22:20 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:37 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:18 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 15:39 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 19:24 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-17 18:21 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 02:24 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-18 00:07 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 03:20 -0400
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2016-10-20 22:38 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:35 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:35 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> - 2016-10-19 21:27 +0000
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 19:35 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? lawrencedo99@gmail.com - 2016-10-16 18:45 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> - 2016-10-18 08:23 -0700
Re: Did Nikola Tesla invented the Quantum computer? albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-10-18 19:05 +0200
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b49b51ad-b506-4998-bf46-868c0592ec4f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51988 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:24:30 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 10/17/2016 9:21 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > not to mention the many millions who saw it, LIVE > on television. Or are you suggesting the images being broadcast that > day were not live, but some movie or CGI? As I said, low-intelligence people fail to understand that television is not reality --- the videos shown on the nightly news are typically heavily doctored or outright fakes --- yes, it is "some movie or CGI" most of the time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 03:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu76r4$8ll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51991 |
On 10/18/2016 3:07 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:24:30 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 10/17/2016 9:21 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: not to >> mention the many millions who saw it, LIVE on television. Or are >> you suggesting the images being broadcast that day were not live, >> but some movie or CGI? > > As I said, low-intelligence people fail to understand that television > is not reality --- the videos shown on the nightly news are typically > heavily doctored or outright fakes --- yes, it is "some movie or CGI" > most of the time. I don't know what, 'yes, it is "some movie or CGI" most of the time' is intended to mean and I'm not asking about the nightly news. I am specifically asking if you believe the supposedly "live" images of the WTC broadcast on the morning of 9/11 were faked, CGI or a previously made recording? -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | hughaguilar96@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 22:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d7752b3-7c90-4027-a225-c9b10c9ac8d8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #52032 |
On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 12:20:26 AM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > On 10/18/2016 3:07 AM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 11:24:30 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > >> On 10/17/2016 9:21 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: not to > >> mention the many millions who saw it, LIVE on television. Or are > >> you suggesting the images being broadcast that day were not live, > >> but some movie or CGI? > > > > As I said, low-intelligence people fail to understand that television > > is not reality --- the videos shown on the nightly news are typically > > heavily doctored or outright fakes --- yes, it is "some movie or CGI" > > most of the time. > > I don't know what, 'yes, it is "some movie or CGI" most of the time' is > intended to mean and I'm not asking about the nightly news. I am > specifically asking if you believe the supposedly "live" images of the > WTC broadcast on the morning of 9/11 were faked, CGI or a previously > made recording? Yes, the 9/11/2001 videos of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers were faked. I've already said this multiple times. I also said that you are low-intelligence --- by asking me the same question repeatedly, you are proving my point. I've seen frame-by-frame analysis of the videos of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers, and they are definitely CGI. With modern computers, it is actually pretty easy to make fake videos, and this is routinely done by the nightly news programs --- the story about the planes crashing into the Twin Towers was just an exceptionally big whopper --- but fake videos on the nightly news are the rule, not the exception. It is pretty easy to get large numbers of people to believe something that is not true. Stage magicians do this routinely. It is actually easier to hoodwink a large crowd than a small crowd. Quite a lot of the witnesses to the planes hitting the Twin Towers were employees of the television stations themselves and/or professional actors. Also, it is an easy matter to find people to claim to be