It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The reality of underground bases

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium

I can't show you a picture or a video of air either, but you just have to believe by the unseen vibe that it is there.


One using the above statement as the rational to prove that air exists would not be qualified to make that statement with authority. Basically implying air exists, no further proof needed, vibe is enough, period.

A qualified person could do any one of the following
*burn a match, combustion needs O2 to occur.
*liquify the air and dump liquid N2/O2 on opponents foot
*gas chromatography
*TEM image or AFM of the individual O2 and N2 molecules

etc, etc

Indeed there are things like ghosts or other paranormal things that have not been proved conventionally by attempting to show they exist. And rightfully so the discussion about novel and bizarre methods to prove they exist are justified. But not this underground base thing. This should be done the conventional way, i.e. prove it exists, onus on those advocating its existance




posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phenomium

I can't show you a picture or a video of air either, but you just have to believe by the unseen vibe that it is there.


I will also point out some safety concerns with using vibe to determine if air exists or not (with authority)

* Confined Space Hazards in the workplace, these can fill with asphixiating gases like CO2, or poisonouss gas like CO. Some of these appear and feel like air
* Driving home with Dry Ice in the car with windows up, can lead to sleep and kill driver. Victims often report that they had the vibe there was air in the car

i can go on and on if this gets enough stars



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by zoso28
 


Do I as well detect some animosity on your part? Sarcasm is not necessary. Dont apologize for having a job. Me too, and I volunteer.
Observationally speaking, once the requested evidence started flowing, your responses did not...until now. Back to the thread...you posed a very a valid question.

No offense meant. I do think the massive volume of evidence presented gives us the answer you were seeking. Dont you?



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
one guy made one to grow marijuana in it if a private civilian can do it without prying eyes for years im sure the goverment can to heres the link you have to scroll down a little bit on website


www.ssqq.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by plexus
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Great, maybe you can finally answer me.

Explain the engineering involved in sustaining such a device with the output of energy required to melt rock?

Otherwise, stop posting the same sh*t over and over again.

Has a cloud of aerosol vapor or something swept over continental U.S. in the last 24 hours or something.. people seem a) ignorant and b) high as a kite.


Read the patent. Both the heat and power source consist of the nuclear reactor. The process is described very well in the document and is based on studies conducted by Los Alamos Laboratories in the 1960's.

Anyhow. It looks like you are a-trollin' so I doubt there's much of an intellectual conversation to be had here.
Moving along.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by clay2 baraka
 


Even if you melt rock, it has to go somewhere. We are not talking about vaporizing rock, and even if we were, you have to get rid of the vapor.

BTW, many patented items don't work. Most have never been built. The goal is just to get the patent.

Some patents do work. My favorite is the laser pointer designed to exercise your cat.



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by gariac

Even if you melt rock, it has to go somewhere. We are not talking about vaporizing rock, and even if we were, you have to get rid of the vapor.



yep, some more questions along the lines of that theme;

* where does the vapour recondense to liquid?
*where does that liquid resolidify?
*what is the particle size of the resolidfied matter for a variety of rock types?
* how is the resolidfied matter moved? pneumatic transport?, as a slurry?
* maybe there is no loose by-product, is it deposited into the wall of this lava tube like wall? If so, a sample of said wall could be the smoking gun to support the DUMBS existance. There it is, proof in a nutshell, just add water and mix

i could add more here. Hard to take the mining engineer out of me



posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by pezza
 


Hmmh, nothing dangerous about a little lava flow. ;-) Even if you melt the rock, you have to keep it melted all the way to the place where you want to deposit it.

And if this nuclear tunneling machine is the be all end all, why did they dig YMP with a conventional tunneling machine?

Also, nobody said you can't dig deep tunnels. It is the underground chambers big enough to fight a battle with the aliens (ala Dulce) that is ridiculous.



posted on Jan, 26 2011 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by gariac
reply to post by pezza
 


Hmmh, nothing dangerous about a little lava flow. ;-) Even if you melt the rock, you have to keep it melted all the way to the place where you want to deposit it.

And if this nuclear tunneling machine is the be all end all, why did they dig YMP with a conventional tunneling machine?

