USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war

  • 174 Replies
  • 24288 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39040
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2014, 09:03:25 AM »
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
Do you honestly think that you can just look at a rocket and tell whether or not it can go into space?  And you have the nerve to call me naive? ::)
Yes you can. Just look at what fuel it is releasing and the size of it. It would be a dud before it got a few miles up.
You do realize that if the V2 gains enough speed, then a few miles under power is all it would need to be able to coast up into space, then down into England, don't you?  Or are you saying that all of the V2 rockets that fell on England were faked too?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2014, 09:21:31 AM »
Go and take a look at a V2 rocket then tell me it went into space. You are not this naive.
Do you honestly think that you can just look at a rocket and tell whether or not it can go into space?  And you have the nerve to call me naive? ::)
Yes you can. Just look at what fuel it is releasing and the size of it. It would be a dud before it got a few miles up.
You do realize that if the V2 gains enough speed, then a few miles under power is all it would need to be able to coast up into space, then down into England, don't you?  Or are you saying that all of the V2 rockets that fell on England were faked too?
If a V2 gains enough speed it will coast up into space. Oh, ok. So the next time you go up a steep hill in your car, take a good old run at the hill then put it in neutral, let's see how far up that hill you coast.
No V2 has been launched into space. No V2 has been launched from Germany to England.
The only bombs that fell on england, were dropped from planes.

Are you not having any of that?
Ok then. If you can tell me how those V2 rockets navigated to hit their targets and how they managed to achieve this with the fuel and amount used, I'll start taking note.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2014, 09:26:16 AM »
So the 3000 V2 rockets that killed over 9000 people during WWII were just fake?

How about the 12000 labor and concentration camp workers that died making the rockets? All Fake?
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2014, 09:28:01 AM »
Quote
At a guess, how deep would you say the hull was? I mean you've obviously toured it so you must be able to guess.
I mean a school teacher could guess the height of a ceiling to floor, roughly. I'm sure you can estimate roughly.

30 feet, I would guess.

Though not sure at all that that proves.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2014, 09:29:03 AM »
So the 3000 V2 rockets that killed over 9000 people during WWII were just fake?

How about the 12000 labor and concentration camp workers that died making the rockets? All Fake?
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2014, 09:32:45 AM »
Quote
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.

Oh, nice try scepti but as usual you're only about 2% as smart as you believe yourself to be.

Answer my questions, without deflecting.

Are the 9000 documented victims of V2 attacks fake? Are the 12000 known victims of concentration camps that had been put to work on building the rockets fake?

Keep in mind WWII happened during a time where people could be verified to have existed while the war of the 300 did not.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2014, 09:43:36 AM »
Quote
At a guess, how deep would you say the hull was? I mean you've obviously toured it so you must be able to guess.
I mean a school teacher could guess the height of a ceiling to floor, roughly. I'm sure you can estimate roughly.

30 feet, I would guess.

Though not sure at all that that proves.
And how much of that 30 feet was fully usable space to launch a tomahawk missile by compressed air. Then for that missile to ignite once out of the water , then onto it's target?

You see, these tomahawk missiles actually leave the water, already ignited. Any idea how this magic happens. I'm open to suggestions from experts.
Also, what I would like to know, as an outside thought. These things are rockets, so shouldn't they work on the same basis as a space rocket? You know...not needing to use the atmosphere to work?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2014, 09:44:46 AM »
So the 3000 V2 rockets that killed over 9000 people during WWII were just fake?

How about the 12000 labor and concentration camp workers that died making the rockets? All Fake?
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.

The 300 were accompanied by a few thousand other soldiers as well.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2014, 09:51:10 AM »
Quote
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.

Oh, nice try scepti but as usual you're only about 2% as smart as you believe yourself to be.

Answer my questions, without deflecting.

Are the 9000 documented victims of V2 attacks fake? Are the 12000 known victims of concentration camps that had been put to work on building the rockets fake?

Keep in mind WWII happened during a time where people could be verified to have existed while the war of the 300 did not.
Did you verify this stuff or were you told about it? I mean, I watched a film about the 300 spartans and they did kill loads of Persians. I seen that. They even forced loads off a cliff.
I was told about Ghengis Khan and what he done.

King Harold was shot trough the eye with an arrow.
Richard the turd's skeleton was found under a car park.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2014, 09:53:22 AM »
So the 3000 V2 rockets that killed over 9000 people during WWII were just fake?

How about the 12000 labor and concentration camp workers that died making the rockets? All Fake?
What do you think about the 10's of thousands of Persians that were killed by the 300 spartans?
Have a think on that.

The 300 were accompanied by a few thousand other soldiers as well.
What happened to the other few thousand? Did they run away when the 300 were all arrowed to death?
I mean, I'm only going by what I saw in the movie about it.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2014, 09:56:47 AM »
Quote
And how much of that 30 feet was fully usable space to launch a tomahawk missile by compressed air. Then for that missile to ignite once out of the water , then onto it's target?

