-
Note that a 20 megaton bomb would completely destroy buildings within 6.4 km, destroy most buildings within 17 km and damage all buildings within 47 km. The largest ever tested nuclear weapon had a yield of over 50 megaton, and that was in 1961. Do you think that nuclear technology has improved since then, or stayed the same?
...
The US will not carpet bomb Iran and certainly would never drop a nuclear weapon on that country. Iran is a country with a GDPof less than 2 years of the US military budget, and the US military budget accounts for 3.2% of the total US GDP. Such actions would be considered grievous war crimes, both internationally and within the US. Unless you're expecting the US to turn into a genuine totalitarian dictatorship within the near future, have no doubt that the action of killing 70 million innocent people would be held to account by the American public, American law, American politicians, and that of the world as well. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), source (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_per_of_gdp-military-expenditures-percent-of-gdp).
In fact in the current political climate, it is very hard to see a genuine war breaking out with the US and Iran. Given the political and military disasters that are Afghanistan and Iraq, and the fact that, despite counter claims by irrational ignorant political hacks, the US is still a democracy, it is very hard to see any serious support in the US for more serious military action against another Middle Eastern nation. At best we will see more serious sanctions and possibly air bombing at the extreme. Beyond that, it is impossible to see the Democratic senate or the next president supporting ground troops in the US, at least until Afghanistan and Iraq have been better dealt with.
This claim that carpet bombing Iran would lead to mass terrorist attacks in the US is also completely bogus. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Of course you don't, because all you post is bullshit. If you don't believe that the Islamic Middle East has all the motivation and belief to carry out terrorist attacks against you already, you really need to take a look at reality. Iraq is in ruins, Afghanistan is run by warlords, Iran is oppressed by sanctions and threats, as is Syria. It's estimated that over 57,000 civilians have been killed so far in the Iraq war alone. There is no reason to believe that terrorist attacks will significantly increase because of carpet bombing Iran. Terrorists, fuelled by their irrational beliefs and a disgusting religion, already want to kill you, but they can't, and they're focusing on more practical goals - like building insecurity and hatred in their region. Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)
The politicial bias of beast's statement is so obvious and has been dealt with so much already, the focus here will exclusively be upon nuclear weapons propaganda.
First, wikipedia (which beast has elsewhere quoted in his defense of the reality of "nuclear" weapons) does not hardly have the final word on truth.
Second, the principle verifiable evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons is the bombing of two cities in Japan in 1945 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The chief inspector of the US Secretary of War for these cities in the aftermath of the bombings was US Army Major Alexander de Seversky. He investigated many bombed cities throughout Japan. On each occasion, he first conducted an aerial survey followed by a through investigation on the ground, and he detected a similar pattern in every city evidently due to the methods of the bombers as well as the nature of the targets bombed. He was prepared for and anticipated quite a shock in Hiroshima yet found it to be completely the same as the rest of the cities he had surveyed. There was no bald spot at the centre of the blast. The metal framework of buildings standing in the middle epicentre of the bomb blast were intact. Some bricks had been blown out of those in the very centre, but the Hiroshima hospital only a mile away from the center of the blast suffered nothing more than having its windows blown out and no people in the building were even hurt. The greatest damage was NOT done by the blast but by fire as an after effect which accounted for at least 60,000 of the 200,000 persons who perished according to his report. Ratty wooden houses of which there were many constituted the main structural damage. Seversky concluded that the bomb had the effect of a large incendiary as most of the damage was caused by fire alone and not by the blast. He also stated that a great deal of wood remained in the rubble of the main area of the blast indicating that those buildings had not been incinerated by the heat of a blast but were destroyed afterwards by the fire that resulted from the bomb. He stated that a fleet of 200 B-29's which each dropped a routine load of incendiaries would have accomplished the same thing.
The same applies to Nagasaki. As a matter of fact, the Nagasaki bomb was alleged to have been more powerful. However, the principle area affected in Hiroshima constituted roughly a four square mile area with the blast in the centre (i.e. roughly a one mile radius around the centre of huts toppled by fires) yet the principle area affected in Nagasaki's allegedly more powerful bomb was only one solitary square mile.
Seversky wondered at why Nagasaki and especally Hiroshima had even been chosen as targets since they had no military value. They would very easily be destroyed by fire as the majoity of the structures in these two cities were rickety termite eaten poor Japanese wooden houses. However, they would easily serve the purpose of someone planning to elicit maximum propaganda value for the amount of destruction caused as such structures are easily destroyed by fire. (By the way, as far as propaganda goes one should also be careful of quoting the figures of the Bomb MUseum in Hiroshima as it admittedly derives its figure for the number of dead from the bomb from the deaths of anyone who was within the affected area within two weeks after the bombing including rescue workers, reporters, etc. REGUARDLESS OF WHEN THEY DIE AND IS STILL COUNTING THESE DEATHS EVEN TODAY.)
Major Seversky stated that the effect of one of these so-called atomic bombs dropped on New York City would affect an area much smaller than one of the five main buroughs.
As far as the retort to Seversky's article in the May 1946 issue of Reader's Digest, NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES INTERVIEWED CONTESTED SEVERSKY'S DESCRIPTION OF HIROSHIMA OR NAGASAKI OR THE FACTS HE STATED. They only argued his opinions such as his comparison with New York City and his allegation that the incendiaries of 200 B-29's would have accomplished the same effect.
I invite beast to visit for himself a library and read the results of of Seversky's investigation in the February 1946 issue of Reader's Digest in an article entitled 'Atomic Hysteria' which received a mountain of protest by so-called experts in america who never came any closer than 5000 miles away from Japan and who yet insisted that Seversky's opinions were unfounded. Do see their reply three months later in the May issue in which the author interviewed many military and scientific authorities in an effort to refute Seversky's article. Note: these articles were apparently censored from the British edition, but they do appear in the American editions of Reader's Digest for February and May 1946.
Beast may take course to cite diverse alleged nuclear tests (below ground, above ground, et cetera) throughout the Cold War in a number of large countries. However, these tests including their precise location and especiallt timing were always military secrets.
We are supposed to believe the propaganda that we were racing the Germans to build the bomb, and miraculously developed it at the end of the War as opposed to having it ready to use throughout the War. The more a weapon is used, the more it is open to investigation and expose of the ruse - the same reason the alleged Moon missions stopped.
Radiation fallout? What a load of rot.
As part of the synthetically manufactured atomic hysteria In 1947, twenty-six young men came who worked with these allegedly WMD nuclear weapons came into bodily contact with plutonium. In 1980, a medical survey was conducted of these twenty-six men who lived with plutonium inside them for 32 years and concluded that they had all lived normal lives and only two of them had died - one was run over by a truck and the other for a similarly irrelevant reason.
(EDIT: This information appeared in the Financial Times in 1980.)
And do not tell me that I am not qualified to write about this as my sources speaks for themselves. You can begin with Major de Seversky. And incidentally, I am myself a US Navy submarine veteran who was assigend to an SSBN.
What would be the point of such propaganda?
Observe how the US garners what little support it has for invading and manipulating those countries it does not control already or choose not to follow its belligerant imperialism.
And while we are talking about Iran (this goes for cheesejof as well), why do you focus on Iran? Do you let Bush choose your enemies? What makes him your mind?
What about Turkey for example? Since beast hates islam so much, why don't we read something from beast talking about racism and terrorism by the Grey Wolves or a similar group? They easily have far more ambitious plans than the Iranians who comparatively keep to the themselves.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story33.html
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/aazariINDEX.HTML
[/quote]
-
This is almost in the league of thinking that the Earth is flat :P
-
So you're saying that all this damage was caused by a fire?
Or are these photos fake?
(http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg)
(http://aerostories.free.fr/hiroshima/ruehiro.jpg)
(http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY106/GIF/Still/Physics/Damage13-hiroshima-c.jpg)
(http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/GIF/Stage1/1-5-7.jpg)
And how do you explain images such as these? Some guy just came along and painted them?
(http://history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/h02.jpg)
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Hiroshima/images/HR43.jpg)
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Effects/Shadow1.jpg)
It is ridiculous and false to claim that nuclear bombs do not exist.
-
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
-
So you're saying that all this damage was caused by a fire?
Or are these photos fake?
(http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg)
(http://aerostories.free.fr/hiroshima/ruehiro.jpg)
(http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY106/GIF/Still/Physics/Damage13-hiroshima-c.jpg)
(http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/GIF/Stage1/1-5-7.jpg)
And how do you explain images such as these? Some guy just came along and painted them?
(http://history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/h02.jpg)
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Hiroshima/images/HR43.jpg)
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Effects/Shadow1.jpg)
It is ridiculous and false to claim that nuclear bombs do not exist.
-raises hand-
Yeah out of curiosity, those buildings standing in the middle of the wasteland? Why didn't THEY get leveled too?
And yeah I believe America did cause serious fire damage. We did what is called a fire storm on a few Japanese cities. We dropped a few lines worth of fire bombs in a specific pattern which drew an X or a * on the city. After that mother nature took over by whipping the flames into a massive inferno of fire and high speed winds.
-
I would imagine the reason those buildings remained would be a combination of being much stronger buildings than those around, ie. many buildings in Japan at that time would have been made predominately from wood and paper, while the ones not completely demolished appear to all be large cement or stone buildings, and also I'm sure chaos theory and fluctuation in the force of the blast would have played a significant part.
I think it would be good if people could refrain from posting meaningless insults like Sokarul's. Posts like that add nothing to the forum or the discussion.
-
So you're saying that all this damage was caused by a fire?
Or are these photos fake?
(http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg)
(http://aerostories.free.fr/hiroshima/ruehiro.jpg)
(http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY106/GIF/Still/Physics/Damage13-hiroshima-c.jpg)
(http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/GIF/Stage1/1-5-7.jpg)
And how do you explain images such as these? Some guy just came along and painted them?
(http://history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/h02.jpg)
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Hiroshima/images/HR43.jpg)
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Effects/Shadow1.jpg)
It is ridiculous and false to claim that nuclear bombs do not exist.
Um, it's ridiculous and false for anyone to claim that you're not retarded. Those photos could have been easily been fake. I mean, all pictures of the Round Earth are fake, why couldn't these be?
-
Of course the photos theoretically could have been faked. However if Dio wants to convince us that nuclear bombs do not exist, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate those photos are fake. If he does not do so, it is logical for us to assume the photos are real. In regards to photos of the round Earth; it is the round Earthers who are trying to do the convincing that the Earth is round, there are no flat Earthers trying to convince people that the world is flat. Therefore if they want us to believe that the Earth is round, the burden of proof is on them to prove that the Earth is round.
To sum up; there is no burden of proof on somebody to prove something to themselves. The burden of proof is always on the person trying to convince people that their opinion is the correct one. In this case it is Dio who is trying to convince us that nukes don't exist. In the case of the FE, it is the REers that are trying to convince people that the Earth is not flat.
-
Of course the photos theoretically could have been faked. However if Dio wants to convince us that nuclear bombs do not exist, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate those photos are fake. If he does not do so, it is logical for us to assume the photos are real. In regards to photos of the round Earth; it is the round Earthers who are trying to do the convincing that the Earth is round, there are no flat Earthers trying to convince people that the world is flat. Therefore if they want us to believe that the Earth is round, the burden of proof is on them to prove that the Earth is round.
To sum up; there is no burden of proof on somebody to prove something to themselves. The burden of proof is always on the person trying to convince people that their opinion is the correct one. In this case it is Dio who is trying to convince us that nukes don't exist. In the case of the FE, it is the REers that are trying to convince people that the Earth is not flat.
True, but how in the world could he prove they are fake?
-
Of course the photos theoretically could have been faked. However if Dio wants to convince us that nuclear bombs do not exist, the burden of proof is on him to demonstrate those photos are fake. If he does not do so, it is logical for us to assume the photos are real. In regards to photos of the round Earth; it is the round Earthers who are trying to do the convincing that the Earth is round, there are no flat Earthers trying to convince people that the world is flat. Therefore if they want us to believe that the Earth is round, the burden of proof is on them to prove that the Earth is round.
To sum up; there is no burden of proof on somebody to prove something to themselves. The burden of proof is always on the person trying to convince people that their opinion is the correct one. In this case it is Dio who is trying to convince us that nukes don't exist. In the case of the FE, it is the REers that are trying to convince people that the Earth is not flat.
True, but how in the world could he prove they are fake?
Despite popular theory on these particular forums, identifying falsified images is a lot easier then you would think.
I can safely say that those photos are 100% real. They show very little (if any) distortion effects and it would actually be impossible to replicate those images involving shadow in a real world studio.
-
I think the thread starter turns 1 year old November 17th.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9275/
-
I take it that beast's photos represent the middle of the blast which depict buildings still standing and a bridge still in place. It is worth pointing out that of all the bridges in Horashima, Major Seversky noted that only one collapsed and not even that one from the blast but from people afterwards.
Neither does Beast have any refutation of Seversky's facts. He only relies to what I have already anticipated - military propaganda.
I have refuted the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings BECAUSE THEY ARE VERIFIABLE. The assertion that the bombs just keep on getting bigger and bigger rests on assertion only. Where is proof of the 1961 bomb's alleged destructiveness or the outlandish assertions of a bomb leaving no buildings unaffected within 46 kilometres? Bomb explosions that are military secrets and not open to verification are not an argument as they are not verifiable.
beast's tactic is since the only two bombs on which the propaganda relies cannot withstand close scrutiny, he proceeds to make even more ludicrous and unverifiable claims about the bombs of the Cold War era. Since the Cold War is over, let's recognize propaganda for what it is and move on. But beast is still stubbornly fighting the Cold War. He believes in a mirage.
I suppose beast will now proceed to post the same old 1950's photos of mushroom clouds that we have all seen a thousand times. A very destructive bomb is not needed to produce a mushroom cloud.
It is impossible to create a bomb that will destroy an entire city. Seversky stated that no bald spot was left in Hiroshima, but his detractors retorted that is becaue it was detonated in the air in order to destroy a larger area with a somewhat smaller intensity over a wider area. In other words, there exists a trade-off between an intense devastation in a small area and a wider devastation with a corresponding lighter intensity - A PHYSICAL LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION WHICH A BOMB CAN ACCOMPLISH.
Why is beast so ready to believe unsubstantiated military propaganda to the contrary?
I submit that the reason is because beast is religious in spite of himself. Judging by beast's fascination with statistics and numbers (the bigger the more impressive, eh?), beast adheres to what labor historian David Noble has called the religion of technology and what French writer Rene Guenon in 1945 called the Reign of Quantity.
http://www.mindfully.org/Technology/Religion-Technology-Noble19feb98.htm
http://www.sophiaperennis.com/guenon_reign_toc.html
-
You are literally crazy.
Why would India and Pakistan both perpetuate this supposed myth? Why would Iran, when it could lead to them being attacked? Why would North Korea?
I am that if I did some research, I could easily present non military evidence of the existence of nuclear bombs, but I can see no benefit in further engaging with somebody has cut off from reality as you. You should seriously seek medical help, although I suspect you are afraid that the doctors are out to get you, and will not.
-
You are literally crazy.
See I can respond with irrelevant comments as well.
As far as these third World countries go, the nuclear myth has brainwashed the leaders of these countries most of whom have been educated in western institutions. Certainly
The atomic hysteria of the late 1940's and 1950's and today is not only propaganda for obvious political purposes. It is an attempt to maintain the Rutherfordian concept of a nuclear atom. At the height of this propaganda in the 1950's, Dewey Larson wrote an expose of the basis of the myth - the idea that atoms are composed of lesser substances called protons, neutrons, and electrons.
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
by Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
Of course, the nuclear atom is a myth on top of a myth. Atoms themselves do not exist at all. It is a false theory of Pythagoras's students Leucippus which Pythagoras learned from secret sects in India when he visited there in the sixth century BC at the behest of the jews in Babylon to spread the worst heresies of the hindus in the West.
Beast cannot come up with verifiable proof of alleged nuclear explosions since 1945 so he has resorted to name calling and character assasination. In other words, I win.
In the meantime, I am still waiting for verifiable proof or convincing evidence of actual any actual nuclear explosions after 1945. Taking your word or the government's word for it is not good enough.
-
So what is Trident when it's at home? I believe that one of the reasons that 40,000 people were protesting in London a couple of weeks ago was to protest against the renewal of this WMD.
-
Also note that the bombs were detonated above the ground to maximize damage (More in the sense of range).
A bomb detonated above the ground will affect a much larger radius then one that collides with the ground to detonate.
A bomb colliding with the ground makes a large crater, and a bomb detonated in the sky does not (Well the crater is either not present
or just very small).
The reason you're still seeing some buildings still standing near ground zero is because both bombs were set to detonate in the air before they hit the ground, increasing OVERALL damage yet reducing damage at ground zero.
-
Post your source for this Major de Seversky story.
Ko(o)be, aswell as many other cities in Japan were firebombed. These cities were DAMAGED MORE THAN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, not to mention people died worse (imo). Read/watch Grave of the Fireflies for more on the devestation in Koobe.
About the bomb - keep in mind, it was a low yield blast, and it was detonated _midair_ very high above ground zero (Excuse me for not having a source for how high it detonated at). This essentially just splattered radioactivity across the whole area. As you see in some of the pictures, and from other sources, people were turned into nothing more than shadows... fire does not do this.
-
You are literally crazy.
See I can respond with irrelevant comments as well.
As far as these third World countries go, the nuclear myth has brainwashed the leaders of these countries most of whom have been educated in western institutions. Certainly
The atomic hysteria of the late 1940's and 1950's and today is not only propaganda for obvious political purposes. It is an attempt to maintain the Rutherfordian concept of a nuclear atom. At the height of this propaganda in the 1950's, Dewey Larson wrote an expose of the basis of the myth - the idea that atoms are composed of lesser substances called protons, neutrons, and electrons.
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
by Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
Of course, the nuclear atom is a myth on top of a myth. Atoms themselves do not exist at all. It is a false theory of Pythagoras's students Leucippus which Pythagoras learned from secret sects in India when he visited there in the sixth century BC at the behest of the jews in Babylon to spread the worst heresies of the hindus in the West.
Beast cannot come up with verifiable proof of alleged nuclear explosions since 1945 so he has resorted to name calling and character assasination. In other words, I win.
In the meantime, I am still waiting for verifiable proof or convincing evidence of actual any actual nuclear explosions after 1945. Taking your word or the government's word for it is not good enough.
Are you shitting me? You really think atoms don't exist?
E=mc^2 thus nuclear bombs. Many people died. Its not funny to joke about how they didn't. Many more died from radiation.
-
You are literally crazy.
See I can respond with irrelevant comments as well.
As far as these third World countries go, the nuclear myth has brainwashed the leaders of these countries most of whom have been educated in western institutions. Certainly
The atomic hysteria of the late 1940's and 1950's and today is not only propaganda for obvious political purposes. It is an attempt to maintain the Rutherfordian concept of a nuclear atom. At the height of this propaganda in the 1950's, Dewey Larson wrote an expose of the basis of the myth - the idea that atoms are composed of lesser substances called protons, neutrons, and electrons.
oh please the jews got fucked
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
by Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
Of course, the nuclear atom is a myth on top of a myth. Atoms themselves do not exist at all. It is a false theory of Pythagoras's students Leucippus which Pythagoras learned from secret sects in India when he visited there in the sixth century BC at the behest of the jews in Babylon to spread the worst heresies of the hindus in the West.
Beast cannot come up with verifiable proof of alleged nuclear explosions since 1945 so he has resorted to name calling and character assasination. In other words, I win.
In the meantime, I am still waiting for verifiable proof or convincing evidence of actual any actual nuclear explosions after 1945. Taking your word or the government's word for it is not good enough.
Are you shitting me? You really think atoms don't exist?
E=mc^2 thus nuclear bombs. Many people died. Its not funny to joke about how they didn't. Many more died from radiation.
-
The same applies to Nagasaki. As a matter of fact, the Nagasaki bomb was alleged to have been more powerful. However, the principle area affected in Hiroshima constituted roughly a four square mile area with the blast in the centre (i.e. roughly a one mile radius around the centre of huts toppled by fires) yet the principle area affected in Nagasaki's allegedly more powerful bomb was only one solitary square mile.
It was dropped in front of a hill moron. They fuzzed up the mission. ::) The hill took the main blast, but there was still some fallout.
I'm not going to argue, cause I can see it wouldn't make any difference. All I can say is that you are deluded in my opinion. (which, according to human rights laws, I am allowed to have.)
-
Also note that the bombs were detonated above the ground to maximize damage (More in the sense of range).
A bomb detonated above the ground will affect a much larger radius then one that collides with the ground to detonate.
A bomb colliding with the ground makes a large crater, and a bomb detonated in the sky does not (Well the crater is either not present
or just very small).
The reason you're still seeing some buildings still standing near ground zero is because both bombs were set to detonate in the air before they hit the ground, increasing OVERALL damage yet reducing damage at ground zero.
This is the main reply I had been awaiting.