eye-witnesses. The television news crews go to people and ask: "Did you see the planes hit the Twin Towers?" This is a leading question. Obviously, if the people want to get interviewed on national television (get their 15 seconds of fame), the only answer that will work is: "Yes!" So, the people lie and claim to have seen the planes hitting the towers. A weird psychological quirk of people who lie, is that they don't consider themselves to be liars --- they rationalize this by thinking that everybody knows that the planes hit the towers, and that they could have easily been looking up at the time and seen it, so it is just a "white lie" to say that they were looking up at the time and saw it. When I was working as a cab driver, I noticed that my customers would lie routinely. They use their cellphone to call somebody (usually somebody important to them such as a spouse) and they lie about where they are. Typically they are substituting wishful thinking for reality --- they say that they are enroute, but they give a location that is much closer to the destination than their actual location, and they give an ETA that is grossly unrealitic --- most likely, when they arrive late they will blame me for driving too slow and/or taking the wrong route, rather than just admit that they arrived late because they left late. America is full of liars --- this is a big problem. Television also distorts reality by selective editing. They don't need every person that they interview to lie and say that they saw the planes hitting the Twin Towers. Even if only 2% of the people interviewed lie, and the other 98% tell the truth, the television station just discards the videos of the 98% and puts the 2% on national television representing reality. Also, false-memory-syndrome works very well. By showing those videos of the planes hitting the Twin Towers repeatedly, the television induces false memories in the viewers. People who were there, but who didn't actually see the planes hitting the towers, will begin to claim that they saw the planes hitting the towers --- after a while, this lie seems just like the truth, and the liar forgets that it is not actually the truth. It is very common for people who watch television to have memories in their heads and not know if these are real memories of actual events, or are false memories of television shows. All television watchers are in varying stages of dementia. If people don't believe me, they can test themselves. Have you ever remembered somebody saying something, but not been able to remember if this was a real person talking to you or a television character talking? Be honest! If the answer is 'yes,' then you have dementia --- dementia is defined as: "the failure to distinguish between reality and fantasy."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f96669b-62a8-4d78-994a-d25e7b7211e2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51953 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 7:24:41 PM UTC-4, rickman wrote: > On 10/17/2016 6:39 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:19:58 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > >> On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > >>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, Manuel Rodriguez > >>> wrote: > >>>> Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla > >>>> did with his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that > >>>> Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the > >>>> Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for transmitting > >>>> energy. > >>> > >>> I saw a book that suggested that his Wardenclyffe Tower was a DEW > >>> (directed energy weapon) --- the book suggested that the Tunguska > >>> Blast was a test of the weapon. > >>> > >>> The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast > >>> enough to detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really > >>> supported by any evidence. A very fast meteor could conceivably > >>> compact the hydrogen enough to cause a nuclear-fusion blast like > >>> a hydrogen bomb, but this certainly didn't happen in this case > >>> (no evidence of radiation, and the blast was too small). OTOH, if > >>> the meteor is small enough to vaporize up in the atmosphere and > >>> not hit the ground leaving a crater, then it lacks the energy to > >>> cause an explosion as big as we had. So, the explosion was too > >>> big to be a shock wave from meteor vaporizing in the atmosphere, > >>> but too small to be a nuclear-fusion explosion --- it seems > >>> unlikely to be a meteor at all, so it had to be something else. > >>> > >>> As for Tesla inventing the quantum computer --- the quantum > >>> computer hasn't been invented yet --- there is not much > >>> indication that it will ever become more than vague speculation. > >>> > >>> In regard to DEW --- a lot of people think that the 9/11/2001 > >>> destruction of the Twin Towers was done with a DEW --- I've never > >>> seen any evidence to indicate that the towers were hit by > >>> airplanes, so it had to be something else. > >> > >> My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere > >> on the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters. > >> > >> There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a > >> meteor. Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they > >> have found a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a > >> piece of the meteorite beneath the bottom. > > > > There is no crater at Tunguska. In the center of the blast area the > > trees are still standing, but all the trees away from the center are > > knocked down and pointing outwards away from the center. This > > indicates a blast in the atmosphere. There was a similar effect for > > the atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere over Nagasaki and > > Hiroshima --- the buildings directly under the blast remained > > standing, but the buildings away from the center were knocked down > > pointing outwards away from the center. > > Hugh, you are misinterpreting the information. Yes, there was an air > blast, but that does not preclude a crater and fragment. In fact they > believe they have found many fragments of this meteorite, just very tiny > ones. None of this precludes a larger fragment from making a crater > which is now a lake. > > > >> As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, > >> there is little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... > >> other than videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of > >> witnesses. > > > > Low-intelligence people have difficulty understanding that television > > is not reality. When Rickman says that there are "millions of > > witnesses" he is referring to the millions of people who saw the > > videos on television. This is moronic! Most if not all of the videos > > shown on the nightly news are faked --- this is done routinely every > > day of every year on every channel --- the 9/11/2001 videos were > > blatantly faked; they're not even close to being realistic. > > Yes, and the thousands of eyewitnesses are on the CIA payroll. I used > to think you just had some mental condition that made you feel > persecuted. Now I see it is much wider ranging than that... > > > > The television videos look cartoonish; similar to Wily Coyote going > > through a brick wall and leaving a coyote-shaped hole. The reality is > > that an airplane is mostly made out of aluminum to make it > > lightweight, whereas a skyscraper has a framework of steel, so a > > plane would splatter on the outside (only the engines are heavy > > enough and solid enough to punch through into the building). Also, > > the Pentagon was almost certainly hit by a missile. Also, the > > Pennsylvania crash site was obviously faked because there was no > > airplane found there (just a trench containing some miscelaneous > > debris including a few airplane pieces but not from the correct make > > and model of airplane). I've never actually seen any evidence to > > support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes --- > > none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those > > airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, > > but they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane > > wreckage found anywhere. > > It is truly mind boggling that you think there was some sort of > conspiracy to fake 9/11. If the planes didn't hit the twin towers, > where *are* they? Did the CIA force the plane to land in a remote > location and execute all the people on board... including the terrorists? > > > > The fact that the videos on television were faked only proves that > > the videos were faked, although this does imply that the official > > story about the planes hitting the buildings is untrue. This does not > > prove that a DEW was used to destroy the buildings; DEW is just one > > of several theories. Another theory is that the buildings were > > destroyed using conventional demolition techniques. This seems likely > > for Building-7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU) but > > rather unlikely for the Twin Towers --- nobody can say with certainty > > how the Twin Towers were destroyed. > > > > This is a good website discussing the DEW theory in regard to the > > Twin Towers: http://www.drjudywood.com/ > > > > Only a low-grade moron actually believes what his TV tells him to > > believe. None of this stuff is true! When 9/11/2001 happened, I > > noticed right away that the rubble was immediately disposed of > > without anybody being given a chance to examine it. This reminded me > > of how, after the Oklahoma City bombing, the rubble was immediately > > disposed of without anybody being given a chance to examine it. That > > was fake too --- there is no way that a truck load of AMFO blowing up > > in the street is going to do anything more than break the windows --- > > you have to actually cut the pillars with shaped charges in order to > > cause a big building to collapse. Similarly, Osama bin Laden was > > supposedly killed by Seal-Team-Six, but then he was given a burial at > > sea without anybody being given a chance to examine the body to > > determine that it is really him. Really??? We are supposed to believe > > this??? Television is an insult to human intelligence! > > If we didn't kill Osama bin Laden, why wouldn't the terrorist community > be bragging about it? Did we make a deal with him that if he lies low > we would stop hunting him? > > So much ignorance... > > -- > > Rick C how can I make enuf money to retire to pattaya beach thailand?