Also, nobody said you can't dig deep tunnels. It is the underground chambers big enough to fight a battle with the aliens (ala Dulce) that is ridiculous.



keeping it melted all the way is an incredible proposition. I just did a basic calculation for the amount of energy required to sustain molten rock flow from an advancing nuclear tunneling machine, tunnel length from west to east coast. Indeed you would need several nuclear power plants stationed at junctions to dump joules into that lava flow. The calculator crashed!!, it only goes up to 99 significant figures


There are also several more questions in my mind;

1) how does the machine deal with groundwater?
2) how does the machine deal with unknown ore deposits?
3) how does it deal with coming across a rogue oil reservoir?

expanding on these 3 points;

1- where does the steam go? does the nuclear device crack the water vapour into H2 and O2?
2- say it came across an ore deposit containing minerals with a high fraction of sulphur. How is the sulphur dioxide by-product handled? Maybe an inert gaseous environment is deliberately created at the tunelling face to prohibit oxidation of all types. If so, did they use 100% nitrogen, how much was needed and how did it get there?
3- does the oil combust?, do they pump it out?


And looking at all of this slightly different, lets say the nuclear machine deals with all that stuff above. It bores a hole much like poking a hot metal rod through a foam coffee cup. The thing I would like to know is what is the profile of the tunnel wall as you go further in (radially from the center of the tunnel axis). Eventually, the further you go in, the more it will begin to resemble the untouched earth crust. With this info known, is the suggested profile thermodynamically valid?
edit on 26-1-2011 by pezza because: fix error

edit on 26-1-2011 by pezza because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 

I know I'm a bit late here, but to reply to the underground chambers being ridiculous, I just saw a documentary on an anti flooding project in Japan. They basically built giant underground concrete tanks along the sides of the main rivers that act as giant water overflow tanks in the event of flooding. Each one is the size of a football field and 6 storeys deep. Supported by dozens of huge reinforced concrete pillars, they are truly massive underground chambers, with the water pumped away by equally giant pumps, so its not ridiculous, the technology exists to create huge underground chambers and the results are there for all to see. You can even go on a tour of them.

www.ktr.mlit.go.jp...


edit on 6-2-2011 by disaster123 because: link added



posted on Feb, 6 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by disaster123
 


Remember, the DUMB crowd says the chambers are big enough to fly around. Better yet, have a full blown battle such as the so-called Dulce incident.

Yeah, put in enough colums and you can do anything. Water doesn't mind flowing around columns. For an actual working base, column would be a pain. Far better to dig a series of tunnels. The dirt between tunnels would be like the columns.

Again, what is the point of DUMB?

Also, why are the images on that Japanese site CG?



posted on Feb, 7 2011 @ 06:23 AM
link   
reply to post by huh11132
 


Nice addition,

They Called it the Bat Cave, I feel everyone should experiment in the art of Hydroponic growing! They have been doing it Japan for decades and making use of the serious lack of space they have-

web-japan.org...

As soon as you mention Growing under lights people assume you are doing it for illegal purposes, Let me tell you there is nothing you can not grow in the right surroundings with the right equipment and the way food prices are i dont think everyone is just growing illegal substances any more, I have seen Chilis and Peppers grown under lights by a 72 year old ex Army Major who frowns upon the word drugs.

Back to the OP,People/Goverments could in theory build anything they like underground, in caves etc. Money is all it would take, Vast amounts of cash can do anything and i do mean anything if you have an unlimited supply of money you could in thery rule the world in this day and age, so to completley dismiss the theory of underground bases would in its self reqiure a lot of study.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
Just read the whole thread, really recommend that for those last-page-skippers out there.

This thread even has some real technical information related to boringmachines! Great.
What i do not get, is why people are so negative to the whole DUMB thing.

Just look at Stalin. He made several, huge underground complexes, under the cover of building something totally different. If we were to KNOW about a secret, underground base being built, the whole idea would be flawed.

Please, all you Americans, look back on your country`s history, the world even, think of aaaaall the secret projects that went on right under your noses. If the government of a country with capita, it would not be impossible at all to construct a large, self supplied base under ground.

