Tickets To WatchtowerParadise

by Tallyman 9 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Tallyman

  OCTOBER BULLETIN SAID TERRORISTS
  THOUGHT TO HAVE 10 KILOTON NUCLEAR WEAPON
  TO BE SMUGGLED INTO NEW YORK CITY

  Sun Mar 03 2002 10:40:24 ET

  **TIME MAGAZINE**

  New York -- In October, an intelligence alert went out to a small number
  of government agencies, including the Energy Department's top-secret
  Nuclear Emergency Search Team, based in Nevada.

  The report said that terrorists were thought to have obtained a 10-kiloton
  nuclear weapon from the Russian arsenal,
  and planned to smuggle it into New York City,
  a special TIME magazine investigation reveals.

  Publishing sources tell [...] the next cover story of TIME will headline:

  "Can We Stop the Next 9/11?"

  The report hits newsstands Monday, March 4th.

  MORE

  The source: a mercurial agent code-named DRAGONFIRE,
  who intelligence officials believed was of "undetermined" reliability,
  TIME reports.
  But DRAGONFIRE'S claim tracked with a report from a
  Russian general who believed his forces were missing
  a 10-kiloton device.

  That made the DRAGONFIRE report alarming.

  So did this:
  detonated in lower Manhattan,
  a 10-kiloton bomb would kill some 100,000 civilians
  and irradiate 700,000 more,
  flattening
  everything
  in
  a
  half-mile
  diameter.

  ["hmmm, let's crunch the numbers and the geography...
  a 10K Nuke Detonated in lower Manhattan
  killing an automatic 100,000 people ... and 700,000 more later ...
  and F_L_A_T_T_E_N_I_N_G everything in a 1/2 Mile Diameter-
  ! why,
  ! why
  THAT would include Brooklyn Bethel's Watchtower HeadQuarters...
  all, ALL those Buildings-That-jehovah-Built - Toppled - Blown-Up!
  and
  how many of the Bethel Family would get Instantaneous Passage
  in to Watchtower Paradise?
  Uh,
  ALL of them.
  So,
  like the sayings go: "What Goes Around, Comes Around" ... and
  "Your Kharma Always Catches Up With You" ... and other cultures
  have their own variations of this universal principle,
  but I still think Jesus said it best:

  "Whatever therefore a man (or woman) sows,
  that also will he (or she) reap."

  "You Sow The Wind, You Reap A Whirlwind."

  THIS is what the jehovah's Witnesses in NYC could be reaping shortly:

  * http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/WT_Evil.html

  ...except, the buildings and skyscrapers will not ALL be "Worldly" ones."

  The "irradiate(d) 700,000 more", and particularly those of jehovah's people
  who escape immediate entry into WTParadise will not be *G*L*O*W*I*N*G*
  with jehovah's Schmoly Schpirit, like ol' Moses, when he came down
  from the mountain.]

  Counterterrorist investigators went on their highest state of alert,
  TIME reports. "It was brutal," a U.S. official told TIME.

  It was also highly classified and closely guarded.

  [...]

  End.
• 

  teejay

  Hello, Tally

  As much as I'd love to dismiss this report as simply the ramblings of a deranged lunatic, in this post-Sept 11 world that's not easy to do. I hope it's without any foundation, naturally.

  As much as I'd love to see Brooklyn Bethel pass into oblivion, the 'collateral damage' accompanying such a horrific disaster would be far beyond our ability to comprehend or cope with, imo.

  If something like that happened, I just might have to start praying again. It would not be a very good day.
• 

  Seeker

  Brooklyn Bethel is too far away from the financial district in downtown Manhattan to be affected by a blast that would only take out 10 city blocks in diameter (1/2 mile). Radiation, sure, but flattened? Not according to that story and Bethel's distance from the probable detonation site.

  It's easy to see the "1/2 mile radius" figure and think like You Know that it would flatten NYC. In fact, Manhattan island is 26-times longer than that (13 miles, if memory serves). What would get flattened, according to that report, is about 10 blocks long, since in most of Manhattan twenty blocks = 1 miles.

  Terrible? Yes. Flatten all of Manhattan? No. Wipe out Brooklyn? No.
• 

  Tallyman

  Brooklyn Bethel is too far away from the financial district in downtown Manhattan to be affected by a blast that would only take out 10 city blocks in diameter (1/2 mile).

  
  Scheeker,

  WHY do you have to be such a Technical Asshole?

  WHO said anything, or wrote anything about the "financial district in downtown Manhattan"...?

  The article referred to a Nuke smuggled "into NYC"... and detonated "in lower Manhattan". Let's look at a map:

  *

  If you look upon the harbor at lower Manhattan, and then look to the
  top right to see the scale - shows .3 mile at top - and measure from
  a harbor slip below the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge,
  over to the World HeadQuarters of the Watchtower - up Columbia St.
  from the Brooklyn side of the bridge, between Clark and Montague...
  then Brooklyn Bethel is well within the 1/2 mile diameter range
  given in the article.