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e04c96a8-c5ac-4e2e-858d-3efebfdf753b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51949 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:39:57 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:19:58 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: > > On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, Manuel Rodriguez wrote: > > >> Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for transmitting energy. > > > > > > I saw a book that suggested that his Wardenclyffe Tower was a DEW (directed energy weapon) --- the book suggested that the Tunguska Blast was a test of the weapon. > > > > > > The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough to detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any evidence. A very fast meteor could conceivably compact the hydrogen enough to cause a nuclear-fusion blast like a hydrogen bomb, but this certainly didn't happen in this case (no evidence of radiation, and the blast was too small). OTOH, if the meteor is small enough to vaporize up in the atmosphere and not hit the ground leaving a crater, then it lacks the energy to cause an explosion as big as we had. So, the explosion was too big to be a shock wave from meteor vaporizing in the atmosphere, but too small to be a nuclear-fusion explosion --- it seems unlikely to be a meteor at all, so it had to be something else. > > > > > > As for Tesla inventing the quantum computer --- the quantum computer hasn't been invented yet --- there is not much indication that it will ever become more than vague speculation. > > > > > > In regard to DEW --- a lot of people think that the 9/11/2001 destruction of the Twin Towers was done with a DEW --- I've never seen any evidence to indicate that the towers were hit by airplanes, so it had to be something else. > > > > My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere on > > the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters. > > > > There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a meteor. > > Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they have found > > a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a piece of the > > meteorite beneath the bottom. > > There is no crater at Tunguska. In the center of the blast area the trees are still standing, but all the trees away from the center are knocked down and pointing outwards away from the center. This indicates a blast in the atmosphere. There was a similar effect for the atomic bombs detonated in the atmosphere over Nagasaki and Hiroshima --- the buildings directly under the blast remained standing, but the buildings away from the center were knocked down pointing outwards away from the center. > > Most of the original research of meteors came from Daniel Barringer who bought Meteor Crater in Arizona and drilled into it. He originally believed that he was going to find a big chunk of iron and other heavy metals underground which he could mine. His effort at making money failed because he learned that there is no meteor fragment underground --- the meteor vaporizes upon impact --- he drilled quite deep at the center and never found anything. Also, he originally believed that because the crater was almost perfectly round, the meteor must have come in straight down, and that if it had come in at an angle the crater would have been oblong. He learned that this wasn't true either. He did some tests in which he shot a .22LR bullet into a box of clay and he found that you get a round crater at almost every angle (only extremely shallow angles result in a ricochet and an oblong crater). So, Barringer didn't get rich, but he did learn so much about the subject that he acquired some fame as an amateur scientist. I learned all of this by reading books in the giftshop on my visit to Meteor Crater (I can speed-read, so I don't usually pay for books, but I just read them through while browsing in bookstores). > > The only successful mining done at Meteor Crater was by an old guy who prospected the area looking for diamonds. Apparently when the meteor hit it turned graphite into small diamonds that were then flung away for many miles. The old guy apparently got murdered though --- he was well-known to be out there alone prospecting in the desert with his donkey and a backpack full of diamonds --- he carried a big pistol when he went into town to sell his diamonds and buy supplies, and he warned everybody to leave him alone, but then he suddenly disappeared (his camp was found by searchers, but there was no trace of him). > > > As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is > > little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than > > videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses. > > Low-intelligence people have difficulty understanding that television is not reality. When Rickman says that there are "millions of witnesses" he is referring to the millions of people who saw the videos on television. This is moronic! Most if not all of the videos shown on the nightly news are faked --- this is done routinely every day of every year on every channel --- the 9/11/2001 videos were blatantly faked; they're not even close to being realistic. > > The television videos look cartoonish; similar to Wily Coyote going through a brick wall and leaving a coyote-shaped hole. The reality is that an airplane is mostly made out of