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.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: yuppa
I like how the Rockefeller Foundation announced they were divesting all of their oil interests in September. Then in October, Lockheed made their initial announcement! Seems that somebody was tipped off what was going to be announced.
Ain't Bohemian Grove in mid-July?
"Pass the owl juice. Oh, btw we are announcing a fusion reactor in October..."
eta: Now we are in a "chicken and egg" thing with funding CFR. One hand: How to fund it and not wipe out your long term investments? The other: How do we make money off of it?
originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Wolfenz
Wolf Umm the post he made takes into account the size as well. Lockheed INTENTIONALLY is playing stupid. Their actual design we dont see is small in comparison.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: yuppa
I do recall, "the internet will melt down, this site twice. But I still think it is "Berenstein" Bears, so what h3ll do I know!
Funny that Astr0's posts are being corroborated as time goes on. Well, some are, if you look.
Thanks for the Green Lady info!
originally posted by: Nickn3
a reply to: RAY1990
I would like to see any practical fusion reactor work.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: grey580
Will do, out and about right now, and 40+ eye sight combined with tiny wee screen hurts my eyeballs.
Edit: The possibility of the creation of some form of anti matter particle beam seems to present the best way of weaponizing such technology, simply by way of the fact that you are creating the anti particles and then discharging them through a beam. Hence storage may not present the same problem as say using the stuff as a bomb. But i imagine we are still a few decades away from deploying or creating antimatter particle beams.
Might be wrong all the same.
originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
a reply to: Blackfinger
Nah, black, man. And I always thought borane was wrong because that is too corrosive,
Plasma and electric are the way!!
Should we ever see it that is.
originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BASSPLYR
Would not be the first time.
But if i am wrong that means that armaments technology is far more advanced than we are lead to believe by rather a few orders of magnitude.
Plus the question begs why we are still launching cruise missile attacks and aerial strikes on our enemy's when we could simply be destroying them with anti matter particle beams?
I mean one has to wonder whats more cost effective, considering the cost of a cruise missile(about $1 million) strikes that usually involve a multitude of missiles or a one shot scalable energy beam discharged from a particle beam?
Tell you this if we did utilize such technologies against groups such as ISIS they might think twice about there belligerent acts of terrorist aggression.
Tell you this if we did utilize such technologies against groups such as ISIS they might think twice about there belligerent acts of terrorist aggression.
I would like to see any practical fusion reactor work.