Seversky's article also mentioned that the Hiroshima bomb had been detonated in the air as to maximize the area affected (which was again incidentally a non-military area) even though that meant somewhat less of a destructive effect in the immediate area. He stated that there is a trade-off between the destructiveness attainable by the blast and the breadth of area affected. In other words, THERE IS A PHYSICAL LIMIT TO THE DESTRUCTIVENESS ATTAINABLE BY A SINGLE BOMB.
-
So what is Trident when it's at home? I believe that one of the reasons that 40,000 people were protesting in London a couple of weeks ago was to protest against the renewal of this WMD.
I have also been awaiting this retort. It is easy to accomplish one's objectives when one's opponents are confused and distracted into fighting sideshows. I myself generally sympathize far more with the political left. However, that does not blind me from seeing that well intentioned people and organizations have dedicated decades to fighting a mirage.
-
Post your source for this Major de Seversky story.
As stated in the lead article, Major Alexander de Seversky was the Special Assistant to the Secretary of War for the investigation of bombed area in Japan. His article appeared in the February 1946 issue of Reader's Digest, and this story was not allowed to be printed in the British editions but the American editions of that journal only. I am unaware of this information being available on-line, but I will search for it. His detracor's reply appeared in the May 1946 issue. The most certain way of attaining both articles is by visiting a library which has them or ordering them through interlibrary loan and photocopying or scanning or ordering this through a used book dealer which stocks old Reader's Digests.
A few years back Ralph Epperson wrote a book to the same effect which I have not attained yet, but I will search for his website and post it.
Nathan Martin Gwynne wrote a privately circulated essay on this subject back in the mid-1970's which was printed I believe in the Nemesis journal in the late 1990's. I will search for this as well and subsequently post a link if found.
EDIT: I located Ralph Epperson's book. It does not go as far as myself, Gwynne, or Seversky in that Epperson believes that the United States is the only to ever have nuclear weapons. However, his information could perhaps provide more insight into how the leaders of countries like India and Pakistan buy into such propaganda.
http://ralph-epperson.com/#b24
-
Ko(o)be, aswell as many other cities in Japan were firebombed. These cities were DAMAGED MORE THAN HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI, not to mention people died worse (imo). Read/watch Grave of the Fireflies for more on the devestation in Koobe.
Dresden in Germany suffered more damage as well. It seemed a lot of places suffered more damage than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.
-
(Excuse me for not having a source for how high it detonated at).
Considering that the Reader's Digest articles referred to stated that the height of the bomb during detonation was a military secret, your lack of a source is not surprising. And for exactly the same reason neither is beast's failure to come up with any evidence of bombs which allegedly destroy entire cities at any time since then. Nuclear weapons were Cold War propaganda. It's time to progress, people.
-
This essentially just splattered radioactivity across the whole area. As you see in some of the pictures, and from other sources, people were turned into nothing more than shadows... fire does not do this.
Major de Seversky stated that although he had heard some rumor of radioactive infected persons, he did not encountre even one such person. He interviewed many staff and patients at the Hiroshima Hospital in addition to many medical and other workers sent to assist in the aftermath. Although some of them had also heard this rumor, NONE OF ANY OF THESE PERSONS HAD EVER ENCOUNTERED EVEN SINGLE A PERSON INFECTED WITH RADIOACTIVITY.
-
that's like denying the gas camps in poland. :-\
-
Ok. Prove these wrong:
(http://bh.knu.ac.kr/~sdsong/images/Atomic%20Bomb.gif)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Nagasakibomb.jpg/250px-Nagasakibomb.jpg)
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nuclear-bomb-ch.jpg)
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/images/050922_nuke_body.jpg)
(http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/environment/assets/nuclear_bomb_test.jpg)
(http://www.immediart.com/catalog/images/big_images/SPL_R_T165126-Atomic_bomb_explosion-SPL.jpg)
(http://www.alpinesurvival.com/nuclear-blue-B.jpg)
(http://www.einstein.unican.es/images/ae42.jpg)
(http://files.myopera.com/Mathilda/albums/43343/thumbs/Nuclear%20Bomb%20Test.jpg_thumb.jpg)
(http://www.hillary.org/hillary2/nuclear.bomb.jpg)
Some video's:
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
-
(http://bh.knu.ac.kr/~sdsong/images/Atomic%20Bomb.gif)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/Nagasakibomb.jpg/250px-Nagasakibomb.jpg)
(http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nuclear-bomb-ch.jpg)
(http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/09/images/050922_nuke_body.jpg)
(http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/environment/assets/nuclear_bomb_test.jpg)
(http://www.immediart.com/catalog/images/big_images/SPL_R_T165126-Atomic_bomb_explosion-SPL.jpg)
(http://www.alpinesurvival.com/nuclear-blue-B.jpg)
(http://www.einstein.unican.es/images/ae42.jpg)
(http://files.myopera.com/Mathilda/albums/43343/thumbs/Nuclear%20Bomb%20Test.jpg_thumb.jpg)
(http://www.hillary.org/hillary2/nuclear.bomb.jpg)
Some video's:
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
(http://)
The explosions depicted in these photographs are simply explosions of large bombs, missiles, and in some instances large smoke bombs. One can judge the size of these bombs and the blast that they create by virtue of the fact that trees or other objects such as island shores and hilltops which give at least a relative idea of size are located nearby. Hardly the kind of blast in any of these photos which leaves no building within a 46-kilometre diametre unaffected (!)(as one poster claimed earlier in this thread). A photograph taken by a naval ship or aircraft of a bomb being detonated off the coast of Nihau, Hawaii or somewhere else in the Pacific is published, and you take it for granted that the bomb is nuclear because they say so. That's called gullibility. You've been had.
I had hoped more convincing photographs would have been posted. A couple of older and more convincing photographs (which you failed to post so I will help you out by mentioning them) in which naval ships are to be seen in the photograph in relation to the mushroom cloud, these mushrooms clouds are produced by bombs deliberately designed to produce a large amount of smoke precisely for a magnified propaganda effect.
Anticipating that someone would eventually go ballistic and post such photos, I earlier stated in this same thread that a so-called nuclear bomb is not necessary to produce a large mushroom smoke cloud.
I suppose beast will now proceed to post the same old 1950's photos of mushroom clouds that we have all seen a thousand times. A very destructive bomb is not needed to produce a mushroom cloud.
In other words, there is no more boom behind your smokescreen than that of any large non-nuclear bomb - which kind of bomb explosions happen to be exactly what has been displayed in the preceeding photographs.
-
Very well. You could replicate the mushroom cloud with a very VERY large amount of conventional explosives, but it does not account for the radioactivity left behind by the bombs.
At any rate, a nuclear bomb is not all that hard to grasp. It is a very simple concept.
-
Very well. You could replicate the mushroom cloud with a very VERY large amount of conventional explosives, but it does not account for the radioactivity left behind by the bombs.
This essentially just splattered radioactivity across the whole area. As you see in some of the pictures, and from other sources, people were turned into nothing more than shadows... fire does not do this.
Major de Seversky stated that although he had heard some rumor of radioactive infected persons, he did not encountre even one such person. He interviewed many staff and patients at the Hiroshima Hospital in addition to many medical and other workers sent to assist in the aftermath. Although some of them had also heard this rumor, NONE OF ANY OF THESE PERSONS HAD EVER ENCOUNTERED EVEN SINGLE A PERSON INFECTED WITH RADIOACTIVITY.
As part of synthetically manufactured atomic hysteria, in 1947 twenty-six young men who worked with allegedly WMD nuclear weapons came into direct bodily contact with plutonium. In 1980, a medical examination was conducted with twenty-four of these same men who had lived with plutonium inside them for thirty-two years. The examination concluded that they had all lived completely normal lives and only two of the twenty-six had died - one was run over by a truck and the other died for a similarly irrelevant reason.
The last reference to the twenty-six plutonium patients is taken from a national medical journal which published the results of the examination in 1980. I will post the name and issue of that journal as soon as I retrieve it.
According to the american propaganda, plutonium was the most deadly substance known to man.
So much for the veracity and reliability of the much vaunted american nuclear propaganda.
-
Gamma rays are a deadly form of radiation. Plutonium emits Gamma radiation. Prolonged exposure has serious side effects regardless of what some random article may claim.
It is also strange how the inhabitants, and later US marines who came to Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced hospitals full of people with radiation sickness. The streets littered with the burnt remains of people, and closer to the epicenter mere shadows. They did not even know the extent of radiation sickness back then, but the symptoms of most all patients were clear signs of radiation sickness. We see the same results after the meltdown in Tsjernobyl. Many workers died within days as a result of radiation exposure.
This is an interesting thread and all, but I don't see the point in refuting nukes. Good argument I suppose.
-
a nuclear bomb is not all that hard to grasp. It is a very simple concept.
Indeed. I reckon it would be difficult for someone so locked into nuclear propaganda to imagine anything else.
What nuclear propaganda? Have you read a physics book lately? Splitting atoms is done all the time at numerous mass colliders around the world. There is no need to imagine something when the facts are staring me in the face.
Of course to you the concept may seem impossibly complicated, but your mental capacity is not the discussion.
-
Gamma rays are a deadly form of radiation. Plutonium emits Gamma radiation. Prolonged exposure has serious side effects
How about some evidence for this fantasy?
regardless of what some random article may claim.
So that is how you deal with inconvenient facts. A real hunger for the truth, eh?
It is also strange how the inhabitants, and later US marines who came to Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced hospitals full of people with radiation sickness.
That is not what the report and published article of the Seretary of War's Chief Inspector Major de Seversky said. He claimed very much the opposite, and he was there. You were not.
The streets littered with the burnt remains of people
That is exactly what one should expect to witness after the firebombing of a city. The same is true for other cities in Japan as well.
closer to the epicenter mere shadows.
And your basis for that statement is beast's interpretation of a silhouette in a black and white photo he posted?
Certainly some people died from the blast of the fire bomb, but if you are trying to assert that people and buildings are incinerated by a nuclear reaction or intense heat near the epicentre, then you have no facts at all to back you.
They did not even know the extent of radiation sickness back then
And having not recorded any radiation sickness back then, you expect us to believe your false revisionist history decades after the fact?
but the symptoms of most all patients
OUTRIGHT LIES
You are lying every single word. You were not there and Seversky was. HE DID NOT ENCOUNTRE EVEN A SINGLE RADIATION PATIENT OR INFECTED PERSON NOR EVEN ANY WORKER OR HOSPITAL STAFF OR ANYONE THAT HAD ENCOUNTERED ANY SUCH PEOPLE AT ALL.
Again, what is your source? All your arguments are merely typical american prejudices instilled by Cold War propaganda. Do you read what I have written in the foregoing before you repeat the same lies already refuted?
We see the same results after the meltdown in Tsjernobyl. Many workers died within days as a result of radiation exposure.
Praise God. You finally asked a question which has not already been answered.
Actually the scenario was very much identical. I do have a file with some specific facts on Tchernobyl which is not presebtly with me, but I will procure it and post the relevant information.
I don't see the point in refuting nukes.
As stated earlier in this thread, nuclear weapons propaganda is being used politically in these times as the principle excuse for the strong nations to bully the weaker ones. Iraq HONESTLY denied having any nuclear weapons just as Iran is doing now.
-
What nuclear propaganda? Have you read a physics book lately? Splitting atoms is done all the time at numerous mass colliders around the world.
The nuclear propaganda I was referring to is the american political and scientific propaganda about nuclear weapons.
I did not have in mind so much the comparativley esoteric atomic theory as I did the political propaganda about nuclear weapons, but since you mention the atomic theory behind nuclear weapons, I take it you have not referenced the link I posted earlier in this thread to Dewey Larson's 'Case Against the Nuclear Atom':
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
Nathan Gwynne's 'Einstein and Modern Physics' also debunks the atomic myth even more forthrightly than Larson's:
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf
Also, labour historian and MIT alumnus David Noble's 'America By Design' reveals much about the difference between engineering theory and reality which directly relates to why what you read in a common physics textbook about nuclear theory has nothing to do with the reality of the explosions which actually take place. The following is only a review, but as I have this book, I can retrieve it and quote some of the relevant portions about the way in which the educational segment of the engineering industry functions.
http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/280/class/ambydesn.html
-
For the longest time the US government refuted the existence of radiation poisoning. They even ridiculed the reporters who came back with pictures and stories of people comtinuing to die mysteriously for days, even weeks after the initial bombing. People would get boils on their bodies and spontaneously bleed from their ears and open sores.
An article on the Hiroshima cover up:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0810-01.htm
Pictures which were withheld by the government:
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html
The chemistry of radiation poisoning:
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Radiation_poisoning
Maybe the nuclear arms race was blown out of proportion, but it does not mean it did not exist. Nuclear bombs are very real. No conventional bomb could do what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
that's like denying the gas camps in poland. :-\
Nonsense.
I am not denying that Japanese died, and I have not disputed the numbre of dead aside from pointing out that to continue counting victims of the 1945 bombs as they die years afterwards even TODAY is manifestly ridiculous.
I also believe that the americans were wrong to drop this as well as all the rest of the bombs they dropped on Japan.
What I am disputing is the fact that the propaganda of "nuclear" bombs is unfounded since such kinds of bombs do not exist and have never existed. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the kinds of bombs which propaganda asserts they were, and neither has the United States or any other nation or anyone else ever had such manner of weapons.
Possibly the most reknown peice of nuclear weapons propaganda of the Cold War was Stanley Kubrick's 1964 movie 'Dr. Stragelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb' starring Peter Sellers (of Pink Pather fame) in multiple roles. In spite of this and all the propaganda (government disinformation and otherwise), nuclear weapons are apparently the biggest WWII hoax of all (even more decisive than the jewish holocaust which is at least rejected in some well informed circles in the west and the entire islamic World) as nuclear weapons NEVER existed. Only the threat. Nothing more.
Nuclear weapons are a mouse that roared - just like the 1950's movie (also starring Peter Sellers in multiple roles) in which a tiny European nation whom nobody cared about (the Duchy of Grand Fenwick) declared war on the United States and subsequently captured the 'Doomsday Device' which was purportedly able to evaporate whole continents and proceeded to extract political concessions under the THREAT of detonating the 'Doomsday Device' if the requests were refused.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/
Alas, the 'Doomsday Device' was a dud all along.
-
Making a nuclear bomb used to be a major feat, with modern technology it is crudely simple in comparison to some of the other weapon we have at our disposition.
-
For the longest time the US government refuted the existence of radiation poisoning. They even ridiculed the reporters who came back with pictures and stories of people comtinuing to die mysteriously for days, even weeks after the initial bombing. People would get boils on their bodies and spontaneously bleed from their ears and open sores.
An article on the Hiroshima cover up:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0810-01.htm
Pictures which were withheld by the government:
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html
The chemistry of radiation poisoning:
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Radiation_poisoning
Maybe the nuclear arms race was blown out of proportion, but it does not mean it did not exist. Nuclear bombs are very real. No conventional bomb could do what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Thanks for the links which I will take a look at, but you refuted nothing of Seversky's article. I am familiar with REM's, et cetera, having worked for years on "nuclear" powered submarines. The persons who wrote the radiation poisoning article above merely asserted that radiation sickness occurred in Hiroshima. Some of the deadbeats here could have said that without you bothering to post the link, but it hardly means it's true. That adds nothing to the discussion, but I will take a look at your other links.
-
For the longest time the US government refuted the existence of radiation poisoning. They even ridiculed the reporters who came back with pictures and stories of people comtinuing to die mysteriously for days, even weeks after the initial bombing. People would get boils on their bodies and spontaneously bleed from their ears and open sores.
An article on the Hiroshima cover up:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0810-01.htm
Pictures which were withheld by the government:
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html
The chemistry of radiation poisoning:
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Radiation_poisoning
Maybe the nuclear arms race was blown out of proportion, but it does not mean it did not exist. Nuclear bombs are very real. No conventional bomb could do what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Thanks for the links which I will take a look at, but you refuted nothing of Seversky's article. I am familiar with REM's, et cetera, having worked for years on "nuclear" powered submarines. The persons who wrote the radiation poisoning article above merely asserted that radiation sickness occurred in Hiroshima. Some of the deadbeats here could have said that without you bothering to post the link, but it hardly means it's true. That adds nothing to the discussion, but I will take a look at your other links.
I seem to remember from one of my history books that this Seversky did in fact refute the radiation sickness, but it was later found he had been told by the government to do so. For all I know you are just another government official who is just a little bit too fanatical about refuting Nuclear bombs.
As for nuclear submarines, you do know how a nuclear reactor works right?
-
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0810-01.htm
The Hiroshima cover-up article is much more interesting. I have not quoted Laurence as I have not previously aware of either he nor Burchett.
I would like to point out that the authority which I have quoted (Seversky) did not deny a large numbre of Japanese deaths. Gwynne (whose nuclear essay I will post if I find it on-line) is also no friend of America's role in World War II.
And a genuinely good job on the writer's Isidore Stone quote to lead off the article. I myself have many books by I. F. Stone including his seminal refutation of america's war on North Korea. Although I disagree with his zionism, Stone was undoubtedly the "Noam Chomsky" of the 1950's and 1960's. He was the editor-in-chief of the 'Nation' during World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.F._Stone
-
I seem to remember from one of my history books that this Seversky did in fact refute the radiation sickness, but it was later found he had been told by the government to do so.
Really? I am genuinely interested for you to quote the source because as far as I know you only know of his existence because I mentioned him. You do realize that the rebuttal to Seversky's article published by Reader's Digest in May 1946 was loaded with quotes of interviews with military and pro-government scientific "experts" attempting to debunk him.
For all I know you are just another government official who is just a little bit too fanatical about refuting Nuclear bombs.
Yeah, right... based on 60-year old propaganda. Your article asserts that the US government denied bad effects of the bombing of Hiroshima. Whatever the case may be there, the US government's propaganda TODAY about so-called nuclear bombs is one of principle motivations I have for exposing the baselessness of the american propaganda. As a military veteran, I do not work for the government anymore. So your argument for the existence of nuclear weapons is what suits current american propaganda against Iran, North Korea, and others.
If I may make an observation, it seems we may have some common ground on politics so there is no need to argue where we agree. Though not as interesting as Seversky's, the coverup article is still intersting, though.
As for nuclear submarines, you do know how a nuclear reactor works right?
I am sure you take the conventional line on that too. As far as atomic theory I probably could not tell you anything about the conventional view you don't already know or have accesss to. As far as how the energy is channelled from the reactor to (1) the rest of the ship via electricity and (2) propulsion, I probably do know details you are perhaps unaware of, but all of those things external to the reactor are irrelevant anyway since the controversy is over what exactly generates the heat inside the reactor compartment with the exposure of rods in the reactor.
-
interesting how fall out symptoms are veeery similar (but more extreme obviously) to that of radiotheropy. :)
-
You obviously know more about a nuclear submarines workings than me. You are correct in the assumption that I was merely pointing to the actual heating by the rods.
The US govt. uses a lot of time to flail about the dangers about nuclear weapons. But North Korea also brags about the fact that they would not hesitate to use Nuclear weapons should the US try anything. Every government in the world, as well as the scientific community believes in the existence of nuclear weapons.
Call me crazy and a sheep to the propaganda, but I have more faith in them and the countless books and videos on the subject than you and this Severesky fellow.
I have heard of him before, but I can't for the life of me remember where from. Probably some text book in one of my history classes.
History is always skewed. "The victor decides the truth" is a quote historians constantly remind themselves of when researching sources. Americans claim they won Vietnam and Korea, whilst the rest of the world believe otherwise. When it comes to history, there are as many arguments as there are events. Yet they all agree on nuclear weapons.
-
Yet they all agree on nuclear weapons.
So the left and right do agree on this and you concede that the US government's official position is that nuclear weapons exist in spite of an interesting article to the contrary about the status of the official US position on their existence in late 1945.
You say that everyone unanimously agrees that nuclear weapons exist implying that the propaganda is even more thorough than the Jewish holocaust.
However, I reckon that throughout the Cold War there are holes in the Wall in both the left and right where the truth leaks out. Aside from Seversky, Gwynne, and Dionysios there are occasional evidences of inconvenient information such as Ralph Epperson's book and the 1945 Laurence figure you referred to (whose legitimacy I am not vouching for but only citing to poke holes in you mythical assertion of unanimity).
As far as Ralph Epperson's book which states that the United States is the only country to ever have nuclear weapons, it is perhaps most comparable to Lloyd Malan's 1966 book 'Russia's Space Hoax' which usefully and technically debunks the entire Soviet space program up to that time for the hoax it was, including Sputnik and their other satellites as well as the Yuri Gagarin orbit and other Soviet propaganda. One book debunks the Soviet nuclear myth while the other book debunks the Soviet space myth. Both books debunk Soviet myths but do not touch on america which is not to say they are not useful. The same critical approach needs only be taken to the respective american myths which has begun to be done much more recently with the number of technical books recently published exposing the Appollo "missions" which leaves the american nuclear myth remaining - the truth of the matter is important as the american government is still sapping this myth for every political advantage it can get out of it.
-
Yet they all agree on nuclear weapons.