aluminum to make it lightweight, whereas a skyscraper has a framework of steel, so a plane would splatter on the outside (only the engines are heavy enough and solid enough to punch through into the building). Also, the Pentagon was almost certainly hit by a missile. Also, the Pennsylvania crash site was obviously faked because there was no airplane found there (just a trench containing some miscelaneous debris including a few airplane pieces but not from the correct make and model of airplane). I've never actually seen any evidence to support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes --- none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, but they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane wreckage found anywhere. > > The fact that the videos on television were faked only proves that the videos were faked, although this does imply that the official story about the planes hitting the buildings is untrue. This does not prove that a DEW was used to destroy the buildings; DEW is just one of several theories. Another theory is that the buildings were destroyed using conventional demolition techniques. This seems likely for Building-7 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU) but rather unlikely for the Twin Towers --- nobody can say with certainty how the Twin Towers were destroyed. > > This is a good website discussing the DEW theory in regard to the Twin Towers: > http://www.drjudywood.com/ > > Only a low-grade moron actually believes what his TV tells him to believe. None of this stuff is true! When 9/11/2001 happened, I noticed right away that the rubble was immediately disposed of without anybody being given a chance to examine it. This reminded me of how, after the Oklahoma City bombing, the rubble was immediately disposed of without anybody being given a chance to examine it. That was fake too --- there is no way that a truck load of AMFO blowing up in the street is going to do anything more than break the windows --- you have to actually cut the pillars with shaped charges in order to cause a big building to collapse. Similarly, Osama bin Laden was supposedly killed by Seal-Team-Six, but then he was given a burial at sea without anybody being given a chance to examine the body to determine that it is really him. Really??? We are supposed to believe this??? Television is an insult to human intelligence! will trump win?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dunno <dunno@dunno.dunno> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1217278010.498604459.271336.dunno-dunno.dunno@news.mixmin.net> |
| In reply to | #51949 |
<hughaguilar96@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 7:19:58 PM UTC-7, rickman wrote: >> On 10/16/2016 9:05 PM, hughaguilar96@gmail.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, Manuel Rodriguez wrote: >>>> Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with >>>> his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into >>>> freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a >>>> apparatus for transmitting energy. >>> >>> I saw a book that suggested that his Wardenclyffe Tower was a DEW >>> (directed energy weapon) --- the book suggested that the Tunguska Blast >>> was a test of the weapon. >>> >>> The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough >>> to detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any >>> evidence. A very fast meteor could conceivably compact the hydrogen >>> enough to cause a nuclear-fusion blast like a hydrogen bomb, but this >>> certainly didn't happen in this case (no evidence of radiation, and the >>> blast was too small). OTOH, if the meteor is small enough to vaporize >>> up in the atmosphere and not hit the ground leaving a crater, then it >>> lacks the energy to cause an explosion as big as we had. So, the >>> explosion was too big to be a shock wave from meteor vaporizing in the >>> atmosphere, but too small to be a nuclear-fusion explosion --- it seems >>> unlikely to be a meteor at all, so it had to be something else. >>> >>> As for Tesla inventing the quantum computer --- the quantum computer >>> hasn't been invented yet --- there is not much indication that it will >>> ever become more than vague speculation. >>> >>> In regard to DEW --- a lot of people think that the 9/11/2001 >>> destruction of the Twin Towers was done with a DEW --- I've never seen >>> any evidence to indicate that the towers were hit by airplanes, so it >>> had to be something else. >> >> My dear God! I have not seen such a display of ignorance anywhere on >> the Internet... aside from some Trump supporters. >> >> There is plenty of evidence that the Tunguska Blast was indeed a meteor. >> Just google a bit and you will find researchers think they have found >> a lake made by a fragment with what they suspect is a piece of the >> meteorite beneath the bottom. > > There is no crater at Tunguska. In the center of the blast area the trees > are still standing, but all the trees away from the center are knocked > down and pointing outwards away from the center. This indicates a blast > in the atmosphere. There was a similar effect for the atomic bombs > detonated in the atmosphere over Nagasaki and Hiroshima --- the buildings > directly under the blast remained standing, but the buildings away from > the center were knocked down