  The authorities in past news reports, have especially worried about the terrorists being able to smuggle a nuclear device in a cargo container aboard a ship, and once the ship was at harbor -
  "in lower Manhattan"... the terrorists might have to settle for detonating the device in the container aboard ship.

  The blast wave going across the East River, unimpeded would be terrific and may even be amplified because of no obstacles.

  And then again, the terrorists MIGHT have to make port on the Brooklyn side of the East River at lower Manhattan, and settle for that... and remember they are a Schneaky Sort!
  Would that put them in range of FLATTENING Brooklyn Bethel, also?

  A ship harbored in lower Manhattan, would be "into NYC".

  Radiation, sure, but flattened? Not according to that story and Bethel's distance from the probable detonation site.

  
  Scheeker, you need to re-read the story.
  And my "probable" detonation site is just as good if not better
  than your "probable" detonation site.

  It's easy to see the "1/2 mile radius" figure and think like You Know that it would flatten NYC.

  
  Ewwwww. Garsh! Put THAT on me why doncha?!?
  Accuse me of "thinking like You Know"...
  : : : s h i v e r - m e - t i m b e r s : : :

  (I was trying to think like a terrorist...)

  Terrible? Yes.

  
  Yes. We agree on something.

  Flatten all of Manhattan? No.

  
  WHO said "all" of Manhattan??
  Now, you are escalating and exaggerating even more. Like You Know.

  Wipe out Brooklyn? No.

  
  No! not Brooklyn... the specific area of Brooklyn - Brooklyn Heights,
  and the specific area of Brooklyn Heights under discussion-
  Brooklyn Bethel.

  Yes. Wipe it out.

  WHY do you have to be such a Technical Asshole?

  TT
• 

  Seeker

  My message was directed at the You Know types who think we are in for a major disaster. I didn't think you were in that category, Tallyman, which is why I neither directed my message to you nor named you. I only named You Know, and directed at people who think like him. You quoted the Dragonfile report that talked about "flattening", and I pointed out what that report pointed out, that only a 1/2-mile diameter would be flattened. You Know, when he has talked about this report in the past, implies far worse damage. That's why I took this opportunity to once again show how wrong You Know is.

  Your report is not wrong, nor anything you said.

  I said the financial district because that is where they attacked twice before and nowhere else. It is a logical assumption that they might try it again.

  If you look at your map again, you'll see that Brooklyn Bethel is more than 1/4 mile away from Manhattan. A 1/2-mile diameter means it extends 1/4-mile in all directions. Bethel is too far away from Manhattan to be flattened. However, if they did set it off in the East River, right next to Bethel, you would be right, Bethel would be flattened. Or if they set it off in Brooklyn Heights, that would do it too. Or at least part of Bethel, since it is so spread out.

  Striving to be accurate when there are inaccurate You Know types on this site is good behavior, even if you think it isn't. And I don't put you in You Know's class.

  All of which must make me an asshole...
• 

  expatbrit

  If I was a terrorist I wouldn't be thinking in the direction of a nuclear bomb in Manhattan. For one thing I wouldn't have the resources for it. Getting or building a nuclear weapon, smuggling it to America, and detonating it is an incredibly expensive and difficult thing to do.

  For another thing I would know that America's response would wipe out my cherished country / territory. Bad tactics.

  Now "dirty bombs" are a different kettle of fish. Radioactive material (as opposed to a fully operational bomb) is not difficult to come by. Load some into a conventional explosive that will spray it around downtown Manhattan and into the air, and you have a real weapon of terror. It'll kill some people instantly, and others will fall ill and maybe die for years into the future. Truly a weapon of lasting terror.

  Gotta go now. I feel sick.

  Expatbrit
• 

  Tallyman

  Hey teejay.

  Ditto to everything you wrote, except the praying part.
  I've already been praying.
  But, you're right.
  There is nothing like a loose nuke to get folks in the praying mode.

  TT
• 

  sf

  "Now "dirty bombs" are a different kettle of fish."

  "SMART-BOMBS" even.

  {{{Tally}}}

  sKally

  If man was supposedly created in gods image, then.....holy krap...we're all doomed.-sKallyWagger
• 

  Tallyman

  My message was directed at the You Know types who think we are in for a
  >major disaster.

  
  Scheeker!
  Why, since 9/11, THAT would include a lot of people who think
  were are "in for a(nother) major disaster...
  but I sure wouldn't call the government officials among that group:
  "You Know types".

  I didn't think you were in that category, Tallyman, which is
  why I neither directed my message to you nor named you.

  
  Whoa! couldn't fooled me.
  WHO was it that you were responding to, if not me?
  Glad to hear you don't put me in the YK category.

  I only named You Know, and directed at people who think like him. You quoted the Dragonfile report

  
  I quoted pare of the Time magazine article to be found at:
  * http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020311/index.html

  that talked about "flattening", and I pointed out what that report
  pointed out, that only a 1/2-mile diameter would be flattened.

  
  No. You made assumptions and gross exaggerations of the facts in the report.
  But to be fair, there were speculations in the report...
  and that is what my response was intended to be - "SPECULATION"...
  so WHY did you have to go " all technical" on me?