So the left and right do agree on this and you concede that the US government's official position is that nuclear weapons exist in spite of an interesting article to the contrary about the status of the official US position on their existence in late 1945.
According to the article the US govt covered up the radiation effects in 1945. The dropping of the bomb wasa a controversial matter, and they felt it prudent to cover up the additional effects of radiation since it only meant bad press. This goes over into another conspiracy which claims the US did not need to drop the bombs, but did so anyway in order to show their might.
Today those facts do no longer apply. Today there is no disagreement to the horrors of the nuclear bomb.
-
Today there is no disagreement to the horrors of the nuclear bomb.
You say that everyone unanimously agrees that nuclear weapons exist implying that the propaganda is even more thorough than the Jewish holocaust.
However, I reckon that throughout the Cold War there are holes in the Wall in both the left and right where the truth leaks out. Aside from Seversky, Gwynne, and Dionysios there are occasional evidences of inconvenient information such as Ralph Epperson's book and the 1945 Laurence figure you referred to (whose legitimacy I am not vouching for but only citing to poke holes in you mythical assertion of unanimity).
As far as Ralph Epperson's book which states that the United States is the only country to ever have nuclear weapons, it is perhaps most comparable to Lloyd Malan's 1966 book 'Russia's Space Hoax' which usefully and technically debunks the entire Soviet space program up to that time for the hoax it was, including Sputnik and their other satellites as well as the Yuri Gagarin orbit and other Soviet propaganda. One book debunks the Soviet nuclear myth while the other book debunks the Soviet space myth. Both books debunk Soviet myths but do not touch on america which is not to say they are not useful. The same critical approach needs only be taken to the respective american myths which has begun to be done much more recently with the number of technical books recently published exposing the Appollo "missions" which leaves the american nuclear myth remaining - the truth of the matter is important as the american government is still sapping this myth for every political advantage it can get out of it.
- Dionysios
-
Just because one or two sources claim an opinion does not mean it is fact. It sounds like you don't believe in the Jewish holocaust or the Russian space program. If this is true then you are just a person who does not believe i things just for the sake of refuting them.
As I said, in every case there is two sides. Just because a handful of sources claim nuclear weapons do not exist does not make it so. You need to look at the evidence, the proof and the science from all sides, not just one.
-
Just because one or two sources claim an opinion does not mean it is fact. It sounds like you don't believe in the Jewish holocaust or the Russian space program. If this is true then you are just a person who does not believe i things just for the sake of refuting them.
that was the impression I've been getting...he seems to be using the holocaust as evidence of propaganda.
-
People write books to make money.
Both atoms and nuclear bombs exist.
America did have firebombing campaigns in WWII. They were on civilian targets. They used them to lower moral. Just as the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan. To lower moral. And they worked. The war ended.
There is no plane in the world that can lift 20 megatons worth of TNT to fake a giant explosion. The physics allows nuclear weapons to exist.
-
People write books to make money.
Both atoms and nuclear bombs exist.
The first assertion is often enough true. The second is false.
Moreover, a lot of books have been written attempting to prove that atoms and nuclear bombs exist (and not the reverse) so that argument goes against you.
-
I read your links sources. It took excerpts from single pages out of books. They didn’t use the whole book. Not to mention the books used were dated 1950 and earlier.
Go look search for scanning tunneling microscopes to see pictures of atoms.
-
People write books to make money.
Both atoms and nuclear bombs exist.
The first assertion is often enough true. The second is false.
Moreover, a lot of books have been written attempting to prove that atoms and nuclear bombs exist (and not the reverse) so that argument goes against you.
Maybe it is because atoms are an observed and proven phenomenon? And atom bombs are also an observed and proven phenomenon?
-
People write books to make money.
Both atoms and nuclear bombs exist.
The first assertion is often enough true. The second is false.
Moreover, a lot of books have been written attempting to prove that atoms and nuclear bombs exist (and not the reverse) so that argument goes against you.
so what replaces atoms in your world? I forget...
-
Just because a handful of sources claim nuclear weapons do not exist does not make it so. You need to look at the evidence, the proof and the science from all sides, not just one.
Neither do the quantity of sources asserting the other side.
You make me out to be close minded when in fact I WAS ALREADY QUITE AWARE OF EVERY IDEA ASSERTED IN FAVOR OF THE OPPOSITE VIEW. I have examined both sides. I DO HAPPEN TO POSESS BOOKS BY KEFTIST AUTHORS DECRYING THE HORROS OF NUCLEAR RADIATION AND NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (such as those of American Indian activist Ward Churchhill or a excellent overview published by Southend Press) which books I am not totally against due to their anti-industrial arguments. As earlier stated, I have for the most part political views in common with such left leaning people.
I am already familiar with MOST of the protests which have been posted due to the fact that every schoolboy has those opinions.
It is indeed good to check out both sides. I never said otherwise, but it is disappointing to hear what sounds like one who has the daring to go up against such a monolith being portrayed as close minded. OH CONTRAIRE! I suggest that my opponents who read and say to themselves automatically that this guy is stupid and who never seriously considered the majority point of view are the ludicrously unrealistic ones. Do you honestly think that I was brought up thinking that nuclear weapons do not exist and simply never realized the other point of view? Give me a break.
If you really think that I am the more close minded of the two sides, then if I ever go into another such battle make sure we are still on opposite sides because with all respect the last thing I need is someone who acquiesces to the majority just because they are more numerous.
-
It's good to hear you have read up on all sides of the argument. I am also aware that a majority does not make a truth. That said, in MY belief, the physics and evidence is so overwhelming that what I have read of the contrary just does not make up for the discrepancies.
In addition I am not a big believer in massive conspiracies. History has shown that conspiracies are found out sooner or later, no matter who the conspirers are.
So as entitled as you are to your opinion, I still find you to be odd and delusional to not believe the existence of nuclear weapons.
-
so what replaces atoms in your world?
You beg another topic, but atoms do not need replacement. They are an ancient myth which was resurrected by Galileo. Their acceptance (let alone that of "nuclear" atoms) was not nearly universal until the twentieth century. Notably, the eminent and learned French chemical scientist Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) never accepted the atomic theory.
I do believe in aether, but a numbre of scientists from the late seventeenth to early twentieth centuries believed in both aether and atoms so aether can hardly be said to "replace" atoms. POSSIBLY YOU HAVE CONFUSED ATOMS WITH ELEMENTS which are two different concepts. Neither myself nor Duhem nor to my knowledge any scientist with any reason in all history ever claimed that elements do not exist. Duhem and other scientists before him composed very learned chemical texts which knew nothing of atoms. I can vouch for Duhem as I have seen some of his chemical treatises in French at libraries.
-
so what are 'things' built of? I mean, if everything is *built* of atoms, then...? I hate chemistry.
-
Things are not built of atoms as atoms are merely a false theory.
Matter is composed of elements. I would think we would at least agree on that.
I am not an authority on chemistry either, but I have looked into enough to know who my authorities would be if I ever wanted to dig deeper.
-
Washington owns the world :D They know all and rule all and have the right to destory which ever heathen country they wish. :D
[/sarcasm]
-
Washington owns the world
Almost, but not quite.
They know all
That is where I beg to differ.
and rule all
Again. Almost, but not quite.
-
I was being sarcastic lol.
(they're out to get me I'm sure...*twitch*)
-
Things are not built of atoms as atoms are merely a false theory.
Matter is composed of elements. I would think we would at least agree on that.
I am not an authority on chemistry either, but I have looked into enough to know who my authorities would be if I ever wanted to dig deeper.
Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements? Atoms can be proven and observed.
-
Grrr. Okay, this computre has bombd out twice in a row after I have written a reply before saving it.
My apologies, but you will have to wait until tomorrow for a reply as I am not typing it again right now.
-
Things are not built of atoms as atoms are merely a false theory.
Matter is composed of elements. I would think we would at least agree on that.
I am not an authority on chemistry either, but I have looked into enough to know who my authorities would be if I ever wanted to dig deeper.
But thats wrong. Atoms aren't a theory. There are theories as to what they look like, like the Bohr model. But none of them doubt they exist. Like I said we can no see atoms using technology that they didn't even have 25 years ago. We can see the atom.
-
But thats wrong. Atoms aren't a theory.
But that's wrong. Atoms are only a theory - and a false one at that. You are close minded and ignorant of scientific history.
But none of them doubt they exist.
Your lie ignores twentieth century chemist Pierre Duhem.
Like I said we can no see atoms using technology that they didn't even have 25 years ago. We can see the atom.
One of the things I was going to post above yesterday was an anticipation of precisely this lie. The assertion that men can see an atom is an outright lie. It is merely an assertion based on a faith in technology. Nothing more. Evidence?
Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements?
Of course I have seen a modern atomic table of the elements as you are obviously referring to an atomic table of elements and wrongly assuming that modern atomic oriented concoction is the only way elements are viewed because that is what you have been taught.Most scientists in ancient times, the middle ages, and renaissance did not believe in atoms and yet many had deep knowledge of elements and made use of them in chemistry. Atomism which was the ancient minority view of Leuccipus and Democritus was revived principally through Galileo and many scientists in the 1700's and 1800's did not believe in atoms and hardly defined elements the way that you do. And at least one major scientist - Pierre Duhem - rejected atoms well into the twentieth century.
Elements are not composed of atoms and the definition above is wrong.
Lactantius, teacher at the court of Constantine the Great and tutor of the Emperor's son, exposed the ridiculousness of atomism back in the fourth century AD. Having been introduced into the Hellenic world by Leuccipus and Democritus the poisonous philosophy spread to its greatest extent in the ancient West under the aegis of Epicureanism, which is apparently an appropriate epithet for Galileo.
In his 'Divine Institutes' Lactantius wrote "For where or from whence are these atoms? Why did no one dream of them besides Leucippus only? from whom Democritus, having received instructions, left to Epicurus the inheritance of his folly. And if these are minute bodies, and indeed solid, as they say, they certainly are able to fall under the notice of the eyes. If the nature of all things is the same, how is it that they compose various objects? They meet together, he says, in varied order and position as the letters which, though few in number, by variety of arrangement make up innumerable words. But it is urged the letters have a variety of forms."
http://www.epicurus.net/en/lactantius.html
'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom' by Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
The second half of Stanley Jaki's biography of Pierre Duhem is composed of English translations of some of his works.
http://pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/JakisBooks/PierreDuhem.htm
Pierre Duhem Webpage
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Duhem.html
-
Ok. So a Frenchman decided he did not believe in the atom. Fair enough since it had not been observed yet.
How can you explain that scientists have managed to predict the properties of atoms near the end of the table of elements? They have made new and synthetic elements in laboratories for decades.
(http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/imagegallery/afmimages/atoms.jpg)
The above is an image of an atomic structure. This has been accomplished through the use of an electron microscope, taken from many angles with prolonged exposure.
-
(http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/imagegallery/afmimages/atoms.jpg)
The above is an image of an atomic structure.
I say it looks more like your brain on drugs.
-
(http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/exp6/imagegallery/afmimages/atoms.jpg)
The above is an image of an atomic structure.
I say it looks more like your brain on drugs.
Is it really so hard for you to believe that atoms exist? And that atoms are made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons with shells of electrons around them? And that they in turn are made up of quarks of varying kinds? What makes you so sure they do not exist. What do you have which can counter the proof of several decades of observation?
-
I do not have to counter several decades of observation. Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, atoms have simply not been observed.
You should ask yourself why it is so difficult to dispell this cultic belief which you cling to religiously and fanatically. It is like believing in the rapture. As a matter of fact, Edward Irving and John Darby's rapture cult outdates the cult of Lord Rutherford's nuclear atom.
-
I do not have to counter several decades of observation. Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, atoms have simply not been observed.
You should ask yourself why it is so difficult to dispell this cultic belief which you cling to religiously and fanatically. It is like believing in the rapture. As a matter of fact, Edward Irving and John Darby's rapture cult outdates the cult of Lord Rutherford's nuclear atom.
No. No. What you believe in is what is fantical and cultic in nature. I base my opinions on observed fact. Observed by countless scientists again and again at independent laboratories all across the world. You base your opinion on the belief of one chemist from a time before electron microscopes, and cling to that belief fanatically. I am open to new ideas, but you are not able to show me any proof on the contrary.
-
I do not have to counter several decades of observation. Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, atoms have simply not been observed.
You should ask yourself why it is so difficult to dispell this cultic belief which you cling to religiously and fanatically. It is like believing in the rapture. As a matter of fact, Edward Irving and John Darby's rapture cult outdates the cult of Lord Rutherford's nuclear atom.
You just observed atoms. The truth hurts doesn't it? Don't worry. You will get used to it November.
-
I do not have to counter several decades of observation. Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, atoms have simply not been observed.
You should ask yourself why it is so difficult to dispell this cultic belief which you cling to religiously and fanatically. It is like believing in the rapture. As a matter of fact, Edward Irving and John Darby's rapture cult outdates the cult of Lord Rutherford's nuclear atom.
I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.
-
I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.
Well you guess wrong, guy. That makes you 0 for 1 so far.
Anyway, the definition of an atom is:
A HYPOTHETICAL PARTICLE OF MATTER SO MINUTE AS TO ADMIT OF NO DIVISION.
This is the old definition of atom. If you try to insert a new definition then you would have changed what we are talking about in an attempt to make your theory somehow feasible, and we would not be talking about the same thing.
The photographs above obviously display something composed of smaller things (is it even something small for all you know or are you going by faith?). There is light shning on only one side of the blue domes indicating that they are big enough to be divisible as they have at least two halves. THE OBJECTS IN YOUR POSTED PHOTOGRAPHS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT INDIVISIBLY SMALL AND FAIL TO QUALIFY AS ATOMS BY DEFINITION. (That being said, for all we know the objects displayed are half-used morning pill packets.) I find you very gullible to believe that a so-called electron microscope or any kind of microscope can discern an indivisibly small object. It could not do this even if such objects existed.
You believe you see atoms in such photographs because you prejudicely interpret the photographs that way.
-
You just observed atoms. The truth hurts doesn't it? Don't worry. You will get used to it November.
You just stated a lie. It hurts to be called out when you have lied doesn't it? Your interpretation of the pictures is like being given a photograph of a Full Moon and saying a flashlight is depicted.
By the way, my name is not November. If you had been around this forum long enough you would at least not be in the dark about that.
-
I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.
You aren't Navy by any chance are you?
-
I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.
Well you guess wrong, guy. That makes you 0 for 1 so far.
Anyway, the definition of an atom is:
A HYPOTHETICAL PARTICLE OF MATTER SO MINUTE AS TO ADMIT OF NO DIVISION.
Ok, now read next line.
This is the old definition of atom. If you try to insert a new definition then you would have changed what we are talking about in an attempt to make your theory somehow feasible, and we would not be talking about the same thing.
So you talk about the old definition, and then say the new one doesn't work? The atom has been proven. Go do any reaction. It really is the smallest partial you can have and still have an element.
The photographs above obviously display something composed of smaller things (is it even something small for all you know or are you going by faith?). There is light shning on only one side of the blue domes indicating that they are big enough to be divisible as they have at least two halves. THE OBJECTS IN YOUR POSTED PHOTOGRAPHS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT INDIVISIBLY SMALL AND FAIL TO QUALIFY AS ATOMS BY DEFINITION. (That being said, for all we know the objects displayed are half-used morning pill packets.) I find you very gullible to believe that a so-called electron microscope or any kind of microscope can discern an indivisibly small object. It could not do this even if such objects existed.
So a shadow means its to big? Thats weird. Since photons are so big and all. Look up how those STM work. They are used every day. There are more pictures then that. In fact on the cover of my physics book it has a picture like it.
You believe you see atoms in such photographs because you prejudicely interpret the photographs that way.
No because all of science interps it that way. Saying the atom doesn't exist is going against all modern chemistry and physics. You are going to need more proof then your opinion. Maybe you should read up on new technology and ditch those books from the 1800's.
You just stated a lie. It hurts to be called out when you have lied doesn't it? Your interpretation of the pictures is like being given a photograph of a Full Moon and saying a flashlight is depicted.
There is no lie involved. You are just a little behind times. Kinda like this whole site.
-
atom:
(physics and chemistry) the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element.
An atom is not the smallest object there is. The smallest we know of today is a quark, but even that may change.
-
This guy is by far the world's dumbest troll.
He believes we never went to the moon (dumb).
He believes that atomic bomb does not exist (dumb).
He also believes that ATOMS themselves do not exist (equally as dumb).
So tell me...where did we go with that rocket? Did it just fly up and sit there in space and come back down? Did the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima just...not explode?
Also, what are we made of? Are we made of rice pudding, or butterscotch flavored taffy? Please, explain.
-
I believe he said that they were just regular bombs that were extremely powerful, that any bomb creates a mushroom cloud.
-
Also, what are we made of? Are we made of rice pudding, or butterscotch flavored taffy? Please, explain.
All matter is made of Chocolate Pudding. The Pudding God told me so.
-
Mmmmm...Pudding
-
Mmmmm...Pudding
Eating Chocolate Pudding pleases the Pudding God. :D
Don't eat Vanilla Pudding though. It is a one way ticket to hell.
-
The Pudding God is wise and fair.
-
The Pudding God is wise and fair.
Of course he is. I would expect nothing less from the only true god. :D
-
As to the atoms being the smallest particle there is, allow me to clarify: *ahem*
The Standard Model of physics explains that the fundamental particles of matter are the electron, the up quark and the down quark. Triplets of quarks bind together to form protons and neutrons. The standard model also describes forces: 1-electromagnetism, 2-the weak force (which is involved in the formation of the chemical elements) and 3-the strong force (which holds together protons and neutrons). These forces are mediated by force particles; photons for electromagnetism, bosons for the weak force, and gluons for the strong force. For gravity, gravitons are postulated.
-
Mmmmm...Pudding
Eating Chocolate Pudding pleases the Pudding God. :D
Don't eat Vanilla Pudding though. It is a one way ticket to hell.
I always knew my friend was a sinner.
-
japs and their lies
shit they had it comin anyhow
-
Oh my god your an idiot. You just wasted your time discussing Atomic Bombs not nuclear. They are to diffirent things idiot.
-
This is entertaining to me. A lot. ;D
-
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8563/1158284601903rw8.jpg)
-
As always you up the ante :D
-
As always you up the ante :D
I lold IRL just now
-
Stay tuned next week when 17 November will be explaining that AIDS, Cancer, Jews, Legs, the Japanese, Gay People, Copper, and Barbara Bush don't exist. All in one post...wow.
-
17 November…..isn’t that the name of some Greek Marxist outfit? Then again it’s also my sister’s birthday but I doubt it was chosen for that somewhat obscure event.
-
it's my cousin's birthday. Small world.
-
I doubt he will come back. He was owned so he left.
-
17 November…..isn’t that the name of some Greek Marxist outfit? Then again it’s also my sister’s birthday but I doubt it was chosen for that somewhat obscure event.
Yes, the organization is named for 17 November 1974 when the israeli and american backed fascist Greek junta fell from power.
Ok. So a Frenchman decided he did not believe in the atom.
Fair enough since it had not been observed yet.
I want to thank both "Matrixfart" and "beast" for their interest as they have been my two principle opponents, but "Matrixfart's" acknowledgment of the learned early twentieth century French chemist Pierre Duhem's disbelief in atoms has disreguarded and overlooked my other reference to the much more recent american scientist Dewey Larson who refuted the existence of nuclear atoms in his book 'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom':
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
-
I doubt he will come back. He was owned so he left.
you were saying?
-
Just because someone writes a book...
Doesn't make everything they say true...
And yes I know that argument can be used both ways...
-
Just because someone writes a book...
Doesn't make everything they say true...
And yes I know that argument can be used both ways...
We are already aware of that. Thank you very much.
Incidentally, did you read the book? Isaac Asimov has praised Larson's book for its profound reexamination of basic principles - a very rare characteristic of twentieth century "science."
"History shows clearly that the advances of science have always been frustrated by the tyrannical influences of certain preconceived notions which were turned into unassailable dogmas. For that reason alone, every serious scientist should periodically make a profound reexamination of his basic principles."
—Louis de Broglie in 'New Perspectives in Physics' (1962)
Anyway, the following quote from Larson throws some perspective on the subject:
"The primary basis for the present acceptance of the theory of the nuclear atom is the practically universal belief that the existence of an atomic nucleus was definitely proved by the experiments of Rutherford in 1911 and subsequent years. Prior to that time it had been believed that a solid material was just what the name implies in common parlance: a continuous and essentially impenetrable substance. But when Rutherford directed alpha particles against a thin metallic plate, he found, contrary to all expectation, that most of these particles passed directly through the plate just as if there were no obstacle in the way at all, and that the majority of those which were deflected changed their direction by only a relatively small angle."