pointing outwards away from the center. > > Most of the original research of meteors came from Daniel Barringer who > bought Meteor Crater in Arizona and drilled into it. He originally > believed that he was going to find a big chunk of iron and other heavy > metals underground which he could mine. His effort at making money failed > because he learned that there is no meteor fragment underground --- the > meteor vaporizes upon impact --- he drilled quite deep at the center and > never found anything. Also, he originally believed that because the > crater was almost perfectly round, the meteor must have come in straight > down, and that if it had come in at an angle the crater would have been > oblong. He learned that this wasn't true either. He did some tests in > which he shot a .22LR bullet into a box of clay and he found that you get > a round crater at almost every angle (only extremely shallow angles > result in a ricochet and an oblong crater). So, Barringer didn't get > rich, but he did learn so much about the subject that he acquired some > fame as an amateur scientist. I learned all of this by reading books in > the giftshop on my visit to Meteor Crater (I can speed-read, so I don't > usually pay for books, but I just read them through while browsing in bookstores). > > The only successful mining done at Meteor Crater was by an old guy who > prospected the area looking for diamonds. Apparently when the meteor hit > it turned graphite into small diamonds that were then flung away for many > miles. The old guy apparently got murdered though --- he was well-known > to be out there alone prospecting in the desert with his donkey and a > backpack full of diamonds --- he carried a big pistol when he went into > town to sell his diamonds and buy supplies, and he warned everybody to > leave him alone, but then he suddenly disappeared (his camp was found by > searchers, but there was no trace of him). > >> As to the cause of 9/11 *not* being caused by airplanes... yes, there is >> little evidence of the damage being caused by airplane... other than >> videos, pictures and thousands if not millions of witnesses. > > Low-intelligence people have difficulty understanding that television is > not reality. When Rickman says that there are "millions of witnesses" he > is referring to the millions of people who saw the videos on television. > This is moronic! Most if not all of the videos shown on the nightly news > are faked --- this is done routinely every day of every year on every > channel --- the 9/11/2001 videos were blatantly faked; they're not even > close to being realistic. > > The television videos look cartoonish; similar to Wily Coyote going > through a brick wall and leaving a coyote-shaped hole. The reality is > that an airplane is mostly made out of aluminum to make it lightweight, > whereas a skyscraper has a framework of steel, so a plane would splatter > on the outside (only the engines are heavy enough and solid enough to > punch through into the building). Also, the Pentagon was almost certainly > hit by a missile. Also, the Pennsylvania crash site was obviously faked > because there was no airplane found there (just a trench containing some > miscelaneous debris including a few airplane pieces but not from the > correct make and model of airplane). I've never actually seen any > evidence to support the theory that the Twin Towers were hit by airplanes > --- none of the airplanes' wreckage was ever found --- most likely, those > airplanes just landed at some airport somewhere and were hidden away, but > they never crashed anywhere, which is why there was no airplane wreckage found anywhere. > > The fact that the videos on television were faked only proves that the > videos were faked, although this does imply that the official story about > the planes hitting the buildings is untrue. This does not prove that a > DEW was used to destroy the buildings; DEW is just one of several > theories. Another theory is that the buildings were destroyed using > conventional demolition techniques. This seems likely for Building-7 > (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqRU) but rather unlikely for the > Twin Towers --- nobody can say with certainty how the Twin Towers were destroyed. Hugh, I have very bad news for you. You should accept the harsh truth: you have been fooled by the TV. There were no such things as WTC towers. Never. Do you think it's possible to hit a building with a steel frame with a rocket, and make sure the falling building won't fall on its side? Of course not. Even a skyscrapers made of playing cards are falling on the side if you remove one card. Do you know why WTC towers disappeared but everything around them is fine? Because they never existed. All the pictures of them, all newspaper articles, everything is fake. And you if you think of it, you'll agree, it's much cheaper to come up with some CGI for few years then actually devastate actual buildings in the middle of city. > This is a good website discussing the DEW theory in regard to the Twin Towers: > http://www.drjudywood.com/ > > Only a low-grade moron actually believes what his TV tells him to > believe. None of this stuff is true! When 9/11/2001 happened, I noticed > right away that the rubble was immediately disposed of without anybody > being given a chance to examine