You see, these tomahawk missiles actually leave the water, already ignited. Any idea how this magic happens. I'm open to suggestions from experts.
Also, what I would like to know, as an outside thought. These things are rockets, so shouldn't they work on the same basis as a space rocket? You know...not needing to use the atmosphere to work?

The missiles are stored and launched from pressurized canisters. They are over 20 feet in length with the booster and are jet engine powered.

Why do you think they are not capable of being ignited in the water?

Please explain, in childlike terms, what you don't understand?

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2014, 09:58:37 AM »
Quote
And how much of that 30 feet was fully usable space to launch a tomahawk missile by compressed air. Then for that missile to ignite once out of the water , then onto it's target?

You see, these tomahawk missiles actually leave the water, already ignited. Any idea how this magic happens. I'm open to suggestions from experts.
Also, what I would like to know, as an outside thought. These things are rockets, so shouldn't they work on the same basis as a space rocket? You know...not needing to use the atmosphere to work?

The missiles are stored and launched from pressurized canisters. They are over 20 feet in length with the booster and are jet engine powered.

Why do you think they are not capable of being ignited in the water?

Please explain, in childlike terms, what you don't understand?
How do you ignite a rocket engine underwater?

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2014, 09:59:31 AM »
Quote
Did you verify this stuff or were you told about it? I mean, I watched a film about the 300 spartans and they did kill loads of Persians. I seen that. They even forced loads off a cliff.
I was told about Ghengis Khan and what he done.

King Harold was shot trough the eye with an arrow.
Richard the turd's skeleton was found under a car park.

I speak 4 languages and there are no words in any of them to explain just how completely ignorant and stupid you really are.

You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2014, 10:01:53 AM »
Quote
Did you verify this stuff or were you told about it? I mean, I watched a film about the 300 spartans and they did kill loads of Persians. I seen that. They even forced loads off a cliff.
I was told about Ghengis Khan and what he done.

King Harold was shot trough the eye with an arrow.
Richard the turd's skeleton was found under a car park.

I speak 4 languages and there are no words in any of them to explain just how completely ignorant and stupid you really are.
Maybe it's best you take up another language where you can explain it then. It's only logical.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2014, 10:02:21 AM »
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Underwater Model Rocket Launch

Even a model rocket can be ignited and launched under water.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2014, 10:03:11 AM »
You should really stop using the word logic in all it's form.

You never display anything that comes close to logic.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39040
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2014, 10:14:22 AM »
]You do realize that if the V2 gains enough speed, then a few miles under power is all it would need to be able to coast up into space, then down into England, don't you?  Or are you saying that all of the V2 rockets that fell on England were faked too?
If a V2 gains enough speed it will coast up into space. Oh, ok. So the next time you go up a steep hill in your car, take a good old run at the hill then put it in neutral, let's see how far up that hill you coast.
I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at. 

No V2 has been launched into space. No V2 has been launched from Germany to England.
The only bombs that fell on england, were dropped from planes.
You claim that you live in England.  I'm sure that there are still some WWII survivors that disagree with you.  Why don't you look some of them up some time.

BTW, you are right in that V2s were not launched from Germany to England.  They were launched from France and The Netherlands to England.

Are you not having any of that?
Ok then. If you can tell me how those V2 rockets navigated to hit their targets and how they managed to achieve this with the fuel and amount used, I'll start taking note.
The V2s were not meant to terribly accurate, but the gyroscopic stabilization was good enough to get it in the neighborhood of London.  As for the fuel...  I'm sure that Werner von Braun spent a lot of time and effort doing the math to figure out just how much fuel would be required to get his rocket from point A to point B. 
« Last Edit: July 27, 2014, 10:21:17 AM by markjo »
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2014, 10:24:09 AM »
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">Underwater Model Rocket Launch

Even a model rocket can be ignited and launched under water.
Yes, that fire was intense.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2014, 10:26:27 AM »
Quote
Yes, that fire was intense.

It was a model rocket, what would you expect?

Please provide me with reasoning on how a rocket can't be fired under water. And don't tell me that it can't be because it can't be. Please explain it in scientific terms.

I'll wait.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2014, 10:45:45 AM »
It's amusing (and somewhat irritating) that every discussion sceptimatic enters into rapidly degrades to little more than us round earthers responding to his incessant streams of puerile pseudo-scientific piffle.  Even the flat earthers on this site have disowned him LOL.

His very first comment on this thread:

Quote
There are no such things as ICBMs. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.

All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.

You'll note the lack of even the simplest evidence supporting these nonsensical claims; no references; no links; no citations; nothing at all.  Just the vacuous mouthings of somebody with absolutely zero knowledge of anything scientific, desperate to be involved in the discussion to prove his self-defined but totally absent prowess.  He's like a little kiddie repeatedly tugging at his mummy's skirt for attention (although I don't mean to insult 4-year-olds by saying this).

Before you waste our time by posting any further fanciful claims about ICBMs, can I suggest you check out this site sceptimatic:

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles  from the Federation of American Scientists.