"Rutherford's experiments have been repeated with additional precision by other investigators, and it appears safe to say that the experimental facts have been firmly established. It must therefore be conceded that Rutherford's first conclusion, as expressed in the foregoing paragraph, is entirely consistent with the observed facts. But here we encounter an example of a SURPRISINGLY PREVALENT FEATURE OF PRESENT-DAY PHYSICAL SCIENCE: A CURIOUS FAILURE TO EXPLORE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES. Time and again in the course of the investigation from which this present discussion originated, critical examination of a commonly accepted idea or conclusion has disclosed that it is only one of the possible explanations of the observed facts, and that there are other, sometimes many other, explanations which have an equally good, if not better, claim to acceptance, but which, so far as the records reveal, have never been explored."
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm
-
17 November…..isn’t that the name of some Greek Marxist outfit? Then again it’s also my sister’s birthday but I doubt it was chosen for that somewhat obscure event.
Yes, the organization is named for 17 November 1974 when the israeli and american backed fascist Greek junta fell from power.
Ok. So a Frenchman decided he did not believe in the atom.
Fair enough since it had not been observed yet.
I want to thank both "Matrixfart" and "beast" for their interest as they have been my two principle opponents, but "Matrixfart's" acknowledgment of the learned early twentieth century French chemist Pierre Duhem's disbelief in atoms has disreguarded and overlooked my other reference to the much more recent american scientist Dewey Larson who refuted the existence of nuclear atoms in his book 'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom':
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
You already posted that book. Did you bother to read the references? Go look at them. He takes infro from sigle pages of books. He doesnt actually read the whole book. Not to mention all the reviews are from the 60's.
-
You already posted that book.
Yes, but it contains information very pertinent to this discussion, and I have correspondingly quoted very relevant material from it. You evidently want to ignore this book. 'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom' by Dewey Larson hit a raw nerve. The book has been deliberately ignored by professional scientists with vested interests who do not want their philosophy and their profession seriously questioned because the knowledge contained within it clearly destroys the foundation of both quantum and nuclear physics.
He takes infro from sigle pages of books. He doesnt actually read the whole book.
Are you referring to Dewey Larson or myself?
Did I quote too much for you to read at a single sitting?
If you are saying that I do not read the books which I post references to, then I obviously need to quote a lot more from this particular book because the basic underlying assumptions of both quantum and nuclear physics were formed during the early twentieth century and this book contains a history precisely of the period in which those doctrines were
promulgated and spread.
Not to mention all the reviews are from the 60's.
So what? That is nothing unusual, especially in view of the fact that the book was published in the 1960's.
Did the essence of matter change since the 1960's?
Or do you rather assume that something somehow occurred since the 1960's which changed everything throughout previous history so that any and all evidence and knowledge that atoms are a false explanation of matter should be unthinkingly discarded? If that is the case, then you are the one asking for blind faith.
As a matter of fact, the prevailing popular theories within university physical "science" today are essentially those of Max Planck. And Max Planck's theories of Quantum Physics are a good bit older than Dewey Larson.
-
Yes, but it contains information very pertinent to this discussion, and I have correspondingly quoted very relevant material from it. You evidently want to ignore this book.
I will ignore it, just like the rest of the science field. Why? Because its wrong. Reactions are preformed every day. They are can be written down and then followed with the desired results. They wouldn't work if there were no such thing as an atom.
Are you referring to Dewey Larson or myself?
Did I quote too much for you to read at a single sitting?
Do you know what a source is? Its where that guy got his info. Go look at them.
Here is one.
Kaplan, Irving, Nuclear Physics, Addison Wesley Publishing Co., Cambridge, Mass., 1955, page 154
One whole page. Probably because the rest of the book proves him wrong.
So what? That is nothing unusual, especially in view of the fact that the book was published in the 1960's.
Did the essence of matter change since the 1960's?
Or do you rather assume that something somehow occurred since the 1960's which changed everything throughout previous history so that any and all evidence and knowledge that atoms are a false explanation of matter should be unthinkingly discarded? If that is the case, then you are the one asking for blind faith.
As a matter of fact, the prevailing popular theories within university physical "science" today are essentially those of Max Planck. And Max Planck's theories of Quantum Physics are a good bit older than Dewey Larson.
There are reasons why there are no books published in 2007 called "The earth is flat" or "there is no such thing as an atom".
You claim im going to ignore the book yet you ignored the picture I posted of atoms and all the other pictures of them. One little book and your opinion isn’t going to disprove all of science.
-
Okay, so you were referring to Larson. Did you read the book he quoted so you know for a fact that it disagrees with him or are you merely throwing dirt without any knowledge of what you are saying? I say that is exactly what you are doing. If I am wrong, then tell me exactly how Kaplan disagrees with Larson.
JUst what I thought...You don't have a clue.
As far as books published in 2007 goes, I do not recall the exact date, but the book by Nathan Gwynne which I earlier posted a link to shows that atoms do not exist at all which is going farther than Larson who merely refuted the "nuclear" atom as opposed to the whole concept of atoms altogether which is what Gwynne has done, and Gwynne's book is less than ten years old.
You are merely claiming that all of science agrees with your opinion without citing anything, and I honestly have not really researched this so much. If I did, I could easily find other contemporary sources which refute atoms.
-
The half life of U-235. which was used in the Little Boy bomb for Hiroshima, is 704 million years. You can find traces of that in Hiroshima still. Now stfu.
-
i think novmber you are pretty much right with the atomic weapon non existence. the movies they show us, why and especially what burns for many seconds? it looks more like gasoline is vaporized and then ignited. any kind of explosive would burn within fractions of a second. yo dont realy see a fireball, maybe some sort of flash.
but to my understanding if you put uranium together it heats up. if you put highly concentrated uranium together it heats up fast and fast heating means fast expansion and thus an explosion. critical mass is about 122 gramm to my knowledge. but to put so much radioactive material together that you could erase a city will not work. because you can not hold it long enough tightly together. so a big atomic bomb does not exist. but you can make radioactive material explode. but i cant say for sure cause i havent tried it
-
Okay, so you were referring to Larson. Did you read the book he quoted so you know for a fact that it disagrees with him or are you merely throwing dirt without any knowledge of what you are saying? I say that is exactly what you are doing. If I am wrong, then tell me exactly how Kaplan disagrees with Larson.
JUst what I thought...You don't have a clue.
As far as books published in 2007 goes, I do not recall the exact date, but the book by Nathan Gwynne which I earlier posted a link to shows that atoms do not exist at all which is going farther than Larson who merely refuted the "nuclear" atom as opposed to the whole concept of atoms altogether which is what Gwynne has done, and Gwynne's book is less than ten years old.
You are merely claiming that all of science agrees with your opinion without citing anything, and I honestly have not really researched this so much. If I did, I could easily find other contemporary sources which refute atoms.
I don’t have a clue? Why does the periodic table of elements work perfectly? Why can people predict what will happen in experiments?
You don't know shit. You think that because there is one book by some unknown person, they are automatically right. You said yourself you didn’t research. You found one book and made it your bible.
Wake up. You are trying to disprove all of chemistry. There are reasons why people didn’t stop believing in atoms from that old ass book. The atom model works perfectly.
-
i think novmber you are pretty much right with the atomic weapon non existence. the movies they show us, why and especially what burns for many seconds? it looks more like gasoline is vaporized and then ignited. any kind of explosive would burn within fractions of a second. yo dont realy see a fireball, maybe some sort of flash.
but to my understanding if you put uranium together it heats up. if you put highly concentrated uranium together it heats up fast and fast heating means fast expansion and thus an explosion. critical mass is about 122 gramm to my knowledge. but to put so much radioactive material together that you could erase a city will not work. because you can not hold it long enough tightly together. so a big atomic bomb does not exist. but you can make radioactive material explode. but i cant say for sure cause i havent tried it
When the atoms reach about the density of TNT, it blows up. But the doubling of fission causes the explosion to double over and over in an instant. So, for example, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, bomb blows up, lets say here, but the explosion keeps on expanding as it explodes, 4096, etc. Thats the magic of the atomic bomb. It never stops until all of the energy is released from all of the particles.
Saying that atomic bombs do not exist is a ridiculous conclusion to come to...
-
i didnt say i dont believe, that if you put radioactive material together it doesnt heat up. but as you say it does it in an instant. so what burns in the so called atomic bomb explosion movies forever? with any high explosives you actually see nothing, maybe some sort of flash, but not seconds and seconds of expanding and burning material.
look at this, it is fuel burning, it is the continously burning mushroom cloud. except it already ignited at the bottom:
-
you guys dont understand nuclear bomb. They convert mass into pure energy. Thats why they have the name 20 megatons as in you need 20 megatons of TNT to be as strong as them. Feel free to build a plane that can hold that much weight.
-
i didnt say i dont believe, that if you put radioactive material together it doesnt heat up. but as you say it does it in an instant. so what burns in the so called atomic bomb explosion movies forever? with any high explosives you actually see nothing, maybe some sort of flash, but not seconds and seconds of expanding and burning material.
look at this, it is fuel burning, it is the continously burning mushroom cloud. except it already ignited at the bottom:
Well to launch that one half of U-235 to the other half of U-235 you need some sort of high explosive to bring them together to reach critical mass.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3893232447213614208&q=berkeley+nukes
watch, and learn...he may not be completely accurate, but he is a damn good professor. bout an hour, 15 min lecture.
-
i know the standard physics behind the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors, i dont have to learn them. i am here to discuss alternatives to that, because as november pointed out the atomic model is a model and it is bogus.
the other thing is that the movies and photographs everybody refers too, do not show atomic explosions. thats why i am asking how could you explain, if you think they are genuie that they look and behave as fuel or gas explosions??? there is no instant conversion into energy in these movies, not even remotly.
do you know how to simulate atomic explosion without radioactive material? you do use gas. it is a patended technology. you can look it up in the US patent database. you can create hugh explosion of high magnitude with gas.
-
if all the material is converted into energy, why do you supposedly still find it than in japan? it should not be there, if the conversion theorie holds.
-
This thread is hilarious.
-
i think novmber you are pretty much right with the atomic weapon non existence. the movies they show us, why and especially what burns for many seconds? it looks more like gasoline is vaporized and then ignited. any kind of explosive would burn within fractions of a second. yo dont realy see a fireball, maybe some sort of flash.
The fireball isn't from the atomic weapon itself. The actual bomb does explode in a flash. Said flash ignites any flammable material nearby, and with the heat created by the fission, almost anything will burn. Hence the fireball.
but to my understanding if you put uranium together it heats up. if you put highly concentrated uranium together it heats up fast and fast heating means fast expansion and thus an explosion. critical mass is about 122 gramm to my knowledge. but to put so much radioactive material together that you could erase a city will not work. because you can not hold it long enough tightly together. so a big atomic bomb does not exist. but you can make radioactive material explode. but i cant say for sure cause i havent tried it
I think this was already refuted by another poster, so I won't argue about it here.
i know the standard physics behind the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors, i dont have to learn them. i am here to discuss alternatives to that, because as november pointed out the atomic model is a model and it is bogus.
All right, then post your model here and tell us how it works. Never mind the fact that everything posted so far about the atom fits real world observations, go ahead and post your ideas like the FEers do. Just make sure your model has less holes than a Flat Earth theory.
the other thing is that the movies and photographs everybody refers too, do not show atomic explosions. thats why i am asking how could you explain, if you think they are genuie that they look and behave as fuel or gas explosions??? there is no instant conversion into energy in these movies, not even remotly.
My answer depends on what movies you are talking about. If you mean actual atomic bomb footage, then I've already explained this. If you're talking about movies as in Hollywood, then that is because they are fuel and gas explosions.
if all the material is converted into energy, why do you supposedly still find it than in japan? it should not be there, if the conversion theorie holds.
Quite simply, because it's not completely converted into energy. No human device was, is, or ever will be, completely efficient. There is always waste. Also, you said:
do you know how to simulate atomic explosion without radioactive material? you do use gas. it is a patended technology. you can look it up in the US patent database. you can create hugh explosion of high magnitude with gas.
If this was the case and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were not nuclear weapons, then why would there even be radioactive material in Japan?
To the OP:
If you discount the existence of nuclear weapons and the atom, then you discount nuclear power as well. Are you saying that there was never really an incident at Chernobyl, or at Lake Erie, or at Three Mile Island? What about plans to build more nuclear reactors? Where do countries that rely on "nuclear power" actually get their power from? What really goes on inside a reactor?
{EDIT: Fixed the quotes}
-
What? No answers 24 hours later? I'm not surprised. This thread passed the three-page event horizon long ago, and apparently I'm the last to bail out.
-
I'm surprised it's gone on this long. :o
-
you guys dont understand nuclear bomb.
i know the standard physics behind the atomic bomb and nuclear reactors, i dont have to learn them. i am here to discuss alternatives to that
Here, here. Merely because one argues and even believes a view does not imply ignorance of the opponent's learning. Nor does that even imply that think and myself will necessarily be in lock step agrement on every single detail, but after all this is the ALTERNATIVE science category.
They convert mass into pure energy.
This assumption of Einstein's is something which I do not even find credible. Energy does NOT equal mass times the alleged speed of light squared. E does not = mc2 any more than E=mc3 or E=mc10. Many of you are swayed by numbers as they SOUND authoritative, but your science is full of holes on closer inspection.
-
The half life of U-235. which was used in the Little Boy bomb for Hiroshima, is 704 million years. You can find traces of that in Hiroshima still. Now stfu.
Wasn't it 7.04 billion years? Heck, what's the difference as long as the number used silences the gainsayers, right?
-
They convert mass into pure energy.
This assumption of Einstein's is something which I do not even find credible. Energy does NOT equal mass times the alleged speed of light squared. E does not = mc2 any more than E=mc3 or E=mc10. Many of you are swayed by numbers as they SOUND authoritative, but your science is full of holes on closer inspection.
Sorry but E really does equal mc^2 or gamma mc^2.
-
Sorry but E really does equal mc^2 or gamma mc^2.
Does this mean the thread is entering phase three?
1 - Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
2 - Atoms Do Not Exist
3 - Energy Does Not Equal mc^2
Just give me a moment to gather my notes.
(Apologize for the delay.)
-
Ok I will give you time.
Heres what you are going to need to do.
A. Disprove Einstein
B. Disprove the fan in a vacuum experiment
C. Disprove pretty much the rest of modern physics too.
-
Apparently you couldnt.
-
Apparently you couldnt.
Apparently in spite of what you may think, this website is not the only thing I do.
-
Yet you post in the other thread?
-
Ok, 'November 17,' I'm very impressed with your ability to argue apparently almost any point, but I can't help but find this particular subject somewhat offensive - radiation sickness is a truly horrible way to die, and making light of the suffering of people effected by nuclear fallout for the sake of having something to argue about is extremely insensitive.
I apologise if this is not the case, and if you truly do believe what you are arguing here, in which case I see one of two possibilities; you are either a paranoid individual with a need to believe in conspiracies such as this, or you are yet to encounter evidence that will convince you from your current viewpoint in this matter. If the former is true, I advise medical help (arguing on forums probably isn't a good idea, though you should probably ask someone more qualified than I about this). If the latter is true, I admire your strength of mind in questioning what you are commonly told, but I feel that you may be expecting more than you are going to get - allow me to explain myself.
Science is the pursuit of knowledge and truth, and what is taken as scientific fact may of course be a false belief and is in fact explained by an entirely different route. The scientific method involves the suggestion of an idea, with reasoning and proof, and the interpretation and counter-argument of that theory by the scientific community. The prevailing opinion is always assumed correct, and this opinion only changes when new evidence is brought to light. With this in mind, as a person with a minority view, you are required to provide an alternative explanation for everything you are discounting, including:
1. How energy is produced from 'Nuclear' power stations, if nuclear energy does not exist
2. Why photographic film is exposed when placed in a dark room for a day or so, next to a 'radioactive' material such as uranium-238
3. Why people exhibit the symptoms attributed to 'radiation sickness'
4. How data obtained - on chemical compounds - from NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance [both 13C and 1H]) always matches exactly with the data collected by other techniques, even as far as simple mass measurement using a weighing device
5. How a Geiger-Muller tube works, and what causes the readout from such a device if it is not detecting radiation
I do not claim to know everything about this field, and admit that I cannot think of more that the above off the top of my head, and have little desire to consult a textbook at this hour of the night. However, until you can explain each of the above to the satisfaction of the majority, I suggest you change your opinion, or else resign yourself to not being taken seriously by anybody.
Regards
ps. just because someone with a fancy title published a paper providing evidence for your argument does not mean they are right, the weight of evidence is still strongly against you - I suggest reading some of Hawking's papers (start with his popular science novels if you like, I personally find them highly enjoyable) on this and related subjects.
pps. If you do have some amazing evidence you haven't yet given in this forum, please do let me know, I am more than willing to be disproved, along with 99% of the worlds scientific community.
-
Good luck with that.
-
Guess he went back to his hole in the ground.
-
Guess he went back to his hole in the ground.
OMG! Earth pockets! The Earth must be flat!
-
why argue with people who dont want to change their way of thinking? if he wants to beleive that nuclear weapons dont exist, let him be, he will know the truth when he is ready.
Im out, no more posting for another 5 months, no need to argue, just wanted to have some fun today.
-
:o stop being unreasonable flatbiker!
-
Scientifically prove to me that the atom cannot be split.
E=MC2, or Energy = Mass * Celeron (speed of light) squared is a universal equation that explains how much potential energy can be harnessed from each atom.
Also: If nuclear weapons do not exist, what powers half the US? It sure ain't coal power.
-
::) electicity? duh! [/dumb blond]
the dude has a point. (cheesedude, not november)
-
Also: If nuclear weapons do not exist, what powers half the US? It sure ain't coal power.
Well actually it is. Coal, I mean, supplies about 50%. Nuclear power accounts for about 20%.
-
Scientifically prove to me that the atom cannot be split.
E=MC2, or Energy = Mass * Celeron (speed of light) squared is a universal equation that explains how much potential energy can be harnessed from each atom.
Also: If nuclear weapons do not exist, what powers half the US? It sure ain't coal power.
Hes not coming back. (last 3 tiems I said that he came back so we will see.)
November is just some kid who believes everything he reads. Kinda like the rest of the fe'ers.
-
Sorry but E really does equal mc^2 or gamma mc^2.
Does this mean the thread is entering phase three?
1 - Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
2 - Atoms Do Not Exist
3 - Energy Does Not Equal mc^2
Just give me a moment to gather my notes.
(Apologize for the delay.)
Atoms are the basic building blocks of everything here. Scientifically prove they don't exist and you'll be scientifically disproving your own existence.
-
Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements?
There are only four irreducuble elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire (from heaviest to lightest). The multiplicity you refer to is a result of combinations of these four. Wood, for example, floats on water in spite of the fact that earth is heavier than water because wood contains a great deal of fire hidden within it. I do not in anyway way endorse Taoism (a demonic religion) but merely point out that Fu Hsi knew this fact thousands of years ago as recorded in I Ching. (He lived long before Lao Tze invented Taoism anyway.)
As far as aether goes,
Einstein's re;ativity theory was invented in the first place to explain Michelson and Morley's 1881 experiment which was set to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.
Michelson and Einstein correctly rejected the incorect notions which classical physics held about aether. The thing which the classical physics of the pagan Greeks and their muslim students called aether and which the muslims' papist scholastic students called quintessence, or an alleged fifth element is a fairy tale which idea modern physics is correct in rejecting. However, Planck's and Einstein's physics are centuries behind the times. The Orthodox Christian Fathers of the Church unanimously rejected the concept of a fifth element. In truth, there exist only four basic elements: Earth, water, air, and fire. Where Einstein is wrong is a matter of definition AND understanding. The Orthodox Fathers of the Church such as Saint Basil in the Hexameron equate aether with fire. They are one and the same. Classical physics holds them to be different, but this was not the science of the earlier sages such as Thales of Miletus, for example.
Classical physics partly twists and misunderstands aether. However, by teaching that aether does not exist, the followers of Michelson and Einstein are alienated from ancient works of science and further prevented from understanding them due to the rigidity of their faith (and misunderstnading)that aether does not exist at all. Certain of the ancients (especially the ancient and eastern Christians and the most ancient pagans) understood aether as something very simlar to fire. This obviously has nothing to do with what an allegedly heliocentric Earth travels through and is therefore unnecessary to the subject of heliocentrism.
-
Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements?
There are only four irreducuble elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire (from heaviest to lightest). The multiplicity you refer to is a result of combinations of these four. Wood, for example, floats on water in spite of the fact that earth is heavier than water because wood contains a great deal of fire hidden within it. I do not in anyway way endorse Taoism (a demonic religion) but merely point out that Fu Hsi knew this fact thousands of years ago as recorded in I Ching. (He lived long before Lao Tze invented Taoism anyway.)
As far as aether goes,
Einstein's re;ativity theory was invented in the first place to explain Michelson and Morley's 1881 experiment which was set to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.
Michelson and Einstein correctly rejected the incorect notions which classical physics held about aether. The thing which the classical physics of the pagan Greeks and their muslim students called aether and which the muslims' papist scholastic students called quintessence, or an alleged fifth element is a fairy tale which idea modern physics is correct in rejecting. However, Planck's and Einstein's physics are centuries behind the times. The Orthodox Christian Fathers of the Church unanimously rejected the concept of a fifth element. In truth, there exist only four basic elements: Earth, water, air, and fire. Where Einstein is wrong is a matter of definition AND understanding. The Orthodox Fathers of the Church such as Saint Basil in the Hexameron equate aether with fire. They are one and the same. Classical physics holds them to be different, but this was not the science of the earlier sages such as Thales of Miletus, for example.