it. This reminded me of how, after the > Oklahoma City bombing, the rubble was immediately disposed of without > anybody being given a chance to examine it. That was fake too --- there > is no way that a truck load of AMFO blowing up in the street is going to > do anything more than break the windows --- you have to actually cut the > pillars with shaped charges in order to cause a big building to collapse. > Similarly, Osama bin Laden was supposedly killed by Seal-Team-Six, but > then he was given a burial at sea without anybody being given a chance to > examine the body to determine that it is really him. Really??? We are > supposed to believe this??? Television is an insult to human intelligence! > -- dunno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | polymorph self <jackvanc3@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15cd67ac-2dfe-4d25-ab4d-a4b56f606083@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51917 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 9:07:32 PM UTC-4, hughag...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 5:30:56 AM UTC-7, Manuel Rodriguez wrote: > > Until now, there is much speculation about what Nikola Tesla did with his mystery electric tower. Some people said, that Tesla tap into freeenergy, Wikipedia says about the Wardenclyffe Tower that is was a apparatus for transmitting energy. > > I saw a book that suggested that his Wardenclyffe Tower was a DEW (directed energy weapon) --- the book suggested that the Tunguska Blast was a test of the weapon. > > The official theory on the Tunguska Blast is a meteor going fast enough to detonate in the atmosphere, but this isn't really supported by any evidence. A very fast meteor could conceivably compact the hydrogen enough to cause a nuclear-fusion blast like a hydrogen bomb, but this certainly didn't happen in this case (no evidence of radiation, and the blast was too small). OTOH, if the meteor is small enough to vaporize up in the atmosphere and not hit the ground leaving a crater, then it lacks the energy to cause an explosion as big as we had. So, the explosion was too big to be a shock wave from meteor vaporizing in the atmosphere, but too small to be a nuclear-fusion explosion --- it seems unlikely to be a meteor at all, so it had to be something else. > > As for Tesla inventing the quantum computer --- the quantum computer hasn't been invented yet --- there is not much indication that it will ever become more than vague speculation. > > In regard to DEW --- a lot of people think that the 9/11/2001 destruction of the Twin Towers was done with a DEW --- I've never seen any evidence to indicate that the towers were hit by airplanes, so it had to be something else. What about the film of airliners rammign the building, dead families etc? link to this tungusa blast? are you doing any forth cgi? for dynamic web apps? is it fast to dev and run?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrencedo99@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1cad9e1b-2bd0-44de-9f39-3093485c449d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51890 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 1:30:56 AM UTC+13, Manuel Rodriguez wrote: > For building such a device two problems have to be overcome: first, the > invention of a logic gate (called squid device) is a must have... What do you mean by “quantum computer”? Consider that no transistor (or vacuum tube!) can work without quantum effects, and you realize that *all* electronic computers are “quantum”.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8737jvr7s3.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #51923 |
lawrencedo99@gmail.com writes: > What do you mean by “quantum computer”? The term usually means this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb7a7239-79c5-434f-92fe-e80b5a3351ed@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #51890 |
Was Humboldt the first programmer? -------------------------------------- I'm a little bit surprised about the reactions to my original post. I was not aware that the Forth-Community has so many conspiracy theorists who define themself as political activists. But to the topic itself. According to additional research, the Forth community discussed the "Quantum computer" since 2010. There were a SVFIG meeting about it, http://svcs.net/meetings/svfig/2012/12 But in this meeting, the historical implications are left open. For my understanding it is importent to describe the whole picture and not only the invention as it was. For me, as a amateur the similarity between the patent drawings of Nikola Tesla about his tesla coil and the patent drawings from dwave's Quantum machine are clear. If this was really the same invention than most of current conspiracy theory about Nikola Tesla are wrong. What are these theories? Often Tesla is described as genius who invented a free energy generator for producing electric energy out of nothing. This is a classical perpetum mobile invention. It's unfair to insinuate Tesla this kind of invention. According to my research Tesla was a mathematican and a physicists. It is obvious, that such person don't believe in free energy. The probability is high, that Tesla not wanted to create free energy, but to measure it. For doing this, a machine like a superconducting Quantum Coil is necessary. On photos