Iran Cheated On Odumbo Before The Ink On The Treaty Was Dry.

Not nonsense. Your Youtube video is from 2015 -- four years ago. The 2017 article in The Daily Wire reported how Odumbo facilitated the sale of enough uranium from Russia to iran to construct ten nuclear weapons. the November 2018 -- just two months ago -- Foreign Policy article reports that Iran is only seven to twelve months from fielding a nuclear weapon and that earlier reports of ten years were wrong. Then four days ago, an Iranian engineer admits and reports that Iran never abided by the terms of Odumbo's treaty and that Iran persisted in its nuclear program. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Youtube video is 4 years old. The science does not change. In order to have an Atomic Bomb one would need U-235 to be enriched to a concentration of 97%. Before the deal Iran cut with Obama they did have weapons grade U-235 which is 20% concentration. Iran was only allowed to keep enough u-235 to heat their homes. If they did not comply with the deal how come they don't have an atomic bomb right now? Why do they need Russia to send them back slightly enriched U-235. If they did not get rid of their enriched u-235 and did not turn off their most efficient centrifuges then how come they don't have a bomb right now? Did that engineer say it exactly what is the concentration of enriched u-235 that they have and how many KG's of it do they have. Again the scientist in the other article that you posted said it DEPENDS on how efficient their enrichment process is. This is the one sentence that you try to ignore. If Trump had not backed out of the deal Iran would not be anywhere near getting an atomic bomb. The inspections committe said Iran was complying and Trump announced publicly that Iran was complying with the deal. General Mattis you know the best general since Patton (minus the pearl handled pistol) had advised Trump to stay with the deal that Obama cut with Iran.

The Youtube video is 4 years old. The science does not change. In order to have an Atomic Bomb one would need U-235 to be enriched to a concentration of 97%. Before the deal Iran cut with Obama they did have weapons grade U-235 which is 20% concentration. Iran was only allowed to keep enough u-235 to heat their homes. If they did not comply with the deal how come they don't have an atomic bomb right now? Why do they need Russia to send them back slightly enriched U-235. If they did not get rid of their enriched u-235 and did not turn off their most efficient centrifuges then how come they don't have a bomb right now? Did that engineer say it exactly what is the concentration of enriched u-235 that they have and how many KG's of it do they have. Again the scientist in the other article that you posted said it DEPENDS on how efficient their enrichment process is. This is the one sentence that you try to ignore. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Yeah -- the article your hanging your hat on is dated January 2017 -- a story that reports Odumbo's role in supplying Iran with enough Russian uranium to build ten nuclear weapons. The November 2018 article says Iran was much further along than anyone knew. The November 2018 article says Iran is only seven to twelve months from fielding a nuclear weapon.

IB, you obviously do not know wyf you are talking about in this regard where it is apparent ada if much more knowledgeable in this regard.

You might want to quit digging.

IB, you obviously do not know wyf you are talking about in this regard where it is apparent ada if much more knowledgeable in this regard.

You might want to quit digging. Originally Posted by WTF

I am quoting the damn articles. What makes you so imminently qualified to dispute the authors of those articles?

I am quoting the damn articles. What makes you so imminently qualified to dispute the authors of those articles? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You did not quote the very last sentence. Which says it DEPENDS on the efficiency of the enrichment process as to how close or how far away they are from a bomb.

From post #36.

But David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security said the uranium could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium to build over 10 simple nuclear bombs, "depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon."


(The Wire)

You did not quote the very last sentence. Which says it DEPENDS on the efficiency of the enrichment process as to how close or how far away they are from a bomb.

From post #36.

But David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security said the uranium could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium to build over 10 simple nuclear bombs, "depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon."


(The Wire) Originally Posted by adav8s28

It's dated January 2017. The Foreign Policy article dated November 2018 states that Iran is much further along than anyone knew, and they are only seven to twelve months from manufacturing a nuclear weapon.

It's dated January 2017. The Foreign Policy article dated November 2018 states that Iran is much further along than anyone knew, and they are only seven to twelve months from manufacturing a nuclear weapon.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The scientist Albright did not say anything about time. He said it depends on the efficiency of their enrightment process. If they are using slow centrifuges then they are much farther away than 12 months. Again from the same article this is what your guy said.

From post #36.

But David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security said the uranium could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium to build over 10 simple nuclear bombs, "depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon."

I am quoting the damn articles. What makes you so imminently qualified to dispute the authors of those articles? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Common sense....I've been blessed to know when someone is citing cherry picked items and the other person is telling them factually how they are presenting distorted facts.


You've seemed to morphed into believing Trump type lies into perpetuating them

You did not quote the very last sentence. Which says it DEPENDS on the efficiency of the enrichment process as to how close or how far ) Originally Posted by adav8s28

Which means one of two things....either IB is purposely distorting the information or he does not know etf he is quoting or a combination of the two.

I readily admit I know nothing about nuclear weapons making but common sense goes a long way in figuring out who does.

The scientist Albright did not say anything about time. He said it depends on the efficiency of their enrightment process. If they are using slow centrifuges then they are much farther away than 12 months. Again from the same article this is what your guy said.

From post #36.

But David Albright of the Institute of Science and International Security said the uranium could be enriched to enough weapons-grade uranium to build over 10 simple nuclear bombs, "depending on the efficiency of the enrichment process and the design of the nuclear weapon." Originally Posted by adav8s28

What you don't seem to comprehend is that the information published in November 2018 is more current and up to date than the older articles, and that article reports -- based on newer and better information than any older article -- that Iran is only seven to twelve months from producing a nuclear weapon.