Classical physics partly twists and misunderstands aether. However, by teaching that aether does not exist, the followers of Michelson and Einstein are alienated from ancient works of science and further prevented from understanding them due to the rigidity of their faith (and misunderstnading)that aether does not exist at all. Certain of the ancients (especially the ancient and eastern Christians and the most ancient pagans) understood aether as something very simlar to fire. This obviously has nothing to do with what an allegedly heliocentric Earth travels through and is therefore unnecessary to the subject of heliocentrism.
Why did you come back?
To recap for people.
With one article, 17 November claims to have disproved all of physics and all of chemistry.
-
Does this mean the thread is entering phase three?
1 - Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
2 - Atoms Do Not Exist
3 - Energy Does Not Equal mc^2
My notes on the E=MC2 theory are not in front of me presently now either necessitating a more detailed treatmet later, but I can at the very least assert that the origin and basis of this theory is a dream which Einstein fantasized immediately after the turn of the century having to do with gamma rays which he afterwards insisted upon a particular interpretation of his dream as scientific reality.
Max Planck, already unfortunately having much respect both in Germany and abroad (due to a contemporaneous infatuation with destroying old concepts like classical physics in favor of theoreticians like Boltzmann and Planck) and whose fame and ever increasing administrative duty prevented him from attention to the details of physics, finally bought on to Einstein's persistent efforts to convert him around 1911 which was Einstein's single most important conquest with reguard to the acceptance and popularization of his ideas.
-
Does this mean the thread is entering phase three?
1 - Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
2 - Atoms Do Not Exist
3 - Energy Does Not Equal mc^2
My notes on the E=MC2 theory are not in front of me presently now either necessitating a more detailed treatmet later, but I can at the very least assert that the origin and basis of this theory is a dream which Einstein fantasized immediately after the turn of the century having to do with gamma rays which he afterwards insisted upon a particular interpretation of his dream as scientific reality.
Max Planck, already unfortunately having much respect both in Germany and abroad (due to a contemporaneous infatuation with destroying old concepts like classical physics in favor of theoreticians like Boltzmann and Planck) and whose fame and ever increasing administrative duty prevented him from attention to the details of physics, finally bought on to Einstein's persistent efforts to convert him around 1911 which was Einstein's single most important conquest with reguard to the acceptance and popularization of his ideas.
The problem is you are ignoring mounds and mounds of proof that disproves all that you preach.
I can take water, shock it with electricity and get to gases. I can then take these gases and add heat to make water again.
Maybe you should stick to those old books that you posted today. The new modern books they have these days are to far over your head.
-
Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements?
There are only four irreducuble elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire (from heaviest to lightest). The multiplicity you refer to is a result of combinations of these four. Wood, for example, floats on water in spite of the fact that earth is heavier than water because wood contains a great deal of fire hidden within it. I do not in anyway way endorse Taoism (a demonic religion) but merely point out that Fu Hsi knew this fact thousands of years ago as recorded in I Ching. (He lived long before Lao Tze invented Taoism anyway.)
As far as aether goes,
Einstein's re;ativity theory was invented in the first place to explain Michelson and Morley's 1881 experiment which was set to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.
Michelson and Einstein correctly rejected the incorect notions which classical physics held about aether. The thing which the classical physics of the pagan Greeks and their muslim students called aether and which the muslims' papist scholastic students called quintessence, or an alleged fifth element is a fairy tale which idea modern physics is correct in rejecting. However, Planck's and Einstein's physics are centuries behind the times. The Orthodox Christian Fathers of the Church unanimously rejected the concept of a fifth element. In truth, there exist only four basic elements: Earth, water, air, and fire. Where Einstein is wrong is a matter of definition AND understanding. The Orthodox Fathers of the Church such as Saint Basil in the Hexameron equate aether with fire. They are one and the same. Classical physics holds them to be different, but this was not the science of the earlier sages such as Thales of Miletus, for example.
Classical physics partly twists and misunderstands aether. However, by teaching that aether does not exist, the followers of Michelson and Einstein are alienated from ancient works of science and further prevented from understanding them due to the rigidity of their faith (and misunderstnading)that aether does not exist at all. Certain of the ancients (especially the ancient and eastern Christians and the most ancient pagans) understood aether as something very simlar to fire. This obviously has nothing to do with what an allegedly heliocentric Earth travels through and is therefore unnecessary to the subject of heliocentrism.
You're much nuttier than all the other FE'ers. More, even (gasp!) than Narcberry!
-
This belongs in Complete Nonsense.
-
I was pulled in by the interesting titlw, and was going to say somthing like 'tell that to Japan', but I thought I'd wait and ask if there's any point talking about the original point of the thread anyway?
-
I was pulled in by the interesting titlw, and was going to say somthing like 'tell that to Japan', but I thought I'd wait and ask if there's any point talking about the original point of the thread anyway?
Go ahead, maybe 17 November will leave again.
-
There;s actually way too much to digest in one go here, so I'll start with the fact that the nuclear bomb sites were not the same as the other bomb sites. That's kind of stupidly wron, to be honest. Also, isn't there footage of nukes? Not that that is proof, but I'm just saying...
-
i didnt say i dont believe, that if you put radioactive material together it doesnt heat up. but as you say it does it in an instant. so what burns in the so called atomic bomb explosion movies forever? with any high explosives you actually see nothing, maybe some sort of flash, but not seconds and seconds of expanding and burning material.
look at this, it is fuel burning, it is the continously burning mushroom cloud. except it already ignited at the bottom:
The bomb itself isn't burning in the mushroom cloud. It is probably something in the atmosphere (it could be oxygen or hydrogen gas igniting). Does someone want to be more precise about this?
-
I thought I'd wait and ask if there's any point talking about the original point of the thread anyway?
All the usual arguments in favor of the NUCLEAR bomb theory having been stated and refuted, the narrower subject became exhausted and the discussion turned to physics. The underlying reason was that most of them gave up on winning the discussion as far as nuclear weapons were concerned and therfore sought a wider arena to somehow defeat my position.
Also, isn't there footage of nukes? Not that that is proof, but I'm just saying...
Several bomb explosion photographs were already posted earlier in this thread by Matrixfart and myself. We had different interpretations. After I replied to the initially stated opposing view there was never an answer to my refutation - let alone a convincing one.
-
You're a kook.
-
Ok, but I mean, that point about the investigator believeing the explosions results to be similar was wrong; it has been shown how the blast radius happened, it couldn't have been caused by a bombing run, there was one single explosion. I assume the same is true for the second expplosion, but I'm talking about Hiroshima.
-
there was one single explosion. I assume the same is true for the second expplosion, but I'm talking about Hiroshima.
I do not disagree with that, and neither have I ever claimed that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were anything other than solitary powerful bombs. Neither does Major de Seversky.
Seversky's article merely compares and equates the destructiveness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs with a 200-ton aerial bombardment. That particular statement especially angered several alleged experts(!) in America who never came within 5000 miles of
Japan and yet insisted that Seversky's conclusion was unwarranted. Significantly, NONE of Seversky's critics in the May 1946 issue of 'Reader's Digest' (replying to his 'Atomic Hysteria' article in the February issue) disputed any of his observations but only his (obvious) conclusions.
-
Wait, a 200 ton bombardment? Am I right in thinking that they didn't have 200 ton non nuclear bombs back in WW2? Therefore I assume that they had some other form of powerful bomb capable of wreaking that much disruption. Or a bomber wing dropping many bombs.
Perhaps the consiracy from 2020 went back in time and used a satalite weapon on them.
-
Am I right in thinking that they didn't have 200 ton non nuclear bombs back in WW2?
I have not specifically researched it, but I am rather sure you are correct. However, do not misunderstand what I have said. By aerial bombardment, Major Seversky did not mean one big bomb dropped from a plane, but rather many bombs dropped by several bomber planes carrying several bombs each - which is how bombing raids were typically conducted.
At any rate, just to be certain I will reference Seversky's article to ensure I have quoted the exact figure precisely. The point is still the same which is that neither the Hiroshima nor Nagasaki bombings were any more destructive than the other large bombing raids conducted during the war.
-
Am I right in thinking that they didn't have 200 ton non nuclear bombs back in WW2?
I have not specifically researched it, but I am rather sure you are correct. However, do not misunderstand what I have said. By aerial bombardment, Major Seversky did not mean one big bomb dropped from a plane, but rather many bombs dropped by several bomber planes carrying several bombs each - which is how bombing raids were typically conducted.
At any rate, just to be certain I will reference Seversky's article to ensure I have quoted the exact figure precisely. The point is still the same which is that neither the Hiroshima nor Nagasaki bombings were any more destructive than the other large bombing raids conducted during the war.
I thought you agreed that it was one bomb though...
there was one single explosion. I assume the same is true for the second expplosion, but I'm talking about Hiroshima.
I do not disagree with that, and neither have I ever claimed that either Hiroshima or Nagasaki were anything other than solitary powerful bombs. Neither does Major de Seversky.
-
Can anyone paraphrase everything that's happened before I got here so I can participate?
-
They basically took a cue from your usual meaninglessness.
-
They basically took a cue from your usual meaninglessness.
Then I know just where to jump in.
This can be explained by the typical shape of a water molecule. It will not only provide the needed polarity, but also the rigidity as previously questioned.
-
I thought you agreed that it was one bomb though...
What I have said all along is that the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings were conducted with just one bomb each. No disagreement there.
Most aerial bombing missions during WWII in both the Pacific and European theatres were comprised of several planes each carrying mutiple bombs. SEVERSKY CONCLUDED THAT THE LARGE SOLITARY BOMB DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA WAS NOT MORE POWERFUL THAN THE COLLECTIVE DESTRUCTIVE POWER OF ONE OF THESE BOMBING MISSIONS. To my memory, he used the figure of 200-tons of TNT, but I do not have the essay in front of me right now. He also compared it with one of the large blockbuster bombs used in New York to destroy a large condemned building.
Quite revealingly, one of Seversky's critics, a US Army general, in the May 1946 reply to Seversky's February article argued against Seversky asserting that an atom bomb dropped from overhead would almost assuredly destroy the better half of the Empire State Building leaving only some of the bottom floors. This is the armchair critic's limp wristed refutation? How amusingly pathetic.
Even from Seversky's contemporary critic one can discern the accuracy of his comparison of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki "atom" bombs with a demolition crew's large TNT blockbuster bombs.
-
I thought you agreed that it was one bomb though...
What I have said all along is that the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings were conducted with just one bomb each. No disagreement there.
Most aerial bombing missions during WWII in both the Pacific and European theatres were comprised of several planes each carrying mutiple bombs. SEVERSKY CONCLUDED THAT THE LARGE SOLITARY BOMB DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA WAS NOT MORE POWERFUL THAN THE COLLECTIVE DESTRUCTIVE POWER OF ONE OF THESE BOMBING MISSIONS. To my memory, he used the figure of 200-tons of TNT, but I do not have the essay in front of me right now. He also compared it with one of the large blockbuster bombs used in New York to destroy a large condemned building.
Quite revealingly, one of Seversky's critics, a US Army general, in the May 1946 reply to Seversky's February article argued against Seversky asserting that an atom bomb dropped from overhead would almost assuredly destroy the better half of the Empire State Building leaving only some of the bottom floors. This is the armchair critic's limp wristed refutation? How amusingly pathetic.
Even from Seversky's contemporary critic one can discern the accuracy of his comparison of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki "atom" bombs with a demolition crew's large TNT blockbuster bombs.
1) FE'ers claim that magnetic fields protect the earth from the suns radiation.
Why weren't any Japanese saved by magnets? Surely someone had a magnet closeby.
2) Why doesn't the sun explode and kill us all?
-
Can anyone paraphrase everything that's happened before I got here so I can participate?
To summarize:
I stated in the initial and following posts on the first couple of pages the case against the existence of nuclear bombs based on several sources but especially on the Report of Major de Seversky, the Secretary of War's principle inspector of all the bombed cities in Japan after the war which was published in the February 1946 issue of the American edition of Reader's Digest (censored in the British edition).
The conversation eventually widened into the existence or non-existence of atoms, Einstein, et cetera.
-
None of it having meaning, of course.
-
Well I can personally vouche for atoms, having known several over the years.
-
The defense rests.
-
I thought you agreed that it was one bomb though...
What I have said all along is that the Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings were conducted with just one bomb each. No disagreement there.
Most aerial bombing missions during WWII in both the Pacific and European theatres were comprised of several planes each carrying mutiple bombs. SEVERSKY CONCLUDED THAT THE LARGE SOLITARY BOMB DROPPED ON HIROSHIMA WAS NOT MORE POWERFUL THAN THE COLLECTIVE DESTRUCTIVE POWER OF ONE OF THESE BOMBING MISSIONS. To my memory, he used the figure of 200-tons of TNT, but I do not have the essay in front of me right now. He also compared it with one of the large blockbuster bombs used in New York to destroy a large condemned building.
Quite revealingly, one of Seversky's critics, a US Army general, in the May 1946 reply to Seversky's February article argued against Seversky asserting that an atom bomb dropped from overhead would almost assuredly destroy the better half of the Empire State Building leaving only some of the bottom floors. This is the armchair critic's limp wristed refutation? How amusingly pathetic.
Even from Seversky's contemporary critic one can discern the accuracy of his comparison of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki "atom" bombs with a demolition crew's large TNT blockbuster bombs.
If the 'nuclear bombs' that were dropped were more powerful than any single bomb at that time, how can you continue to say that only one bomb caused them? You agree that one non-nuclear bomb at that time couldn't do that much destruction. You also agree that only one bomb did it. You indirectly agreed that they were nuclear bombs.
-
Can anyone paraphrase everything that's happened before I got here so I can participate?
To summarize:
I stated in the initial and following posts on the first couple of pages the case against the existence of nuclear bombs based on several sources but especially on the Report of Major de Seversky, the Secretary of War's principle inspector of all the bombed cities in Japan after the war which was published in the February 1946 issue of the American edition of Reader's Digest (censored in the British edition).
The conversation eventually widened into the existence or non-existence of atoms, Einstein, et cetera.
You are way past retarded. I can't even argue with you, I'm too mad. Atoms most certainly exist. You never proved they didn't. You have never answered any of the chemistry question. You cannot tell me why I can take water, turn it into two gases, and then make water from those gases. You are simply a Jew hating religious freak that is living in the twelve hundreds. I hope not even one person even thinks that what you say might be true, because you are so far from the facts its not even funny.
-
You agree that one non-nuclear bomb at that time couldn't do that much destruction.
No, I do not agree. Where did I ever say that?
My opening argument on page one was that the destruction caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Hiroshima was NOT extraordinary like most of the media claimed.
The modest amount of damage that was done in both cities was accomplished by one large bomb and its after-effects, especially fires.
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg257846#msg257846
There you say that there was no bomb at the time that could do the damage. Thank you for playing, you fail
Am I right in thinking that they didn't have 200 ton non nuclear bombs back in WW2?
I have not specifically researched it, but I am rather sure you are correct.
-
You cannot tell me why I can take water, turn it into two gases, and then make water from those gases.
I could take a shot at it: heat it and then recool it.
And the beauty of it is that chemists accomplished this for more than twenty-three centuries without bohthering with atomic doctrine.
-
You cannot tell me why I can take water, turn it into two gases, and then make water from those gases.
I could take a shot at it: heat it and then recool it.
And the beauty of it is that chemists accomplished this for more than twenty-three centuries without bohthering with atomic doctrine.
He said 2 gases. This is a fun experiment where you can separate the hydrogen out of water, collect it, and ignite it. Steam(water vapor) does not ignite like hydrogen.
-
Am I right in thinking that they didn't have 200 ton non nuclear bombs back in WW2?
I have not specifically researched it, but I am rather sure you are correct.
There you say that there was no bomb at the time that could do the damage. Thank you for playing, you fail
Wrong. I did not say that it could not accomplish the damage. I indicated that you MIGHT be correct in assuming that the bombs in WWII were not larger than 200 tons of TNT. Maybe you were right, maybe not - I have not looked up the official tonnage of the two so-called atomic bombs.
What I do know for a fact as stated in Seversky's article is that most of the destruction in Hiroshima was caused by fires afterwards resulting from the blast rather than the blast itself which means that an ultra-heavy tonnage was not necessarily vital, especially if the target was well chosen. And Hiroshima was disproportionately comprised of wooden housing structures.
Thanks for playing. You lose because you misquoted me. Just because I admit that bombs were likely small does not necessarily imply that much destruction was not caused by one specific bomb.
-
I misquoted you, yet I put exactly what you said...nice try. Think before you post next time.
-
You are way past retarded ... I'm too mad ... You are simply a Jew ... religious freak ... living in the twelve hundreds ...
I don't think you should be saying such things in a debate.
-
STATEMENT NUMBER ONE:
they didn't have 200 ton non nuclear bombs back in WW2?
I am rather sure you are correct.
STATEMENT NUMBER TWO:
There you say that there was no bomb at the time that could do the damage.
yet I put exactly what you said
No, you didn't.
-
Ah, upon rereading what was posted, I apologize. You are correct, sir. For some reason I didn't notice the word 'nuclear' in there. I'm terribly sorry, I am a fool
CommonCentsFails = CommonCentsFails + 1;
-
I apologize.
What would it take for you to get sokarul to say that?
-
I apologize.
What would it take for you to get sokarul to say that?
If only I could...if only I could.
-
If it was one bomb, but not powerful enough to cause the destruction it did without being nuclear, I think it was probably a nuclear weapon.
-
If it was ... not powerful enough to cause the destruction ... without being nuclear, I think it was probably a nuclear weapon.
Ah, duh.
However, it was powerful enough to cause the destruction which it did. It was dropped. It exploded near the ground causing a rather small blast area, and fires ensued which burned a much larger area. What do you not understand?
-
If it was ... not powerful enough to cause the destruction ... without being nuclear, I think it was probably a nuclear weapon.
Ah, duh.
However, it was powerful enough to cause the destruction which it did. It was dropped. It exploded near the ground causing a rather small blast area, and fires ensued which burned a much larger area. What do you not understand?
The radiation part. Unless they had nuclear power plants in Hiroshima which blew up in the "small" blast.
-
November 17, are you saying that nuclear bombs don't exist, or just that what happened in Japan was not due to nuclear bombs?
-
You cannot tell me why I can take water, turn it into two gases, and then make water from those gases.
I could take a shot at it: heat it and then recool it.
And the beauty of it is that chemists accomplished this for more than twenty-three centuries without bohthering with atomic doctrine.
No do it yourself. Its called electrolysis. You make two gases, hydrogen and oxygen. Each apart cannot make water, but when put together and lit, you make water. Atoms do exist and no fake paper from some random guy is going to disprove all of physics and chemistry.
-
You cannot tell me why I can take water, turn it into two gases, and then make water from those gases.
I could take a shot at it: heat it and then recool it.
And the beauty of it is that chemists accomplished this for more than twenty-three centuries without bohthering with atomic doctrine.
Sir, it seems that you do not understand the fact that, when heated, water boils.
This, in fact, means that it changes it;s state, from liquid to gas.
Changing the state of matter does NOT mean breaking it down into it's constituing elements.
Or, are you implying that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen?
-
You cannot tell me why I can take water, turn it into two gases, and then make water from those gases.
I could take a shot at it: heat it and then recool it.
And the beauty of it is that chemists accomplished this for more than twenty-three centuries without bohthering with atomic doctrine.
Sir, it seems that you do not understand the fact that, when heated, water boils.
This, in fact, means that it changes it;s state, from liquid to gas.
Changing the state of matter does NOT mean breaking it down into it's constituing elements.
Or, are you implying that water is not made up of hydrogen and oxygen?
LOOK UP ELECTROLYSIS AND THEN TRY AND MAKE A NON RETARDED POST.
-
Sir, maybe you would care to elaborate on this subject?
-
Sir, maybe you would care to elaborate on this subject?
jeez
ELECTROLYSIS, running electricity through something to break it into parts. Running electricity through water will separate water into its parts, hydrogen and oxygen. No boiling involved.
-
Maybe if you would have READ my post, then you would have understood what I said. ;)
17 November said something about ONLY heating and re-heating water.
This implies only changing the state of the water, from liquid to gas.
Changing of state does not mean BREAKING DOWN water into it's constituing elements!
Now, YOU tell me what does ELECTROLYSIS have to do with heating/re-heating water.
Please, INDULGE me.
-
Maybe if you would have READ my post, then you would have understood what I said. ;)
17 November said something about ONLY heating and re-heating water.
This implies only changing the state of the water, from liquid to gas.
Changing of state does not mean BREAKING DOWN water into it's constituing elements!
Now, YOU tell me what does ELECTROLYSIS have to do with heating/re-heating water.
Please, INDULGE me.
You cannot tell me why I can take water, turn it into two gases, and then make water from those gases.
