You do a minor flick with your finger at the bottom, and the whole tower collapses releasing orders of magnitude more energy than you put in.
Yes, but, wait—the laws of conservation of energy state that the energy needed to destroy a tower was first spent in its construction. For the entire life of the building, it stores its own destructive energy from the moment of its construction. The act of deconstructing a critical support is only the act of releasing the kinetic energy that was invested, say, 40 years earlier.
The theories I find believable talk about vibrations that can resonate with certain "strings" below the earth, causing those vibrations to cascade and displace, in the process causing an earthquake that is far more powerful than the vibrations used.
Yes! I want to see more lab work demonstrated on this.
It maybe HAARP, it may be vibrations, it make be shaped charges inside the earth, or anything else.
Whatever it is, from a legal standpoint, using this technology on another country is an act of war, plain and simple, and, if this technology spreads and propagates, it will be used by other countries against us. But, that's not happened because, frankly, no one yet can satisfy what I'm saying about the energy budget, here.
For the record, I even predicted a false flag in Turkey just 9 days before.
You didn't call an earthquake, tho. Not trying to split hairs unfairly on you, tho, but, that's a bit long of a stretch as far as predictions go. If the implication is that this earthquake is a coincidence, you must explain it to a higher level of resolution than merely predicting "something" happening as a "false flag." There are more steps, here, and they need to be explained, at least to a level where the "jump" from one assumption to the next makes plausible scientific sense. At the moment, it does not.
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to get at here scientifically. The earth's crust is always under tremendous stress. Each point is being gravitationally attracted to the center, the pressure from lower layers is holding it up, and it is being pulled on by the moon and other bodies. If you can simply relax the pressure some how in a small area, you can tap tremendous amounts of energy as the forces readjust to a new equilibrium. You don't need to feed the system with the amount of energy you get out.
So we, i.e. humans, don't need to input that energy. Earthquakes merely release the energy that is stored from all kinds of gravitational energy sources that have been present for eons. All we need to do is provide the activation energy. After that it is fully exothermic. It's like saying a toddler can't fire a gun because he didn't create the bullet. All he needs is enough strength to pull the trigger. The potential energy for the devastation is already present in the environment.
the laws of conservation of energy state that the energy needed to destroy a tower was first spent in its construction
Correct, but the construction does not need to happen right now. It might be a structure formed over years. For example, an atomic bomb can set off huge amount of energy by being triggered by a small conventional bomb to set off the chain reaction. The energy being set off was already present in the material long before.
Whatever it is, from a legal standpoint, using this technology on another country is an act of war, plain and simple, and, if this technology spreads and propagates, it will be used by other countries against us
These technologies, if they exist, it would not be one country using against another. It would be the Cabal using it against any country whose leaders go strongly against them, and they dont have alternate means to control them. I do think they use elections, popular uprisings, sanctions, financial crimes etc, before resorting to weaponised weather.
You didn't call an earthquake,
I didn't. My point is, a false flag in Turkey was visible miles away for anyone watching what was going on. And exactly at that point they are hit with an earthquake. It should at least raise our "no coincidences" red flags.
Yes! I want to see more lab work demonstrated on this.
No one here can either prove that such tech is available nor disprove that such a technology is impossible. All we are doing is thinking about possibilities.
My point is that, it is very hard to deny that possibility.
For example, an atomic bomb can set off huge amount of energy by being triggered by a small conventional bomb to set off the chain reaction. The energy being set off was already present in the material long before.
Um, that's not how nukes work (I literally am an expert) but, I see what you're saying, you're saying that conventional explosives impact the core nucleus to achieve critical mass, OK, sure, but
I didn't. My point is, a false flag in Turkey was visible miles away for anyone watching what was going on. And exactly at that point they are hit with an earthquake. It should at least raise our "no coincidences" red flags.
With no disrespect intended, anyone that reads the link you just posted and assumes that is an idiot. No, you absolutely did not mention earthquake at all.
My point is that, it is very hard to deny that possibility.
My point is that it is 100% scienfic folly to assume that possibility.
My point is that it is 100% scienfic folly to assume that possibility.
100% eh? I don't think any human being can ever believe/disbelieve anything with 100% certainty, because we have no way of knowing the nature of our Universe.
Some nuclear weapon designs do use a conventional charge to compress an atomic mass into a smaller space so that it will go prompt critical. So they're not really wrong.
No, you absolutely did not mention earthquake at all.
I am not sure what the confusion here is. I only predicted a false flag. I never claimed to predict an earthquake. I am point out the coincidence between the prediction of a false flag and observation of an earth quake.