Have to repeat myself, a great thread and a great read.



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Eisenhorn
 


An interesting post I like the amount of info in the comments made here but most are mad on boring machines that were made in the 1960's its now 2011 I would have thought that these machines would have been replaced by something better after all the tech open to us now is nothing compared to the tech capability of our governments where money is no object.
What I cant understand is why so many people doubt that underground bunkers exist after all the only true way to survive a atomic war would be in an underground bunker many of which had been built by normal people during the cold war.I live in the UK and it is well know here that under London is a major underground bunker complex that has entrances in most government owned buildings.These underground buildings have been added to over the years hidden by increases to the underground rail system [covers both cost and noise].
It would be stupid to think that those in the elite class wouldn't have prepared in-case of any kind of attack an underground place that would be safe.
The reason for keeping these places secret is simple after all they don't want to save us sheep [if you had a bunker would you make it common knowage or would you keep it quiet and just keep your family safe?]
My father was in the R.A.F and even to this day he can't and won't talk about anything relating to specifics of planes or operating spec's of the R.A.F because he signed the official secrets act so the fact that some may say that surely someone on these projects would say something is just silly.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:47 AM
link   
reply to post by djcarlosa
 


Even if you improve the bore gear, dirt today is like dirt yesterday. [OK, there have been advances such as geogrid, but you get the idea.] Nobody denies you can't make a bunker here or there. However, vast open bases miles underground are another story. And even if you can, why bother. Dig a deeper tunnel, make a bigger bunker buster. It is just an arms race of a different flavor.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


Beg to differ my friend, have a peep at the links provided:

Yamantau

Mt Weather

Titan 1

Moscow international business center

Moscow

Central Museum Of Armed Forces

Sorry, no snippets as for the number of links.
There are hundreds of well documented, large underground complexes. Many of them, as for the russian defence line built during the second world war,cannot remember the actual name but HistoryChannel ran an episode about it. And that was in the 1940`s!
we have come a long way since that, so imagine what can be built if one wills it.

Gariac: I also believe that rich people, politicians and soforth have small bunkers for themselves, something like the old Presidential Bunkers.

But please, read up on the links provided ^^



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Eisenhorn
 


You must be new to the thread. Nobody argues about mountain bases. Need I say this again? A mountain exists because the dirt is stable. Mountain withstand time ya know. So you can build a base in a mountain no problem.

The missile silos are no where near as deep as the DUMB fanatics rant about.

Here is the deal. The DUMB crowd picks a spot on the map and claims there is an vast underground base. Take the so-called Sandia base supposedly in the ground in the Nellis range. Not a mountain side, not a tunnel, not a bunker but a vast and deep facility. Hey, you could fly around in the Dulce base.

Now if the thread was "the reality of mountain bases" or "the reality of not so deep bunkers", your links would be spot on.

Remember, these vast underground bases are made without hauling away the dirt! They are built in secret. SIte R, Mt. Weather, etc were never really secrets. Even the COG facilities aren't secret.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by gariac
 


As said before, i am not new to this thread.

And i did not say the examples where vast underground maybe-existing supernazibunkers, i posted them as a well known example of construction underground. If you would have red the links thoroughly, you would also have seen that not all of the bases where built inside mountains.
As long as you provide support on the structure itself, there is actually possible to build in semi-soft sand. This actually happens right outside the window of my office right now, a large four lane tunnel going under the city, and further under the bay.
So, it is clearly possible.

Also, refrain from the tone you are using please, you are not contributing to a healthy debate.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 01:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Eisenhorn
 


I looked at your links. Again, your links didn't lead to a DUMB. Take Dulce. It is the size of Manhattan (supposedly). Yet nobody noticed it being built. Uh, right. The Moscow facility is more like a shopping center. The UK facility is bigger, not clearly it is not Manhattan.

If you don't like my tone, it's a free country. Just read the next post when you see my name. I don't sugar coat anything, nor will I be offended it someone skips my posts.



posted on Mar, 13 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Read the work of Richard Sauder, Ph.d. for all the proof you will need.




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join