I could take a shot at it: heat it and then recool it.
And the beauty of it is that chemists accomplished this for more than twenty-three centuries without bohthering with atomic doctrine.
He said 2 gases. This is a fun experiment where you can separate the hydrogen out of water, collect it, and ignite it. Steam(water vapor) does not ignite like hydrogen.
Get it yet?
-
The radiation part.
Radiation fallout?
Major de Seversky stated that although he had heard some rumor of radioactive infected persons, he did not encountre even one such person. He interviewed many staff and patients at the Hiroshima Hospital in addition to many medical and other workers sent to assist in the aftermath. Although some of them had also heard this rumor, NONE OF ANY OF THESE PERSONS HAD EVER ENCOUNTERED EVEN SINGLE A PERSON INFECTED WITH RADIOACTIVITY.
As part of the synthetically manufactured atomic hysteria In 1947, twenty-six young men came who worked with these allegedly WMD nuclear weapons came into bodily contact with plutonium. In 1980, a medical survey was conducted of these twenty-six men who lived with plutonium inside them for 32 years and concluded that they had all lived normal lives and only two of them had died - one was run over by a truck and theother for a similarly irrelevant reason. (I do not recall the source for this and at this very moment do not have it in front of me, but can easily retrieve it.)
It was published in the Financial Times of London in 1980.
-
Its called electrolysis. You make two gases, hydrogen and oxygen.
I am aware of this as when I was qualifying submarines we had to learn how the oxygen generators work. The hydrogen is expelled into the sea.
Atoms do exist and no fake paper from some random guy is going to disprove all of physics and chemistry.
Actually the theory of modern atomic structure is based upon a random paper by some guy named Lord Rutherford. And, yes, Rutherford was an idiot like Einstein who tried to disprove all of physics and chemistry.
http://www.rutherford.org.nz/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford
-
November 17, are you saying that nuclear bombs don't exist, or just that what happened in Japan was not due to nuclear bombs?
I am saying that nuclear bombs do not exist AND that what happened at Hiroshima was caused by a large conventional bomb and exagerated in the media.
-
Its called electrolysis. You make two gases, hydrogen and oxygen.
I am aware of this as when I was qualifying submarines we had to learn how the oxygen generators work. The hydrogen is expelled into the sea.
Atoms do exist and no fake paper from some random guy is going to disprove all of physics and chemistry.
Actually the theory of modern atomic structure is based upon a random paper by some guy named Lord Rutherford. And, yes, Rutherford was an idiot like Einstein who tried to disprove all of physics and chemistry.
http://www.rutherford.org.nz/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Rutherford
Refining != disproving. And don't preach to me about people involved in chemistry and physics.
November 17, are you saying that nuclear bombs don't exist, or just that what happened in Japan was not due to nuclear bombs?
I am saying that nuclear bombs do not exist AND that what happened at Hiroshima was caused by a large conventional bomb and exagerated in the media.
Keep staring at a tree and saying its not there.
-
@sokarul: Sir, I was commenting on what 17 November said about heating and re-heating.
I presumed he was talking about water.
If I was mistaken then, my apologies.
If you presume that I was refering to any of YOUR posts then you think wrong.
In any case, your (I presume)... presumption that I can guess what you're thinking is wrong.
@17 November: another question - can you tell us what is happening in those (supposedly, at leat by your views) "nuclear reactors"?
Better yet: can you tell us what happened at Chernobyl?
More: can you tell us what is the power source for modern-day stealth/attack/tactical submarines? Or, for that matter, the US's impressive aircraft carriers?
-
@17 November: another question - can you tell us what is happening in those (supposedly, at leat by your views) "nuclear reactors"?
Better yet: can you tell us what happened at Chernobyl?
More: can you tell us what is the power source for modern-day stealth/attack/tactical submarines? Or, for that matter, the US's impressive aircraft carriers?
Of course not.
To the OP:
If you discount the existence of nuclear weapons and the atom, then you discount nuclear power as well. Are you saying that there was never really an incident at Chernobyl, or at Lake Erie, or at Three Mile Island? What about plans to build more nuclear reactors? Where do countries that rely on "nuclear power" actually get their power from? What really goes on inside a reactor?
1. How energy is produced from 'Nuclear' power stations, if nuclear energy does not exist
2. Why photographic film is exposed when placed in a dark room for a day or so, next to a 'radioactive' material such as uranium-238
3. Why people exhibit the symptoms attributed to 'radiation sickness'
4. How data obtained - on chemical compounds - from NMR (nuclear magnetic resonance [both 13C and 1H]) always matches exactly with the data collected by other techniques, even as far as simple mass measurement using a weighing device
5. How a Geiger-Muller tube works, and what causes the readout from such a device if it is not detecting radiation
Also: If nuclear weapons do not exist, what powers half the US? It sure ain't coal power.
See? Four pages and three months later, no appropriate response. ::)
-
My bad for not reading the whole topic before posting... :(
LE: I would have expected an answer somewhere in the region of "meh, the words nuclear and atom aren't mentioned in the Bible, so..." :D
LLE: Btw, does the Bible explicitly say 1+1=2?
-
My bad for not reading the whole topic before posting... :(
Who does? I just remembered my post. :D
-
Gonna go ahead and respond to the counter against me...
Radiation, the way the shockwaves caused the kind of damage you would expect them to, the timescale of the initial destruction, the fact that the buildings were utterly destroyed in ways fire can't manage...
How are those reasons Mr Obnoxious? There's why it was a nuke.
-
This is almost in the league of thinking that the Earth is flat :P
Yep. I bname this league, EXTEMELY STUPID.
-
WAIT WAIT WAIT>>>>THE EARTH IS FLAT AND THERE IS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS...SO JAPAN JUST KINDA EXPLODED AND KIODS STARTED GROWING LIKE 8 ARMS....SUCK MY FUCKIN DICK YOU WASTE OF HUMAN..YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX FOR NO FUCKIN REASON...THEY SHOT YOUR FUCKIN IDIOTS OUT..WASTE OF AN ORGASM.
-
WAIT WAIT WAIT>>>>THE EARTH IS FLAT AND THERE IS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS...SO JAPAN JUST KINDA EXPLODED AND KIODS STARTED GROWING LIKE 8 ARMS....SUCK MY FUCKIN DICK YOU WASTE OF HUMAN..YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX FOR NO FUCKIN REASON...THEY SHOT YOUR FUCKIN IDIOTS OUT..WASTE OF AN ORGASM.
We have a poetic rebuttle in our midst!
-
WAIT WAIT WAIT>>>>THE EARTH IS FLAT AND THERE IS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS...SO JAPAN JUST KINDA EXPLODED AND KIODS STARTED GROWING LIKE 8 ARMS....SUCK MY FUCKIN DICK YOU WASTE OF HUMAN..YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX FOR NO FUCKIN REASON...THEY SHOT YOUR FUCKIN IDIOTS OUT..WASTE OF AN ORGASM.
I bet this idiot also thinks Christopher Columbus discovered that the Earth is round. ::)
-
WAIT WAIT WAIT>>>>THE EARTH IS FLAT AND THERE IS NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS...SO JAPAN JUST KINDA EXPLODED AND KIODS STARTED GROWING LIKE 8 ARMS....SUCK MY FUCKIN DICK YOU WASTE OF HUMAN..YOUR PARENTS HAD SEX FOR NO FUCKIN REASON...THEY SHOT YOUR FUCKIN IDIOTS OUT..WASTE OF AN ORGASM.
I bet this idiot also thinks Christopher Columbus discovered that the Earth is round. ::)
Grammar aside, the bastard makes more sense than about 80% of you fucking primates. At least his thoughts tie directly into WHAT WAS SAID.
Which is why the earth is flat.
-
Or I harm him myself.
-
How fun, I have fans!
-
On days when you're deliberate act of stupidity doesn't annoy me, you are funny. I call them blue moons.
-
Narc. Mids, you're like the personification of not being a retard.
-
I'd actually prefer to feel Jenifer Anniston ('s breasts (from the first season of Friends))
-
I'd actually prefer to feel Jenifer Anniston ('s breasts (from the first season of Friends))
Was there something wrong with her breasts in the second season? ???
-
Probably not, but everyone was hotter in the early ones. I went right back.
Oh except Lisa Kudrow, who looked stupid.
-
Sir, maybe you would care to elaborate on this subject?
jeez
ELECTROLYSIS, running electricity through something to break it into parts. Running electricity through water will separate water into its parts, hydrogen and oxygen. No boiling involved.
I ran electrodes into limes and all I got was some limeade. But I did manage to gget rid of some rust on my tools by running electrodes through a vinegar bath.
-
One does not need a nuke when one can just bomb a nuclear reactor found in every nuclear power plant. This is my theory on Nagasaki/Hiroshima events.
-
So we agree, they dont exist?
Another win for FE!
-
GTFO
-
No we haven't, and that doesn't prove FE correct. You faggot.
-
Leave the god damn troll alone! Stop responding to him and he will get bored and go away.
-
Not this one.
-
But I don't wanna...
-
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
*Sigh*
Would we be able to get back on topic?
November, I did not read those articles becaues I do not have a phd in atomic theory. I can, however, say that the french person, who's name I cannot recall, died before most of the work on the atomic theory was ever conducted. This work changed what the atomic model was. It went from something that I have no idea of, to Bohr's model. Therefore, his research and articles are null and void for this arguement, thank you.
As for the atomic bomb events: What about radiation sickness? I know that you have seen this arguement here a thousand times, but consider that thousands of people have experienced radiation sickness from nuclear material. Also: Chernobyl. What do you make of this? Thousands died, and thousands more are deformed from the radiation that is still in the air around the area and other parts of Eastern Europe? While we're on this subject: Radiation therapy. Millions of people recieve radiation therapy everyday for various cancers and such. And could you clarify what your stand on the number of bombs dropped on the various cities is? I saw a post that said you disagree with the opinion that it was one, and then went on to say that you believed that one, large non-nuclear weapon could do the same thing. This would take a plane large enough to carry the equivalent of the 13 kiloton warhead.
For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
Also, earlier on in the thread you kept posting that there was a relation between height detonated, and destruction gained. You seemed to hold this as evidence for your arguement. I would like a little more information on this.
-
I can, however, say that the french person, who's name I cannot recall, died before most of the work on the atomic theory was ever conducted.
I presume you are talking about Marie Curie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie).
Or is it someone else?
-
No no. Give me a minute.
EDIT: Pierre Duhem, that's him. Died in 1919, and didn't have anything to do with the modern atomic theory.
-
You agree that one non-nuclear bomb at that time couldn't do that much destruction.
No, I do not agree. Where did I ever say that?
My opening argument on page one was that the destruction caused in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Hiroshima was NOT extraordinary like most of the media claimed.
The modest amount of damage that was done in both cities was accomplished by one large bomb and its after-effects, especially fires.
He doesn't agree it was one large nuclear bomb, but it was one large bomb. I find this interesting
-
Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements?
There are only four irreducuble elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire (from heaviest to lightest). The multiplicity you refer to is a result of combinations of these four. Wood, for example, floats on water in spite of the fact that earth is heavier than water because wood contains a great deal of fire hidden within it. I do not in anyway way endorse Taoism (a demonic religion) but merely point out that Fu Hsi knew this fact thousands of years ago as recorded in I Ching. (He lived long before Lao Tze invented Taoism anyway.)
As far as aether goes,
Einstein's re;ativity theory was invented in the first place to explain Michelson and Morley's 1881 experiment which was set to determine the speed of the Earth, and the result was zero reguardless of a non-existent substance which the Earth was falsely said to travel through.
Michelson and Einstein correctly rejected the incorect notions which classical physics held about aether. The thing which the classical physics of the pagan Greeks and their muslim students called aether and which the muslims' papist scholastic students called quintessence, or an alleged fifth element is a fairy tale which idea modern physics is correct in rejecting. However, Planck's and Einstein's physics are centuries behind the times. The Orthodox Christian Fathers of the Church unanimously rejected the concept of a fifth element. In truth, there exist only four basic elements: Earth, water, air, and fire. Where Einstein is wrong is a matter of definition AND understanding. The Orthodox Fathers of the Church such as Saint Basil in the Hexameron equate aether with fire. They are one and the same. Classical physics holds them to be different, but this was not the science of the earlier sages such as Thales of Miletus, for example.
Classical physics partly twists and misunderstands aether. However, by teaching that aether does not exist, the followers of Michelson and Einstein are alienated from ancient works of science and further prevented from understanding them due to the rigidity of their faith (and misunderstnading)that aether does not exist at all. Certain of the ancients (especially the ancient and eastern Christians and the most ancient pagans) understood aether as something very simlar to fire. This obviously has nothing to do with what an allegedly heliocentric Earth travels through and is therefore unnecessary to the subject of heliocentrism.
:o
:o
:o
:o
You believe in four elements?
-
The liklihood is that he's lying. I mean, scientifically 4 elements doesn't work out (duh) and philosophically you need a 'spirit' element (give it your own name).
-
LOL @ pseudo-scientists
-
The liklihood is that he's lying. I mean, scientifically 4 elements doesn't work out (duh) and philosophically you need a 'spirit' element (give it your own name).
He does have a fifth, aether. My point being that he wouldn't make a post that long about something he doesn't believe in.
-
November 17 won't be back for awhile.
Which is a good thing because he was so far out there its not even funny.
Also,the Bohr model is no longer the correct model.
-
November 17 won't be back for awhile.
Which is a good thing because he was so far out there its not even funny.
Also,the Bohr model is no longer the correct model.
AOL had a payment decline?
-
Ah sorry, didn't see that.
The 4(5) element theory is actually fun to toy around with, shame it doesn't work in real life.
-
There are only four irreducuble elements: Earth, Water, Air, and Fire (from heaviest to lightest). The multiplicity you refer to is a result of combinations of these four. Wood, for example, floats on water in spite of the fact that earth is heavier than water because wood contains a great deal of fire hidden within it.
That is some straight up Aristotle shit.
-
November 17 won't be back for awhile.
Which is a good thing because he was so far out there its not even funny.
Also,the Bohr model is no longer the correct model.
I understand this. I was saying that the model that developed from the various discoveries of the early twentieth century was not at all alike to that that Pierre Duhem was disproving, and that his article was null.
-
This is almost as funny as thinking that the earth is flat.
-
This is almost as funny as thinking that the earth is flat.
Says TheEarthIsSpherical... (the RE earth isn't a sphere)
-
This is almost as funny as thinking that the earth is flat.
Says TheEarthIsSpherical... (the RE earth isn't a sphere)
Have you seen the horizon? Did you see that it curves? Sure, the earth is flat.
-
Could you show me a picture.
-
This is almost as funny as thinking that the earth is flat.
Says TheEarthIsSpherical... (the RE earth isn't a sphere)
Have you seen the horizon? Did you see that it curves? Sure, the earth is flat.
::)
-
Could you show me a picture.
... Yes.
-
This is almost as funny as thinking that the earth is flat.
Says TheEarthIsSpherical... (the RE earth isn't a sphere)
Shut the hell up. We all know it is not a sphere. It is almost completely a sphere.
-
And, to top off the candy-striped tit fuck smut brigade, none of it matters! :P
-
I know it doesn't matter. If it did matter, would I be arguing with someone that believes in five elements, including fire, earth, and water? No.
-
I know it doesn't matter. If it did matter, would I be arguing with someone that believes in five elements, including fire, earth, and water? No.
I don't know anything about you except what you post on here, so in honesty, I cannot confirm nor deny that. I mean for god's sake....look around us... LMFAO.
-
Yeah, I'm thinking of leaving anyway, so...
Too many people that ignore posts and/or attack grammer and such. I'm more of a debator than a grammer police.
-
Yeah, I'm thinking of leaving anyway, so...
Too many people that ignore posts and/or attack grammer and such. I'm more of a debator than a grammer police.
-
Screw you.
-
Two tymes
-
My grammar source:
(http://www.verysmalldoses.com/images/posts/072005gfx/microsoft_word.jpg)
Obviously, November needs to research (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_weapons)
-
*sigh*
Grammar is so old on this site.
-
Is November still active?
-
Is November still active?
No but he will most likely be back. He really does believe the earth is flat.
-
Is November still active?
No but he will most likely be back. He really does believe the earth is flat.
Among other things.
-
1. Atoms don't exist.
2. There are 5 elements.
3. The Earth is flat.
4. Nuclear weapons don't exist.
5. One article from a hundred years ago can disprove research being done now and with better equipment.
6. Planes can carry hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives to drop on enemy cities.
7. Other moronic things that we probably don't know about.
-
1. Atoms don't exist.
2. There are 5 elements.
3. The Earth is flat.
4. Nuclear weapons don't exist.
5. One article from a hundred years ago can disprove research being done now and with better equipment.
6. Planes can carry hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives to drop on enemy cities.
7. Other moronic things that we probably don't know about.
You cannot validate false statements by placing a solitary correct one in their midst(#3).
-
The nonperson has extensive insight into others, but none for himself. The nonperson hates that he has no impact other than a laugh. Thus, his impotence renders him enraged, though he masks it behind the facade of a Mentor.
-
The nonperson hates that he has no impact other than a laugh.
Not even that.
-
1. Atoms don't exist.
2. There are 5 elements.
3. The Earth is flat.
4. Nuclear weapons don't exist.
5. One article from a hundred years ago can disprove research being done now and with better equipment.
6. Planes can carry hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives to drop on enemy cities.
7. Other moronic things that we probably don't know about.
Pheonixes. Yes, you read that correctly, Mythical Fire Birds.
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16578.0
-
1. Atoms don't exist.
2. There are 5 elements.
3. The Earth is flat.
4. Nuclear weapons don't exist.
5. One article from a hundred years ago can disprove research being done now and with better equipment.
6. Planes can carry hundreds of thousands of pounds of explosives to drop on enemy cities.
7. Other moronic things that we probably don't know about.
Pheonixes. Yes, you read that correctly, Mythical Fire Birds.
I read correctly? I read the word phalanxes. So which is it?
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16578.0
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16578.0
Don't spam other threads.
-
Get the hell out Midnight.
-
Get the hell out Midnight.
(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i124/djredskull/hlyjo5-1.gif)
Fuck you, sparky. :-*
-
???
And... Was that supposed to do something other than make me ponder your sanity for the millionth time?
-
You keep mistaking my responses to you as affirmations that your life or death has any meaning for me beyond entertainment. I exist where I wish, especially in a thread where a debate that has no basis in reality has gotten to this many pages. The very existence of a thread like this, with this many pages, is a physical manifestation of collective mental illness. I will shit all over the thread until the sheep wake up and eat grass, or realize they are, in fact, mentally ill.
Will I succeed? The odds tell me no, but if this will not stop you all, it will fuel my entertainment.
In my final response to you, in this thread, the meaning of your existence, especially in a thread like this, is to entertain me.
Carry on, dingbats. :-*
-
The easter bunny hates you.
-
Sue me.
-
Stop standing in my way when I shoot my ray gun, dammit.
-
Stop standing in my way when I shoot my ray gun, dammit.
Make me.
-
PTEW
PTEW
PTEW
-
*Holds up Narcberry as the nonperson shield*
-
That's better.
PTEW
PTEW
PTEW
-
Your aim is off. You shot Tom Bishop in just such a way as to relieve the pressure on his brain caused by the paragraph generator, and have thus rendered him a sane man.
-
Oh that's who's running for mayor of the universe...
-
gtfo, newfag
-
Hmm, I've never thought before.
Fixed.
-
Hmm, I've never thought before.
Fixed.
Man, I just keep getting burned by you. This forum stuff is hard.
-
Man, I just keep getting it up the ass. This makes me hard.
-
Get the hell out Midnight.
(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i124/djredskull/hlyjo5-1.gif)
Fuck you, sparky. :-*
Bitch eat my french fries.
-
Why was I quoted by Longcat?
-
Why was I quoted by Longcat?
I think longcat is also running for mayor of the universe.
-
You should feel special if Longcat quotes you. It is also a relevant quote.
-
You should also feel special if you ride a short bus or wear a helmet for daily activities. This is not really a good thing.
-
Indeed. The short bus is more financially and ecologically efficient and helmet is very useful in protecting your most vital organ (from the government).
-
Indeed. The short bus is more financially and ecologically efficient and helmet is very useful in protecting your most vital organ (from the government).
And it suddenly hits raist, he IS talking to a retard.
-
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.
-
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.
I'm not going to take your word on that, considering the source.
-
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.
Unless an anomaly exists in the paradigm shift from dumb-fuck to meticulously planned out mind-o-cide.
I am the bleach in your open heart.
-
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.
Unless an anomaly exists in the paradigm shift from dumb-fuck to meticulously planned out mind-o-cide.
I am the bleach in your open heart.
I am the cheese in your burger you ordered with no cheese. MUAHAHAHA incompetent minimum wage paid employees.
-
Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's ass, right Dan?
-
my neighbor two doors down has an ass i'd love to covet all night long.
-
Relavent how? And my neighbour is currently mowing the lawn about 5 minutes before it starts to rain. There's an ass I'd covet.