like this http://spectrum.ieee.org/image/Mjc3MjEzMw.jpeg a SQUID in biomedical research is shown. This device looks exact like the Nikola Tesla Coil which is proclaimed as a free energy generator. But, a SQUID can not generate any kind of energy. It is device for using subatoms for calculating. One problem remains open: if Nikola Tesla really invent the quantum computer, what has Charles Babbage done? The answer is confusing. According to an improved Steampunk universe with not only Steam-computers but also relais computers the period is called "Electropunk" and defines an epoche in which Charles Babbage not only built a computer, but also built a chipmanufactoring plant for producing integrated circuits. Inventions to do that are: - Fresnel Lens (1823 in the Cordouan lighthouse) for photolithography (Alois Senefelder) - Relay (1835) - optical microscop (Carl Zeiss) - electric power (Siemens Halske) - semiconducting (Michael Faraday) But one detail not fit into the picture. The realization of hardware may be possible in the babbage area. But a computer without software makes no sense. If the electropunk-alternative-timeline is real, then books about creating programs are missing. Who are these books? The only paper which i've found are the notes from Ada Lovelace to "Federico Luigi Menabrea: Sketch of The Analytical Engine". But these notes are not enough for programming complex machines. Other books about programming a computer didn't exists. A search in google Booksearch only brings some old manuals about "calculating logarithm table" to daylight, but in these books are no algorithm or higher-programming-techniques described. So a good method for debunking the Electropunk universe and the Tesla-invent-the-quantum-computer philosophy is to exploit that programming manuals of the Babbage area are not existing and as consequence the invention of a computer was not possible. The question is: Why are these kind of books are missing? The idea of algorithm was invented by the the persian Al-Khwārizmī in year 800 B.C. Most imperative languages like C and Pascal are algorithm based. The contrary is called Lambda-Calculus and is used in functional programming. The lambda calculus was invented in the 1930s. Between these inventions is a huge gap. Why? In reality the first time in history where the mathematical theory was elaborated was around 1930. Alan Turing was the first, who described a Turing-Machine. The lambda calculus and the algorithm were used at the same time. This was the invention of the computer. In a alternative-electropunk setting this mathematical philosophy has to be dated back to year 1830. But none of the great mathematicans like Fourier, Gauß or Riemann published a single paper about the problem of programming a computer. Perhaps the programming of a computer is not a mathemical problem but a linguistics problem? With a little bit speculation it is possible to to show, that Leibniz and Humboldt developed are proto-language for expressing algorithm. Was Humboldt the first programmer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 19:05 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu5kon$geg$1@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #52011 |
In article <eb7a7239-79c5-434f-92fe-e80b5a3351ed@googlegroups.com>, Manuel Rodriguez <aa5@gmx.net> wrote: >Was Humboldt the first programmer? >-------------------------------------- >I'm a little bit surprised about the reactions to my original post. I >was not aware that the Forth-Community has so many conspiracy theorists >who define themself as political activists. But to the topic itself. > >According to additional research, the Forth community discussed the >"Quantum computer" since 2010. There were a SVFIG meeting about it, >http://svcs.net/meetings/svfig/2012/12 But in this meeting, the historical >implications are left open. For my understanding it is importent to >describe the whole picture and not only the invention as it was. For >me, as a amateur the similarity between the patent drawings of Nikola >Tesla about his tesla coil and the patent drawings from dwave's Quantum >machine are clear. If this was really the same invention than most >of current conspiracy theory about Nikola Tesla are wrong. What are >these theories? Often Tesla is described as genius who invented a free >energy generator for producing electric energy out of nothing. This is a >classical perpetum mobile invention. It's unfair to insinuate Tesla this >kind of invention. According to my research Tesla was a mathematican and >a physicists. It is obvious, that such person don't believe in free energy. As a physicist I do believe in free energy.1] Tesla was not a mathematician nor a physicist, but a technician, an engineer and an inventor. He was very good in manipulating free energy, transforming the free energy of Niagara falls into free energy in the form of electricity. I suspect that you use the crackpots definition of free energy, or (even worse) you mix the two without even knowing the difference. <SNIP> Groetjes Albert 1] If you call "believing" : understanding a scientific concept and be able to manipulate it and do calculations with it. -- Albert van der Horst, UTRECHT,THE NETHERLANDS Economic growth -- being exponential -- ultimately falters. albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web