Common sense....I've been blessed to know when someone is citing cherry picked items and the other person is telling them factually how they are presenting distorted facts.


You've seemed to morphed into believing Trump type lies into perpetuating them Originally Posted by WTF

I understand that an updated analysis from November 2018 based on newer and better information takes precedent over a report that's two years older.

Which means one of two things....either IB is purposely distorting the information or he does not know etf he is quoting or a combination of the two.

I readily admit I know nothing about nuclear weapons making but common sense goes a long way in figuring out who does. Originally Posted by WTF

Iran would still need to produce weapons-grade uranium. If it restarts its centrifuges, it could have enough in about seven to 12 months, added Albright, who is preparing reports on the archive....

One of his key conclusions from studying the documents was that the Iranians “were further along than Western intelligence agencies realized.”

...the trove of documents demonstrates that Washington and the IAEA were constantly underestimating how close Tehran was to a bomb.

What you don't seem to comprehend is that the information published in November 2018 is more current and up to date than the older articles, and that article reports -- based on newer and better information than any older article -- that Iran is only seven to twelve months from producing a nuclear weapon.

I understand that an updated analysis from November 2018 based on newer and better information takes precedent over a report that's two years older. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Just more lies and bullshit by Hankering. In post #55 you leave out half of what Albright said in your post #36. Again he did not give a time range. He just said it depends on how efficient the enrichment process is.

Secondly, your article from the Wire said Obama is sending Iran natural Uranium. It is not even possible to build a bomb with just Natural Uranium. Natural Uranium only has a concentration of the U-235 of .7% or .007. You need over 90% concentration of U-235 to get a bomb or nuclear weapon, which means Iran will be enriching for a long time if all they are getting is "Natural" Uranium. Study up.

https://www.livescience.com/39773-fa...t-uranium.html

Dang ib. You divert much? Get a clue dude. Obama is not president and left us a great economy that trump hasn't fkn up yet. Maybe your trump will build a wall around Iran and make them pay for it.

Now back to 2019 where Nancy is kicking trumps azz

Just more lies and bullshit by Hankering. In post #55 you leave out half of what Albright said in your post #36. Again he did not give a time range. He just said it depends on how efficient the enrichment process is.

Secondly, your article from the Wire said Obama is sending Iran natural Uranium. It is not even possible to build a bomb with just Natural Uranium. Natural Uranium only has a concentration of the U-235 of .7% or .007. You need over 90% concentration of U-235 to get a bomb or nuclear weapon, which means Iran will be enriching for a long time if all they are getting is "Natural" Uranium. Study up.

https://www.livescience.com/39773-fa...t-uranium.html Originally Posted by adav8s28

Thank you adav. IB gets carried away with "alternative facts". In this thread he didn't even have that. Thank you for "dismantling" HIS "nuclear program". That was impressive. IB like WTF said, quit digging. IB you don't know your stuff and adav does

Just more lies and bullshit by Hankering. In post #55 you leave out half of what Albright said in your post #36. Again he did not give a time range. He just said it depends on how efficient the enrichment process is.

Secondly, your article from the Wire said Obama is sending Iran natural Uranium. It is not even possible to build a bomb with just Natural Uranium. Natural Uranium only has a concentration of the U-235 of .7% or .007. You need over 90% concentration of U-235 to get a bomb or nuclear weapon, which means Iran will be enriching for a long time if all they are getting is "Natural" Uranium. Study up.

https://www.livescience.com/39773-fa...t-uranium.html Originally Posted by adav8s28

What Albright reported for the November 2018 article supersedes and takes precedence over what he reported for the January 2017 article.

Dang ib. You divert much? Get a clue dude. Obama is not president and left us a great economy that trump hasn't fkn up yet. Maybe your trump will build a wall around Iran and make them pay for it.

Now back to 2019 where Nancy is kicking trumps azz Originally Posted by Tsmokies

It was Odumbo's treaty that the Iranian engineer was bragging about violating from day one. Odumbo owns all of those fuck-ups: lock-stock-and-barrel.

Thank you adav. IB gets carried away with "alternative facts". In this thread he didn't even have that. Thank you for "dismantling" HIS "nuclear program". That was impressive. IB like WTF said, quit digging. IB you don't know your stuff and adav does Originally Posted by themystic

The facts are the facts. The facts revealed in the November 2018 article supersede and take precedence over what the facts reported for the January 2017 article.

Like in a football game, a defense that plays 2nd down based on what the offense lined up to do on 1st down will not be properly prepared to deal with the offense that is running a different play on 2nd down.

What the intel agencies thought Iran could do in 2015 or the beginning of 2017 ceased to be not nearly as important as new revelations regarding what the intel agencies learned what Iran could do at the end of 2018.

[/SIZE][/COLOR] What Albright reported for the November 2018 article supersedes and takes precedence over what he reported for the January 2017 article.

It was Odumbo's treaty that the Iranian engineer was bragging about violating from day one. Odumbo owns all of those fuck-ups: lock-stock-and-barrel.

The facts are the facts. The facts revealed in the November 2018 article supersede and take precedence over what the facts reported for the January 2017 article.

Like in a football game, a defense that plays 2nd down based on what the offense lined up to do on 1st down will not be properly prepared to deal with the offense that is running a different play on 2nd down.

What the intel agencies thought Iran could do in 2015 or the beginning of 2017 ceased to be not nearly as important as new revelations regarding what the intel agencies learned what Iran could do at the end of 2018. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Ok whatever you say IB. Sure looks like you don't know your stuff. Is this some more of the "poisonous fruit"? talk. That didn't fly either