EDIT And now its raining.
-
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.
I'm not going to take your word on that, considering the source.
Observational evidence is throughout. Multiple sources are presented to you.
-
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.
Unless an anomaly exists in the paradigm shift from dumb-fuck to meticulously planned out mind-o-cide.
I am the bleach in your open heart.
If so, then my heart is open to you :-*
-
Is 17 still active? I can't find a recent post anywhere.
-
Yeah. Look for the name "Tom Bishop". ;D
-
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.
I'm not going to take your word on that, considering the source.
Observational evidence is throughout. Multiple sources are presented to you.
If you are schizophrenic then yes multiple sources.
-
Is 17 still active? I can't find a recent post anywhere.
I hereby switch to the username DionysiosAreopagitis.
-
;D
-
hmm, I've never seen a nuclear weapon, therefore, they must not exist.... I've never seen australia, therefore it must not exist... i've never witnessed firsthand the curvature of the earth.....
I love this site.
-
I haven't seen you. Therefor you must be a government robot.
-
Since nuclear weapons as well as the science of atoms are both mythical, these deceptions serve to conceal certain schemes from most people who unfortunately follow the most prevalent propaganda unquestıoned.
Why was so much expense ınvested in fallout shelters while most people were correspondingly always ignorant about them?
Why was the immense underground city known as the supercolliding superconductor built to fail due to lack of funds? (It was planned to fail from its inception.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
I suggest that besides the fact that the science allegedly undergirding both of these monumental projects is mere propaganda that such propaganda and the physical subterranean projects themselves serve a purpose most people never suspect.
The purpose of the fallout shelters, the supercollider, and quite a few former and active military bases were actually destined and built for is the same plan which William Pabst described back in 1979 in his essay 'Concentration Camp Plans For US Citizens':
http://m.1asphost.com/ABigSecret/books/Conspiracy%20-%20USA%20-%20FEMA%20-%20Concentration%20Camp%20Plans%20For%20U.S.%20Citizens.PDF
NASA's cronies in Huntsville want to revive the fallout shelter plan to stuff as many people in it as possible.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070927/D8RU0NAG0.html
(NASA owns the police and government in Huntsville, Alabama. Mind control survivor Cathy O'Brien has named the local Huntsville pornographers as two cops who cover for NASA's prolific mind control and sex abuse crimes. Another NASA servant is the False Memory Foundation which defends and lobbies for sex abuser rights.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/280183.shtml
http://www.astraeasweb.net/politics/fmindex.html
William Pabst's thesis of an elite using a planned disaster as a pretext for dramatically altering government into a totalitarian dictatorship replete with active concentration camps has been confirmed by US government policy since 2001:
http://www.greaterthings.com/News/Concentration_Camps/index.html
As easy as it is for the controlled media to label who it wants as a Nazi, filling detainment facilities with any particular group of americans or anyone else instead of muslims is very easy to do.
-
I've never seen you therefore the government has programmed robots to use reverse phsycology, ingenious.
-
I base my opinions on observed fact. Observed by countless scientists again and again at independent laboratories all across the world. You base your opinion on the belief of one chemist from a time before electron microscopes, and cling to that belief fanatically. I am open to new ideas, but you are not able to show me any proof on the contrary.
Atoms observed by countless scientists again and again at allegedly independent laboratories all across the world?
First I ask for any proof of this whatsoever.
Second, I question whether any multiple similar results (of which you have thus far given a total of zero supporting evidence whatsoever for even this assertion) are INDEPENDENTLY similar because you must also show that they are utterly unrelated for us to believe that they are really independent rather than merely multiple scientific sounding manifestations of one idea of one person or group powerful or wealthy enough to represent their opinion as conclusive irrespective of inconvenient facts.
Inconvenient facts. Such as the Copenhagen school of atomic theory founded by Niehls Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. One of the characteristics of the Copenhagen school is the honest acknowledgment that it is impossible to either see atoms or to describe exactly and precisely the locations of alleged electrons and protons and neutrons. The Copenhagen school knows that the hypothesis of the existence of protons, neutrons and electrons rest on probability math rather than certainty, and in spite of the fact that they believe in atoms, they are closer to the truth than many modern atomic believer-fanatics who understand not what their beliefs are based upon.
Physics and Philosophy by Werner Heisenberg
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/heisenb3.htm
-
If you can re-explain the nuclear atom, then I'll agree with you.
How do you explain the photo electric effect?
How do you explain rutherfords alpha particle experiment?
How do you explain naturally occurring radioactive Uranium degrading into other elements?
How do you explain synthetic elements?
How do you explain gamma radiation affecting photographic paper from inside a closed unlit cupboard?
How do you explain how the Sun burns?
All of these point to the nuclear atom, and with a nuclear atom, it is pretty easy to accurately describe a nuclear fission reaction.
Last question, how do you account for nuclear power stations, which are of course, a controlled fission reaction (exactly the same reaction as a nuclear bomb)?
Disprove all of these and I'll consider that Nuclear weapons don't exist.
-
I've never seen you therefore the government has programmed robots to use reverse phsycology, ingenious.
Using the theory of least assumptions, I can either theorize there is a place i have never been, you live there, you get on a website and say retarded things to prove me wrong, and you exist, or i can assume the government has a robot to disprove me.
-
you get on a website and say retarded things to prove me wrong
An excellent point.
-
Why are we argueing with Tom again?
-
I look outside my window and see the earth is flat, and I don't see any of you. Therefore the earth is flat and none of you exist, you are all robots part of the conspiracy. Now, to prove FE you must now disprove your own existance. Have fun.
-
Why are we argueing with Tom again?
I'm being called Tom now? ah how the many have missed the point of the Tom reference.
I may make stupid comments but mine have a point if you'd stop simply looking at the sarcasm.
-
Why are we argueing with Tom again?
I'm being called Tom now? ah how the many have missed the point of the Tom reference.
I may make stupid comments but mine have a point if you'd stop simply looking at the sarcasm.
I, uh, was talking about 17.
-
Oh my bad. lol.
So many noobs on here i'm starting to make assumptions about everyone.
-
I look outside my window and see the earth is flat, and I don't see any of you. Therefore the earth is flat and none of you exist, you are all robots part of the conspiracy. Now, to prove FE you must now disprove your own existance. Have fun.
Oh damn :(
Let's see.... I exist because... Crap.
WTF YOU WIN
-
I look outside my window and see the earth is flat, and I don't see any of you. Therefore the earth is flat and none of you exist, you are all robots part of the conspiracy. Now, to prove FE you must now disprove your own existance. Have fun.
Oh damn :(
Let's see.... I exist because... Crap.
WTF YOU WIN
You exist because god tried to make the suckiest person possible and outdid himself.
-
I exist because God was feeling generous toward mankind one afternoon...
-
and decided to make them all feel better about themselves?
-
by giving them a superior model to be in awe of, yes.
-
Lol or to look down on someone and say "at least we aren't that guy"
-
They say that, but it's just jealousy - inside they're thinking, "I wish I was that guy"
-
They say that, but it's just jealousy - inside they're thinking, "I wish I was that gay"
Nope.
-
They say that, but it's just jealousy - inside they're thinking, "I wish I was that gay"
I can't think of a relevant thing to add here, so I'll just change the previous posters wrods and post that instead.
Amended.
-
They say that, but it's just jealousy - inside they're thinking, "I wish I was that gay"
I can't think of a relevant thing to add here, so I'll just change the previous posters wrods and post that instead.
Amended.
I deny accusations of previous poster's wrod changing!
*changes your wrods when your not looking*
-
Lol
-
Why are we jealous and wish we were that gay? I'm twice as gay as he'll ever be. :-X
-
I actually said, guy, but some loser edited my post for the quote.
-
Or he quoted you and you changed your post. Yes i believe my thoery is the truth. Yours is full of lies and slander.
-
Or he quoted you and changed your post. Yes i believe I talk a pile of shit, and am full of lies and slander.
Fixed for accuracy...
-
Or he quoted you and changed your post. Yes i believe I talk a pile of shit, and am full of lies and slander.
Fixed for accuracy...
::)
-
Or he quoted you and changed your post. Yes i believe I talk a pile of shit, and am full of lies and slander.
Proving the accusation of lies and slander.
-
If you can re-explain the nuclear atom, then I'll agree with you.
You need to first be familiar with its very recent history.
-
OK, now come up with a passage that long for that list I made of about 10 problems, and I'll consider revising my opinion.
Ready..............
GO!!!!
-
Forgive me in advance as I will not be able to adequately run down your list in the amount of time we would both prefer, but I do intend to get around to it eventually at any rate.
At any rate, the following extract from the quote I posted above rather gives the impression that the concept of neutrons is a much vaunted theoretical explanation misrepresented as a discovery in 1932 in order to silence criticism of an aspect of Rutherford's nuclear atom theory.
"But while we can thus disregard details in taking a birds-eye view of the situation, the question as to details must be faced sooner or later, and this has proved to be full of difficulties. It was quickly recognized that the simple picture originally conceived was not capable of representing all of the known facts, and that the nucleus must contain something more than the positively-charged particles. The first hypothesis that was proposed as a means of meeting this situation was that some electrons existed in the atomic nucleus in addition to the extra-nuclear electrons originally postulated, and this was the accepted view for the next twenty years or so. There are, however, some very serious objections to the idea of electrons inside the nucleus, and the theorists gave a sigh of relief in 1932, when the discovery of the neutron supplied a new building block that could be substituted for the nuclear electron. Since 1932 the atomic nucleus has been assumed to consist of protons and neutrons in the appropriate proportions for each element and isotope."
-
The physics of Bolzmann, Rutherford, Max Planck, Einstein, and Neils Bohr, et cetera are THEORETICAL rather than objective (unlike the classical physics which preceeded them).
What I mean by asserting that the concoction of neutrons is part of some kind of conspiracy is that a theory (Rutherford's) with a lot of evidence against it was misrepresented as an incontestable and proven fact to the public. Any number of explanations could be made which would have less problems when tested than Rutherford's nuclear hypothesis. When irreconcilable problems in the nuclear theory eventually came to the fore (such as the serious opposition to the idea of electrons in the nucleus mentioned by Larson), a new particle was concocted - the neutron - which placated or distracted critics of the nuclear theory. Can anyone show evidence that the "discovery" of neutrons in 1932 was anything other than a theory devised to rescue another faltering theory?
-
No nuclear weapons, what the hell leveled nagusaki?? What are nuclear power stations then? we've seen what happens when they go critical.
-
So;.....
some of this shit is quite entertaining: I'm sure that all of those folks involved at the Test Site facility here and the "Down-winders' effected by the fall-out from above -ground detonations are all part of this conspiracy.
that's some serious dedication to a cause: These people had to;
a) somehow knowingly induce and display illnesses completely consistant with exposure to radioactive materials,
b) convince themselves that they had no prior or subsequent knowledge of how this was accomplished, and
c) consistantly die at accelerated rates, whilst endlessly wrangling in court vs. a govt which , of course, they are all implicitly allied with in this neat little conspiracy.
Again; this shit is hilarious. In a wonderfully psychotic way.
no offence intended to you certifiable loonies out there.
With few exceptions most on this site are pathetic pawns in the Ignosceni Revolution.
-
dude, some of the people in here are totally out of touch with the world. Myself included.
-
edit
-
With few exceptions most on this site are pathetic pawns in the Ignosceni Revolution.
That statement gave me pause. Rare. Well done.
-
Don't encourage him. He talks like that CONSTANTLY. It can sound witty in a sentence or two, but eventually.....
-
Don't encourage him. He talks like that CONSTANTLY. It can sound witty in a sentence or two, but eventually.....
.....you oviously lose your way amid unfamiliar terms and less-familiar logic.
So; your narrow attention span spins you off into barely litterate spasms of puerile comment.
You are clearly out of your depth, here, Raist.
-
LOL, what utter shite you talk.
-
Don't encourage him. He talks like that CONSTANTLY. It can sound witty in a sentence or two, but eventually.....
.....you oviously lose your way amid unfamiliar terms and less-familiar logic.
So; your narrow attention span spins you off into barely litterate spasms of puerile comment.
You are clearly out of your depth, here, Raist.
No, you are simply unfunny. I completely understand your posts. I maintain my stance that your humor is childish and stupid. If you were funny I would let it slide instead you are a pretentious little prick clearly trying to make up for something.
-
.....you oviously lose your way amid unfamiliar terms and less-familiar logic.
So; your narrow attention span spins you off into barely litterate spasms of puerile comment.
You are clearly out of your depth, here, Raist.
This post is the definition of irony.
-
Okay, so I'm new here.
I'm not a believer in flat earth crap or what ever (in fact I think it is ridiculous), but seriously...to say nuclear weapons don't exist?
So if we are able to create a stable nuclear fission reaction, then we should be able to create an unstable one...which is exactly what a nuclear bomb is.
But if Nuclear weapons don't exist, then Nuclear power sources must not exist either. I'm sure someone mentioned that as a part of their theory as well but I didn't bother to look through the 18 pages of mindless dribble.
Nuclear fall out says that a nuclear bomb was dropped on Japan. Witness's say the bomb was dropped. The deaths of thousands of people in an instant say it happened. A raging fire could not kill thousands of people in an instant.
The intensity of the light emitted from a nuclear explosion is great enough to blind and severely burn someone even from miles away...there were plenty of people who can vouch for that.
So all of the videos of nuclear weapons and the big casing they were made out of was all fake. Why? What is the point? What is the incentive?
This site seems to be full of people who just want to make up ridiculous conspiracy theories. And I thought "Truthers" were bad...
-
Ah What Da,
of course this is Ridiculous.
As noted, there is overwhelming physical evidence for the existance of nuclear weapons
Only a complete idiot would serious consider, much less believe otherwise.
As propaganda;
It's much more plausible that the actual numbers of these weapons and/or their yields might be inflated.
In theory; those sub-terranean based delivery system emplacements located in several US mid-west States could consist of a certain percentage of "Prop" Missiles and/ or payloads.
Unless someone has Top-Secret clearence, knows the Science and personally lay eyes and hands to each and every of these for inspection; how do the rest of us know that some of 'em aint foam,fg and paint???
Theres a Do-able conspiracy for you, the BS missile program......
-
Ah What Da,
of course this is Ridiculous.
As noted, there is overwhelming physical evidence for the existance of nuclear weapons
Only a complete idiot would serious consider, much less believe otherwise.
As propaganda;
It's much more plausible that the actual numbers of these weapons and/or their yields might be inflated.
In theory; those sub-terranean based delivery system emplacements located in several US mid-west States could consist of a certain percentage of "Prop" Missiles and/ or payloads.
Unless someone has Top-Secret clearence, knows the Science and personally lay eyes and hands to each and every of these for inspection; how do the rest of us know that some of 'em aint foam,fg and paint???
Theres a Do-able conspiracy for you, the BS missile program......
See that makes sense. This is a conspiracy theory that actually has some logic to it. That's something I would be willing to believe in if I cared enough to....but I don't.
-
Don't encourage him. He talks like that CONSTANTLY. It can sound witty in a sentence or two, but eventually.....
.....you oviously lose your way amid unfamiliar terms and less-familiar logic.
So; your narrow attention span spins you off into barely litterate spasms of puerile comment.
You are clearly out of your depth, here, Raist.
With few exceptions most on this site are pathetic pawns in the Ignosceni Revolution.
That statement gave me pause. Rare. Well done.
Giving me pause is not something to be lauded. I was questioning how deep that...creature's gene pool is. The floater gerbil tells all.
-
Ah What Da,
of course this is Ridiculous.
As noted, there is overwhelming physical evidence for the existance of nuclear weapons
Only a complete idiot would serious consider, much less believe otherwise.
As propaganda;
It's much more plausible that the actual numbers of these weapons and/or their yields might be inflated.
In theory; those sub-terranean based delivery system emplacements located in several US mid-west States could consist of a certain percentage of "Prop" Missiles and/ or payloads.
Unless someone has Top-Secret clearence, knows the Science and personally lay eyes and hands to each and every of these for inspection; how do the rest of us know that some of 'em aint foam,fg and paint???
Theres a Do-able conspiracy for you, the BS missile program......
And as for that last tidbit of mindlessness, my hometown has 4 silos, and a defense screen known as PaysPaas, and it is a major employer there. I have been on a public (yep) tour of the facility, and yes, they are live nukes. And also, the atom is 20 years ago. We now have the Neutron.
Catch up, fuckstick.
-
Dude, that avatar is the sickest thing I have ever seen! Holy shit! lol ... damn, I think I may have nightmares.. ;D
-
I was more disturbed by the Dexter avatar.
-
What do you find so disturbing about Dexter?
-
My question. What is dexter?
-
My question. What is dexter?
He'll charm fellow officers with a doughnut, wile away a Sunday with his girlfriend Rita, or chop up a victim and package their body parts in plastic bags. Hiding beneath the mundane exterior and contrived façade of Dexter, a charming blood spatter expert for the Miami Police Department, is an obsession with meting his own twisted brand of justice: stalking and murdering the guilty.
http://www.sho.com/site/dexter/home.do (http://www.sho.com/site/dexter/home.do)
-
Dude, that avatar is the sickest thing I have ever seen! Holy shit! lol ... damn, I think I may have nightmares.. ;D
'tis my face, in caricature.
-
Did you see the season finale, Mids?
-
2 weeks ago. It's me, after all. :P
-
Although I like Dexter, I think Sylar is a better serial killer.
-
2 weeks ago. It's me, after all. :P
I didn't realize the last two episodes had been leaked until the 8th.
It sucks that the season is already over, and nobody has any idea when they will start shooting the third one. Damn strike.
Although I like Dexter, I think Sylar is a better serial killer.
Sylar is not even comparable to Dexter.
-
2 weeks ago. It's me, after all. :P
I didn't realize the last two episodes had been leaked until the 8th.
It sucks that the season is already over, and nobody has any idea when they will start shooting the third one. Damn strike.
Although I like Dexter, I think Sylar is a better serial killer.
Sylar is not even comparable to Dexter.
Sylar would pwn Dexter in the brain.
-
Sylar would pwn Dexter in the brain.
1) Sylar has superpowers, and superpowers are cheating. Sylar can't exist in real life, so Dexter wins by default, being the only believable character of the two.
2) Sylar isn't even original. He is just a clone of half of the generic supervillains who already exist. The writers of Heroes basically used a bad guy template when creating him.
3) Dexter is the protagonist of his show. Any writer can make an audience hate a killer, but it takes a damn good writer to make their audience sympathize with a killer.
There's plenty more reasons why Dexter is better, but I've got to go for now.
-
Sylar would pwn Dexter in the brain.
1) Sylar has superpowers, and superpowers are cheating. Sylar can't exist in real life, so Dexter wins by default, being the only believable character of the two.
Through all of season 2, Sylar had no superpowers. He killed loads of people anyway.
2) Sylar isn't even original. He is just a clone of half of the generic supervillains who already exist. The writers of Heroes basically used a bad guy template when creating him.
So which supervillain decapitates people to steal their powers?
3) Dexter is the protagonist of his show. Any writer can make an audience hate a killer, but it takes a damn good writer to make their audience sympathize with a killer.
There's plenty more reasons why Dexter is better, but I've got to go for now.
Sylar did a pretty good job of convincing people he was a victim.
-
Thanks to Sandokhan for this excellent link to which I refer anyone who invokes Ukraine's Chernobyl propaganda to support their belief in radiation.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html
+Dionysios
-
Um, it's ridiculous and false for anyone to claim that you're not retarded. Those photos could have been easily been fake. I mean, all pictures of the Round Earth are fake, why couldn't these be?
No they're not : (
-
Thanks to Sandokhan for this excellent link to which I refer anyone who invokes Ukraine's Chernobyl propaganda to support their belief in radiation.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html
+Dionysios
Welcome back, Nov.
-
If there are no nuclear bombs, then how much TNT did they need to do this?
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S0207isl5J7i8AXq.jzbkF/SIG=12f1l2e5k/EXP=1231029346/**http%3A//static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nuclear-arms-race-3.jpg)
If you notice all of the warships in the picture for a good reference of how big it is
-
If there are no nuclear bombs, then how much TNT did they need to do this?
(http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0S0207isl5J7i8AXq.jzbkF/SIG=12f1l2e5k/EXP=1231029346/**http%3A//static.howstuffworks.com/gif/nuclear-arms-race-3.jpg)
If you notice all of the warships in the picture for a good reference of how big it is
I'd say about 3.
-
Do u know a place called Hiroshima?
Apparently they were bombarded by a Nuclear Bomb (Little Boy), but thats just a rumour..
There is absolutely no proof or physical evidence to back this up,
Its just a coincidence that 70000 people just dropped dead due to no nuclear explosion what so ever when the city of Hiroshima was supposedly bombed and that over 70000 survivors from Hiroshima died later on due to radiation realted diseases.
