jois

I can speed read. I sometimes miss an odd bit. But I'm guessing you haven't read it at all.

You said it was heat a minute ago. Now your back to an Ariel. What Ariel ?

The patent didn't mention nano tubes at all as far as I could see

No it was the guy who said they would be triggered by mobile phone. It said molecular dynamics not thermal dynamics. And we are sourounded by microwave why didn't they go off yesterday

Ok we've done nanobot nanolipid and now nano tubes. You may have to pick one and stick to it or we will have more nano than we can cope with Those release by molecular dynamics not remote control by Ariel

Po And why is there hydrogel in a virus firing canon

No to be accurate I asked how they got an Ariel into nanolipids 1) nano bots are not the same as nanolipids 2) it doesn't mention an Ariel 3) if the patent doesn't mention virus firing cannons I'm putting the whole missive down as suspect

Or they may not. Can we all stop worry if 4 billion don't die on the 25th. Only I've got a party on the 28th and I need to get my suit dry cleaned. Seems a waste if everyone but me is dead

I've just read the patent. I cant see any where it says it fires viruses out of a cannon . Have you read it? If so please tell me where it says that please

They are making a really bad job of it. The global population keeps increasing. We already live under technocratic rule.so no change there

Why would they want a land war with Russia when they already have a proxi land war with Russia which they are winning slowly. They could win it quickly if they wanted to. The strategy is to tie them up and deplete them not to beat them

How have they managed to fit an Ariel and receiver in to the nanolipids ?

That was largely organic. This is manufactured. The establishment was rather miffed at the Diana hysteria. With this we have an official period to mourn if we like it or not

It's really not.use unbiased eye s. ẞyou cant see the building for smoke at the moment of impact. Obviously. When the smoke clears there is a wing mark.

It's not the same. Check it yourself. I can't blow it up huge or stop motion it. But as soon as the smoke clears to see. Theres a wing shaped hole in the building. May be I'm missing a single frame. May be they added one. Watch it in real time and it's fairly convincing. I'm more suspicious of how a " professional " camera man could take such bad pictures To be clear I havnt and I'm not saying it's real. Just it doesn't agree with his analysis and his other points about the nature of the explosions being wrong are complely bogus. If he can't get those right I'm even less likely to credit him with either honesty or integrity

I'm not sure it does that. Not to any reasonable standard. If he actually showed reports rather than paraphrasing them it may be more persuasive. I'm a cynic people lie and exaggerate and selectively tell the truth. I have no more faith in a random bloke telling me what to think than the government I do think it's quite feasable that mosad knew and kept quite. It's also feasable that the American at least some of them knew and did nothing. That guys opinion hasnt convinced me any more , either way. Give me the evidence not your opinion of what it means

I'm not buying it. The issue is the guy doing it is a buffoon and we have no evidence at all that the "fake footage " hasn't it self been faked. And after all that I have no idea what you think it actual proves And I've still not said I believe the attack was real. So your still debating with an imaginary friend

Ok I've watched all 16 mins of it. It's exactly the same as the last time I watched. There's a guy doing a voice over telling me there is only one conclusion when there are many reasonable conclusions and what's in police and FBI reports with out showing the reports in whole or mostly not in part. So what do you think it proves ?

Not my point. Real planes can. That my point. I didn't say real planes did. Though it does seem easier if somewhat more exspensive to use real planes

My mistake il watch it then !

Two issues. 1) the guy doing the write over has no idea about motion, exsposives or material science And unless you can post original footage we have no idea who photo edited that if any one And as a free one it doesn't show any slicing

Your Still having a debate about something else with an imaginary person. My point was and is planes put holes in building. Any other issue is you moving the goal posts

To be fare I commented with out watching any I cant stand James Corden. I've seen the dancing Israelis before. Did I miss anything that's worth enduring jimbob for

Not immediately to hand ! It seems quite rare I'm glad to say! Why do you ask ? And anyway if I could find some we wouldn't know if it was fake or not.

You seem to have changed your stance as well Your point for many posts was " planes can't do that to buildings" My " oh yes they can" The answer to that point is entirely involved in the laws of motion. Fake footage proves nothing either way on that point! Does it ? It seems like your having a debate with someone else who is making very different points to mine