Yes, but, wait—the laws of conservation of energy state that the energy needed to destroy a tower was first spent in its construction.
frankly, no one yet can satisfy what I'm saying about the energy budget, here.
These are at odds. The energy required is implicit in your first statement. The energy of the earthquake is already there in the construction of the planet. This energy is further added to from the sun which heats it up and keeps that battery we call "the core" spinning. The system has as close enough to an infinite energy store as makes no nevermind (at least on the scales we are talking about).
Yes, but, wait—the laws of conservation of energy state that the energy needed to destroy a tower was first spent in its construction. For the entire life of the building, it stores its own destructive energy from the moment of its construction. The act of deconstructing a critical support is only the act of releasing the kinetic energy that was invested, say, 40 years earlier.
Yes! I want to see more lab work demonstrated on this.
Whatever it is, from a legal standpoint, using this technology on another country is an act of war, plain and simple, and, if this technology spreads and propagates, it will be used by other countries against us. But, that's not happened because, frankly, no one yet can satisfy what I'm saying about the energy budget, here.
You didn't call an earthquake, tho. Not trying to split hairs unfairly on you, tho, but, that's a bit long of a stretch as far as predictions go. If the implication is that this earthquake is a coincidence, you must explain it to a higher level of resolution than merely predicting "something" happening as a "false flag." There are more steps, here, and they need to be explained, at least to a level where the "jump" from one assumption to the next makes plausible scientific sense. At the moment, it does not.
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to get at here scientifically. The earth's crust is always under tremendous stress. Each point is being gravitationally attracted to the center, the pressure from lower layers is holding it up, and it is being pulled on by the moon and other bodies. If you can simply relax the pressure some how in a small area, you can tap tremendous amounts of energy as the forces readjust to a new equilibrium. You don't need to feed the system with the amount of energy you get out.
So we, i.e. humans, don't need to input that energy. Earthquakes merely release the energy that is stored from all kinds of gravitational energy sources that have been present for eons. All we need to do is provide the activation energy. After that it is fully exothermic. It's like saying a toddler can't fire a gun because he didn't create the bullet. All he needs is enough strength to pull the trigger. The potential energy for the devastation is already present in the environment.
Correct, but the construction does not need to happen right now. It might be a structure formed over years. For example, an atomic bomb can set off huge amount of energy by being triggered by a small conventional bomb to set off the chain reaction. The energy being set off was already present in the material long before.
These technologies, if they exist, it would not be one country using against another. It would be the Cabal using it against any country whose leaders go strongly against them, and they dont have alternate means to control them. I do think they use elections, popular uprisings, sanctions, financial crimes etc, before resorting to weaponised weather.
I didn't. My point is, a false flag in Turkey was visible miles away for anyone watching what was going on. And exactly at that point they are hit with an earthquake. It should at least raise our "no coincidences" red flags.
No one here can either prove that such tech is available nor disprove that such a technology is impossible. All we are doing is thinking about possibilities.
My point is that, it is very hard to deny that possibility.
Um, that's not how nukes work (I literally am an expert) but, I see what you're saying, you're saying that conventional explosives impact the core nucleus to achieve critical mass, OK, sure, but
With no disrespect intended, anyone that reads the link you just posted and assumes that is an idiot. No, you absolutely did not mention earthquake at all.
My point is that it is 100% scienfic folly to assume that possibility.
That's precisely how nuclear bombs work. :(
100% eh? I don't think any human being can ever believe/disbelieve anything with 100% certainty, because we have no way of knowing the nature of our Universe.
Some nuclear weapon designs do use a conventional charge to compress an atomic mass into a smaller space so that it will go prompt critical. So they're not really wrong.
I am not sure what the confusion here is. I only predicted a false flag. I never claimed to predict an earthquake. I am point out the coincidence between the prediction of a false flag and observation of an earth quake.
e=mc²
Bollocks. There is more than one sort of mass, how many do you want?
Working in a patents office is a gift for plagiarists.
Amen.
The original interwebs...
f=ma
E = I x R
These are at odds. The energy required is implicit in your first statement. The energy of the earthquake is already there in the construction of the planet. This energy is further added to from the sun which heats it up and keeps that battery we call "the core" spinning. The system has as close enough to an infinite energy store as makes no nevermind (at least on the scales we are talking about).
https://yewtu.be/channel/UCDlTlFdpcElvHsjH-b6ieBA
https://yewtu.be/channel/UCsELkVA5QDltjjIHyL7mWYQ
https://yewtu.be/channel/UCvHqXK_Hz79tjqRosK4tWYA
Tip of the iceberg...