?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2014, 10:54:11 AM »
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

If you people want to be so naive as to buy into this absolute crap, then go for it. Don't expect me to.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">
Here's a V1 with jet engine. (keep in mind the jet engine)
Look how it's launched. Look at the over grown trees over the sillt ramp. Look at the speed of take off.
Look at the V1 speeding into the air and the camera following it (in 1936)
Now open your ears and listen to this jet engine that sounds like an old prop job.
What is it going to take for people to wake up to this absolute nonsense?

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">

Do I really need to explain?
Did you hear what was said? These rockets exploded on cities before anyone even knew they were there. How convenient.

Anyone that thinks these silly rockets could navigate to targets overseas is welcome to think it.
All this fantasy stuff stretches back as far as anyone cares to go.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2014, 10:56:28 AM »
Quote
Yes, that fire was intense.

It was a model rocket, what would you expect?

Please provide me with reasoning on how a rocket can't be fired under water. And don't tell me that it can't be because it can't be. Please explain it in scientific terms.

I'll wait.
Tell me how a tomahawk from a submarine can be propelled up to the surface and then ignite before its arse end is out of the water, then simply fly to it's target.
Never mind baloney scientific terms.

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2014, 10:58:39 AM »
It's amusing (and somewhat irritating) that every discussion sceptimatic enters into rapidly degrades to little more than us round earthers responding to his incessant streams of puerile pseudo-scientific piffle.  Even the flat earthers on this site have disowned him LOL.

His very first comment on this thread:

Quote
There are no such things as ICBMs. There are ballistic missiles that can go up to a certain height and fall back to the ground in a arc however many miles away before the fuel is spent.

All this TV stuff where missiles fly horizontally over the sea and land, dodging mountains and what not, then home in on the target, are just that, TV fantasy.

You'll note the lack of even the simplest evidence supporting these nonsensical claims; no references; no links; no citations; nothing at all.  Just the vacuous mouthings of somebody with absolutely zero knowledge of anything scientific, desperate to be involved in the discussion to prove his self-defined but totally absent prowess.  He's like a little kiddie repeatedly tugging at his mummy's skirt for attention (although I don't mean to insult 4-year-olds by saying this).

Before you waste our time by posting any further fanciful claims about ICBMs, can I suggest you check out this site sceptimatic:

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles  from the Federation of American Scientists.
From the federation of American scientists.  ;D

Tell me, Geoffrey. Do tomahawk missiles work like a space rocket?

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2014, 11:02:52 AM »
Quote
Yes, that fire was intense.

It was a model rocket, what would you expect?

Please provide me with reasoning on how a rocket can't be fired under water. And don't tell me that it can't be because it can't be. Please explain it in scientific terms.

I'll wait.
Tell me how a tomahawk from a submarine can be propelled up to the surface and then ignite before its arse end is out of the water, then simply fly to it's target.
Never mind baloney scientific terms.

You're the one denying it's possible, not me.

So either explain, in detailed terms, why it's not possible or admit you only deny things because you don't understand them.

Or continue to deflect. Those are your three options. I already know which one you will choose.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2014, 11:05:24 AM »
Quote
Yes, that fire was intense.

It was a model rocket, what would you expect?

Please provide me with reasoning on how a rocket can't be fired under water. And don't tell me that it can't be because it can't be. Please explain it in scientific terms.

I'll wait.
Tell me how a tomahawk from a submarine can be propelled up to the surface and then ignite before its arse end is out of the water, then simply fly to it's target.
Never mind baloney scientific terms.

You're the one denying it's possible, not me.

So either explain, in detailed terms, why it's not possible or admit you only deny things because you don't understand them.

Or continue to deflect. Those are your three options. I already know which one you will choose.
It's ok if you're stumped for an answer. I can understand that because it's not possible for the launches to happen like we see.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2014, 11:15:35 AM »
Deflection it is. Exactly as I thought.

You can only deny stuff. But you can never explain why you're denying them because you don't actually understand them to begin with.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2014, 11:18:06 AM »
Deflection it is. Exactly as I thought.

You can only deny stuff. But you can never explain why you're denying them because you don't actually understand them to begin with.
No deflection here. I'm simply saying that the ICBM'S are bogus and so are the so called ICBM'S launched from submarines.
Compressed air my arse.

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2014, 11:18:33 AM »
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">US Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM)


Please explain what is actually happening in this video scepti.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #58 on: July 27, 2014, 11:19:57 AM »
Quote
I'm simply saying that the ICBM'S are bogus and so are the so called ICBM'S launched from submarines.
Compressed air my arse.

Yet you can't explain intelligently why they are "bogus".

You can only deny......you can't elaborate on it.
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

?

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 23256
Re: USA did never try an ICBM with a conventional warhead in any war
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2014, 11:21:41 AM »
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank">US Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM)


Please explain what is actually happening in this video scepti.
A load of terrible special effects. What do you think is happening?