  Type in "Blast Effects of a 10 Kiloton Nuclear Device" in a good search engine
  and just look at the disparity of information you get...

  You Know,when he has talked about this report in the past, implies far worse damage. That's why I took this opportunity to once again show how wrong You Know is.

  
  I don't know what YK has been saying.
  I have posted on this forum in six months, and only surfed by here
  occasionally to cull intell, but even before then, I had neither
  the desire of the time to read the Rantings of YK.

  Your report is not wrong, nor anything you said.

  
  Of course, it was not my report, and you did challenge what I was saying
  as wrong, but it was speculation, so how could that be wrong??

  I said the financial district because that is where they attacked twice
  before and nowhere else. It is a logical assumption that they might try it
  again.

  
  You don't have your Thinking Cap on, Scheeker!

  The terrorists, if they had a 10K Nuke, would NOT have to go downtown
  with it. With that kind of power, they could detonate at a distance.
  It would be vastly difference from past attacks,
  where they had to physically drive a fertilizer bomb in a truck
  to the parking deck of the WTC, and then on 9/11, deliver
  a fuel bomb (2 jetliners) directly to the buildings downtown.

  They could detonate in the harbor and flatten a LOT.

  Some of the media Talking Heads are already saying that,
  they could set the Nuke off in the middle of the East River near
  lower Manhattan, and take out the financial district, the Brooklyn Bridge,
  maybe the symbolic target of the Statue of Liberty...
  because of the Tidal Wave the blast in the water would create.
  And that would almost certainly take out Brooklyn Bethel.

  And then some are saying, that if the terrorists hijacked a barge
  or a tanker loaded with propane and detonated that in harbor,
  they could take out a city.

  So, what if these jokers souped up their Nuke and set it off
  in a tanker loaded with propane, in the middle of the East River.
  Now THAT would Flatten some buildings...

  >If you look at your map again, you'll see that Brooklyn Bethel is more than
  1/4 mile away from Manhattan. A 1/2-mile diameter means it extends 1/4-mile
  in all directions.

  
  Which has me wondering why you said in your first post:
  "It's easy to see the "1/2 mile radius" figure ..."

  We are dealing with so many variables here, and nothing is set in stone
  and super precise, and why is .30 mile in the scale I illustrated,
  from harbor on Manhattan to Columbia St. on the Brooklyn side
  so different from .25 mile?

  Bethel is too far away from Manhattan to be flattened.

  No it is not.

  Striving to be accurate when there are inaccurate You Know types on this
  site is good behavior, even if you think it isn't.

  
  You made Wild Assumptions - "Flatten all of Manhattan"... the article didn't say that or did it say: "Wipe out Brooklyn?"...and neither did I. And the article did NOT make mention of "the financial district in downtown Manhattan"... so, you need to strive harder to be "accurate"

  All of which must make me an asshole...

  
  No, to be accurate, I used an adjective preceding asshole - 'Technical'.
  You made an ass out of yourself trying to break everything thing down
  and be so precise, when this article is based on speculation,
  and there is so much widely different opinion held about what the blast effects
  would be from a 10K Nuke.

  So, if it makes you feel any better, I was not calling you a
  General ASshole, an All-Inclusive, All-Encompassing, TOTAL Asshole.
  I didn't put you in THAT category.

  You were a select Asshole.

  And since everyone says you don't attack the person, but only the viewpoint,
  and what is a viewpoint but an opinion and as the saying goes:
  "Opinions Are Like Assholes. Everyone Has One"...
  and if you subtract the one, divided by two and carry the last number,
  then you too, are attacking "Assholes"...

  hee.

  TT

  TT
• 

  Seeker

  but I sure wouldn't call the government officials among that group:
  "You Know types".

  Neither would I, nor did I do so. Another wrong assumption on your part.

  Whoa! couldn't fooled me.
  WHO was it that you were responding to, if not me?

  You Know and those who read his stuff and worry about it. As I already told you.

  If the report you quoted was accurate, and yes it's all just speculation, but I'm going based on what was actually in the report you quoted, Bethel would not be knocked down unless the bomb is set off right next to it in the East river. Certainly a possibility, but that's how close it would have to be to make it "flattened."

  The radiation damage would affect Bethel no matter where the bomb was dropped in and around Manhattan, so it would be an awful thing to have happen, as I have said every time. Your point, Tally, was valid that there is a danger of this happening and it would be horrible if it does. I should have first acknowledged this before making my point to those who follow You Know's rants.

  You may not read You Know's threads, but they are usually among the most read threads here. Some newer ones may not know You Know's history and may think he knows what he's talking about. He has repeatedly talked about this subject, and implied things that just aren't so. I took the opportunity to show how a real report on the subject (not a You Know rant) is more realistic about the extent of the damage. I was hoping to not only reassure readers who worry You Know may be right, but also to again show how he doesn't know what he is talking about.

  So I'm sorry I didn't make my intentions clearer and thereby made it seem to you I was attacking you. Although you and I seem to disagree about the likelihood of Brooklyn Bethel being flattened by such a blast, that isn't my main point, and I'm willing to disagree with you without being disagreeable.