Yeah i agree, its absolute horseshit that nuclear bombs exist, theres no outstanding evidence to show otherwise
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bombing.htm (http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bombing.htm)
Yeah about this website, not sure what there trying to convey, something about a horrendous nuclear bomb be detotnated at this place called Hiroshima, with photo-evidence by the way, but its pretty obvious they were edited by the government, because in 1945 they all had adobe photoshop CS3 on their desktop computers and laptops..
Theres this other website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Post-attack_casualties
i dont' understand this one either, it doesn't make much sense
i got no idea what they're trying to point out, apparently that the japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by nuclear bombs, but we all know thats bullshit
since nuclear bombs obviously don't exist...
-
Do u know a place called Hiroshima?
Apparently they were bombarded by a Nuclear Bomb (Little Boy), but thats just a rumour..
There is absolutely no proof or physical evidence to back this up,
Its just a coincidence that 70000 people just dropped dead due to no nuclear explosion what so ever when the city of Hiroshima was supposedly bombed and that over 70000 survivors from Hiroshima died later on due to radiation realted diseases.
Yeah i agree, its absolute horseshit that nuclear bombs exist, theres no outstanding evidence to show otherwise
http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bombing.htm (http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bombing.htm)
Yeah about this website, not sure what there trying to convey, something about a horrendous nuclear bomb be detotnated at this place called Hiroshima, with photo-evidence by the way, but its pretty obvious they were edited by the government, because in 1945 they all had adobe photoshop CS3 on their desktop computers and laptops..
Theres this other website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Post-attack_casualties
i dont' understand this one either, it doesn't make much sense
i got no idea what they're trying to point out, apparently that the japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were hit by nuclear bombs, but we all know thats bullshit
since nuclear bombs obviously don't exist...
Well of course they don't. And those thousands of people affected with Radiation sickness afterwards didn't exist either.
-
I made a video entitled NUKE LIES which contains evidently falsified nuclear / atomic bomb test footage:
-
I made a video entitled NUKE LIES which contains evidently falsified nuclear / atomic bomb test footage:
Those videos aren't false, your just a nut. Why don't you believe they exist? I knew it was a dumb video once I saw the Kennedy video in it.
-
I made a video entitled NUKE LIES which contains evidently falsified nuclear / atomic bomb test footage:
Here, I got this for you.
(http://twistedtrees.files.wordpress.com/2006/08/tinfoil-hat.jpg)
-
Would anyone who is not a troll like to express their opinion or contribute useful commentary?
-
I made a video entitled NUKE LIES which contains evidently falsified nuclear / atomic bomb test footage:
"they worship the sun after all, lucipher"
Great lulz.
-
Would anyone who is not a troll like to express their opinion or contribute useful commentary?
Its not trolling when the person you say it to is crazy.
-
Welcome back, Nov.
Thanks.
Two things to add:
1) I have finally met someone that knows a little more than I do about all this stuff: Sandokhan.
2) I have not posted much of late, but almost all of it is on the .net site (using my real name Dionysios) such as this page:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=554.15
-
Welcome back, Nov.
Thanks.
Two things to add:
1) I have finally met someone that knows a little more than I do about all this stuff: Sandokhan.
2) I have not posted much of late, but almost all of it is on the .net site (using my real name Dionysios) such as this page:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=554.15
I actually thought Sandokhan was you at first.
-
So which supervillain decapitates people to steal their powers?
Any evil Highlander person. You know, "There can be only One?"
-
I've been reading some of the rediculusness and was going to just leave and say "internet crazies" when i saw what they called science. But this crossed a line. Why would anyone make this up? do you have no dignity? with a single bomb from a single bomber, we killed over a hundred thousand people were killed. Some instantly, some from the remaining radiation. We still have the poser to obliterate all life several times over, and thats all a lie?
Do you know what a nuclear power is? Do you know what an atom is and the power involved?
Your world seems to rely on a morphed version of reletivity, do you not know E=mc2?
-
Welcome back, Nov.
Thanks.
Two things to add:
1) I have finally met someone that knows a little more than I do about all this stuff: Sandokhan.
2) I have not posted much of late, but almost all of it is on the .net site (using my real name Dionysios) such as this page:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=554.15
I actually thought Sandokhan was you at first.
They're not the same person?
-
I wouldn't be surprised. They seem equally deranged and Dio's had alts before.
-
The buildings in the epicenter didn't fall because there was equal force on each side of them. As opposed to around the epicenter, where the force was going in only one direction.
-
I actually thought Sandokhan was you at first.
A lot of people thought that. The reason I kept changing usernames was because I kept getting banned on Daniel's forum. We both wrote a lot of stuff from the same ultra pro-flat earth perspective, but unless you were one of the few people who actually reads a lot of what we wrote (like Dogplatter, for example) and see the differences, then I would guess it would be easy to assume we were the same. Sandokhan has put a lot of good information on-line that I was unaware of.
In a few details, he has even provided marvelous information such as the great mountain in the north around which the sun revolves once a day and whose shadow creates night in the half of the world opposite from the sun. Now I already knew about this mountain and even believed in it. It is not mentioned by Rowbotham but rather by ancient flat earth writers like the Christian monk from Egypt Cosmas Indicopleustes in his sixth century book. The knowledgeable muslim esotericist Rene Guenon records the other ancient traditions which speak of this mountain (Persian/Zoroastrian, Montsalvat in the west Latin tradition of the Holy Grail, the Arab tradition of Mount Qaf, the Hindu and Buddhist Mount Mehru, the Jewish (Isaiah chapter 14), et cetera), but alas concluded that the mountain today is perhaps submerged. Then came Sandokhan...
Sandokhan first correctly indicated that the hollow earth movement is a lie and a part of the conspiracy designed to confuse searchers for the truth. The principle book of this movement is 'Hollow Earth' by Raymond Bernard. Though built around a lie, Bernard's book does contain a crucial peice of genuine information difficult to find in other sources - Bernard gives proof that in reality no one has travelled north of a certain northerly latitude including Peary, the Nautilus and other submarines and aircraft and that modern maps and atlases are false with reguards to the extreme northerly latitudes. Uncharted tracts of sea and land do exist in the hyperborean regions. Among these is a very real physical mountain which is far taller than Everest.
-
I miss reading your posts. AI wish you didnt delete so many. :'(
-
Question: "Okay, so what is the point of faking it all?"
Answer: Nuclear bomb propaganda facilitates imperial aggression and police control. This was its true use by Russia and america throughout the cold war, against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and others in the future.
Even if it means a number of clashes that results in needless deaths and giving political chips to rogue nations with nuclear capabilities? Perhaps you can explain to me why the infamous "Raid on the Reactor" incident of 1981 occured, when such an action could very well have lead to a new war in the Middle East? Or was that the result of a massive mis-information campaign headed by the US to gain fouther control... for no real reason?
Indeed, you're suggesting that the Cold War powers both agreed, whether by actual exchange or unspoken agreement, to continue a conspiracy in relation to the greastest weapons of history for over sixty years. Spare me the logic of such a tin-foil hat thought process. Can we agree that both Russia and the US were enemies? If the answer is yes, we can continue; if no, there is no helping you.
Russia was in a prime position in the early days of WW2 to know everything about the Manhattan Project thanks to its network of spies (evidenced by their ability to gain a nuclear weapon so quickly) . If the program was a fake, they would have known all about it. Now comes a choice.
A) Expose nuclear weapons as a hoax; destorying the concept of deterrence by NATO (opening the way for the massive armies of Russia to invade the West), humiliating the US & Japan (one their newest enemy, the latter a foe that they have faced off several times since the 1800s), and give a major political and social victory to the Soviet Union.
B) Join in the charade so as to gain a reason to deal with states they don't like and galavinze their citizentry into loyality in the face of annihilation.
Option A gives the Soviet Union a good boast to their ego by showing the faults of the West and removes the need to play a dangerous political game of brinkmenship with the US for fifty years over something that is not real. Not to mention supporting, building, and maintains huge facilities, bunkers, and submarine fleets to continue the conspiracy. All of which costs billions of dollars, per year. Indeed, it allows them to wage outright war against the West thanks to their superior numbers and lack of deterrance by the ultimate weapon.All-in-all, this option both helps the SU, removes the need to play a needless game of Russian Roulette on the political map, and removes a reason why the SU can't invade the West - further raising fears in the West.
Option B is just stupid. The Russians had little need for a reason to invade countries or even justify their actions to their people. All they would need to do is claim that it was for the safety of Russia that such-and-such nation was invaded or even the main objective of Communism - to free the working class from their capitalist masters. They had no need for an additional need to invade a country when they didn't give a damn with what the West thought of them and their own citizentry were brainwashed and controled to the point they could invade any country they wanted and spin it to make themselves look like liberators. Then, factor in that the modern world is full of nations working to or has obtained nuclear arms, forcing the traditonal powers of the world to go to a negotiating table and bargin with them. If nuclear arms were fake.... why give rouge nations a single political chip when the chip is symbolized by something you know is fake?
Furthermore, the entire Soviet Union mindset and Communism in general was the spreading of their teachings around the world until only Communism was left. Nuclear arms only served to hem them in terms of board attacks against the Western powers and regulated the majority of the Cold War to proxy wars and spy actions. However, if these same arms were indeed fake, this basically frees up the Soviet Union to expand aggressively through invasion by superior numbers into Western Europe - free of the threat caused by Nuclear weapons. Why continue the charade then?
So, in conclusion, the reason why Russia would join the conspiracy is simply unrealistic and results in no real gains. For the cost of several trillion dollars, several incidents in the Cold War that could had lead to war over "fake weapons," the rise of rogue nations with nuclear weapons and their possession of a bargaining chip (that is fake), the set-up and long term support of a "nuclear fleet" of submarines, the building of fake reactors, the staging of the Chernobyl Disastor (I would like to see a reason as to how it would be beneficial for the SU to do this to itself.... I really would.), the staging of numerous other nuclear disastors, the building of bunkers around the SU, a reason to not engage in open hostile action against the West (which is what they wanted to do), etc. - You get a reason to more tightly control your populace....... in a country that already assigns you a job from childhood, gives you your home, gives you your car, and basically runs the majority of your life for you.
Simply brillant these conspiracy theories.
-
Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
They were not faked. Nuclear weapons are real.
-
Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
They were not faked. Nuclear weapons are real.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still thriving cities today, if a Nuclear Bomb was dropped on them, the radiation consequences would still be severe.
-
Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
They were not faked. Nuclear weapons are real.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still thriving cities today, if a Nuclear Bomb was dropped on them, the radiation consequences would still be severe.
Fat Man and Little Boy were Some of the first atomic bombs; yields were much lower than conventional nuclear devices.
And needless to say, neither were anywhere near the power of my own fiery wrath.
-
Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
They were not faked. Nuclear weapons are real.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still thriving cities today, if a Nuclear Bomb was dropped on them, the radiation consequences would still be severe.
Fat Man and Little Boy were Some of the first atomic bombs; yields were much lower than conventional nuclear devices.
And needless to say, neither were anywhere near the power of my own fiery wrath.
No they were probably much higher because then they didnt have all this nuclear treaty bull shit.
-
Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
They were not faked. Nuclear weapons are real.
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still thriving cities today, if a Nuclear Bomb was dropped on them, the radiation consequences would still be severe.
Fat Man and Little Boy were Some of the first atomic bombs; yields were much lower than conventional nuclear devices.
And needless to say, neither were anywhere near the power of my own fiery wrath.
No they were probably much higher because then they didnt have all this nuclear treaty bull shit.
Um.
Most nuclear non-proliferation treaties focus on reducing the number of warheads, not the yield. Past a certain point, increased weapon yield becomes tactically disadvantageous (see the Tsar Bomba; it was 50 MT but as a consequence was too large to be used effectively in a combat situation).
Fat Man had a yield of ~21 kilotons. This is well below the average yield of most modern weapons, most notably the US arsenal of LGM-30 Minutemen. These modern-day missles deploy a W62, W78, or W87 warhead device, each of which has a yield of 350-450 kilotons. "Peacekeeper" missles (which have since been discontinued) carried MIRV chassis instead of the single warhead, and each MIRV contained 12 W87 warheads.
12 W87 warheads at 300 kilotons each equals 3600 kilotons (3.6 megatons) of nuclear destruction per missle. That's over 170 Hiroshimas, packed into a shiny missle casing.
-
Everytime someone says the radiation left over on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would make it uninhabitable it makes me cringe, the radiation levels are far smaller then bombs today have. The reason being is those were some of the first bombs ever made, we learned alot from those two drops and the simple fact that people use this poor logic when they dont even beleive in missles makes me cringe even more. Do your research on the -inside- first before you begin spouting nonsense.
Not to mention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
Mostly this part right here, The original U.S. estimate of the yield was 57 Mt, but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt. Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Communist Parliament of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb (technically the design was capable of this yield). The fireball touched the ground[dubious – discuss], reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane and was seen and felt almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The heat from the explosion could have caused third degree burns 100 km (62 miles) away from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (nearly seven times the height of Mount Everest), which meant that the cloud was well inside the Mesosphere when it peaked. The base of the cloud was 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland[citation needed] , breaking windows there and in Sweden.[citation needed] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth.[6] Its seismic body wave magnitude was about 5 to 5.25.[7] The energy yield was around 7.1 on the Richter scale but, since the bomb was detonated in air rather than underground, most of the energy was not converted to seismic waves.
You can click on each reference site link on the article, full proof and full evidence. I bid ye, a good day.
-
Unboosted fission weapons are likely to generate quite a bit of fallout... the Tsar Bomba was actually one of the cleanest weapons ever detonated from a fallout point of view, since most of the energy came from fusion. If it had been detonated at its full 100Mt capacity the fallout would have been utterly horrific - this is just one of the reasons why the Soviet scientists involved opted to replace a large amount of the uranium tamper with lead to limit the yield and fallout generation.
Airbursts where the fireball does not touch the ground are also much cleaner, since the amount of radioactive material from the ground which is sucked up and dispersed by the mushroom cloud is greatly reduced.
-
Question: "Okay, so what is the point of faking it all?"
Answer: Nuclear bomb propaganda facilitates imperial aggression and police control. This was its true use by Russia and america throughout the cold war, against Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and others in the future.
Even if it means a number of clashes that results in needless deaths and giving political chips to rogue nations with nuclear capabilities? Perhaps you can explain to me why the infamous "Raid on the Reactor" incident of 1981 occured, when such an action could very well have lead to a new war in the Middle East? Or was that the result of a massive mis-information campaign headed by the US to gain fouther control... for no real reason?
Indeed, you're suggesting that the Cold War powers both agreed, whether by actual exchange or unspoken agreement, to continue a conspiracy in relation to the greastest weapons of history for over sixty years. Spare me the logic of such a tin-foil hat thought process. Can we agree that both Russia and the US were enemies? If the answer is yes, we can continue; if no, there is no helping you.
Russia was in a prime position in the early days of WW2 to know everything about the Manhattan Project thanks to its network of spies (evidenced by their ability to gain a nuclear weapon so quickly) . If the program was a fake, they would have known all about it. Now comes a choice.
A) Expose nuclear weapons as a hoax; destorying the concept of deterrence by NATO (opening the way for the massive armies of Russia to invade the West), humiliating the US & Japan (one their newest enemy, the latter a foe that they have faced off several times since the 1800s), and give a major political and social victory to the Soviet Union.
B) Join in the charade so as to gain a reason to deal with states they don't like and galavinze their citizentry into loyality in the face of annihilation.
Option A gives the Soviet Union a good boast to their ego by showing the faults of the West and removes the need to play a dangerous political game of brinkmenship with the US for fifty years over something that is not real. Not to mention supporting, building, and maintains huge facilities, bunkers, and submarine fleets to continue the conspiracy. All of which costs billions of dollars, per year. Indeed, it allows them to wage outright war against the West thanks to their superior numbers and lack of deterrance by the ultimate weapon.All-in-all, this option both helps the SU, removes the need to play a needless game of Russian Roulette on the political map, and removes a reason why the SU can't invade the West - further raising fears in the West.
Option B is just stupid. The Russians had little need for a reason to invade countries or even justify their actions to their people. All they would need to do is claim that it was for the safety of Russia that such-and-such nation was invaded or even the main objective of Communism - to free the working class from their capitalist masters. They had no need for an additional need to invade a country when they didn't give a damn with what the West thought of them and their own citizentry were brainwashed and controled to the point they could invade any country they wanted and spin it to make themselves look like liberators. Then, factor in that the modern world is full of nations working to or has obtained nuclear arms, forcing the traditonal powers of the world to go to a negotiating table and bargin with them. If nuclear arms were fake.... why give rouge nations a single political chip when the chip is symbolized by something you know is fake?
Furthermore, the entire Soviet Union mindset and Communism in general was the spreading of their teachings around the world until only Communism was left. Nuclear arms only served to hem them in terms of board attacks against the Western powers and regulated the majority of the Cold War to proxy wars and spy actions. However, if these same arms were indeed fake, this basically frees up the Soviet Union to expand aggressively through invasion by superior numbers into Western Europe - free of the threat caused by Nuclear weapons. Why continue the charade then?
So, in conclusion, the reason why Russia would join the conspiracy is simply unrealistic and results in no real gains. For the cost of several trillion dollars, several incidents in the Cold War that could had lead to war over "fake weapons," the rise of rogue nations with nuclear weapons and their possession of a bargaining chip (that is fake), the set-up and long term support of a "nuclear fleet" of submarines, the building of fake reactors, the staging of the Chernobyl Disastor (I would like to see a reason as to how it would be beneficial for the SU to do this to itself.... I really would.), the staging of numerous other nuclear disastors, the building of bunkers around the SU, a reason to not engage in open hostile action against the West (which is what they wanted to do), etc. - You get a reason to more tightly control your populace....... in a country that already assigns you a job from childhood, gives you your home, gives you your car, and basically runs the majority of your life for you.
Simply brillant these conspiracy theories.
^ this.
November, my father used to work in dubna with " peaceful atoms" trust me hes not a gullible person. And if he was part of any conspiracy there wouldnt be reason for him to be now that he stays in South Africa.
Also, its you that has to be proving your theories to us and not the other way around. You are outnumbered 50-1 here.
I can also reason like you
De Seversky - LIES and CONSPIRACIES
Duhem - LIES and CONSPIRACIES
Etc. Etc.
Trying to "debunk" a 40 year old video is just pathetic. Its like bullying a first grader for lunch money.
Oh and trying to prove anything with millenia old theories is like thinking a Mark II is the most advanced weapon on the battlefield today.
There is no mountain where the north pole is. Proof: mathematics and common sense dictate that someone flying from St Petersburg , Russia to Ottawa would take the same time as to Lisbon if the STP-OTT flight goes over the arctic. Because the same time is needed, it does. Therefore the flight goes over the north pole. Since you cant see a mountain there, its not there.
I stay in Moscow, 10 km away from the Mitino cemetery (in fact, my district is called Mitino as well). Do u know what its famous for? I also have a Geiger counter. It would take me about 20 minutes to get there and disprove your fail of a belief. Unless of course the corpses and the geiger counter are also part of a conspiracy.... Like you know, it chirrups only when..... Gawd, i cant even come up with anything, you tell me.
Also , lets assume atoms dont exist and nukes are a lie. Unless youre Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, i fail to see how that will affect any persons life in a significant enough way to matter to anyone. Therefore nobody would care enough to create conspiracies. Same with the whole flat earth belief.
80 % of lithuanias power is supplied by a nuclear reactor. If there are no atoms, where do they get the rest?
Also if nukes are a myth , why use "nukes" ( read- whatever it was in place of it) in WWII and not in Korea, when the US was clearly losing? I mean since theres no long-term effects from "nukes" used in Japan, all they had to do was do the same in Korea and claim they worked out how not to spew massive radiation into the air. No radiation effects = no human rights crimes. Its not like people knew a whole lot about nukes in the 50's.
Brings me to my next point. You mentioned some book about the soviet space program. You also dismissed some source as unreliable because it was still "fighting the col d war". Contradiction?
-
Nukes are real, mmkay?
-
Everytime someone says the radiation left over on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would make it uninhabitable it makes me cringe, the radiation levels are far smaller then bombs today have. The reason being is those were some of the first bombs ever made, we learned alot from those two drops and the simple fact that people use this poor logic when they dont even beleive in missles makes me cringe even more. Do your research on the -inside- first before you begin spouting nonsense.
Actually, one of the main reasons that the residual radiation wasn't so bad is because both blasts were air bursts. A surface or sub-surface blast would have contaminated the ground that used to be where the crater goes and settled as fallout. Since both bombs were detonated well above the ground, radioactive fallout was not nearly as significant an issue.
-
Basically the easiest way to verify that atoms exist is take November 17 on a tour of Chernobyl (they actually do tours there now), and sneak him into the actual power plant. Next, place him close to reactor 4, retreat to a safe distance and watch him turn to sludge. Everybody wins.
On the topic of Chernobyl, you said the Soviet government overexaggerated the effects. Why then was Pripyat evacuated so late and the initial cleanup done under complete secrecy? People working on the reactor clean-up werent even aware it was a nuclear power plant, and were wondering why the red flag that the firefighters placed above the reactor (soviet symbolism) paled to light pink in less than an hour.
Also explain to me how the build-up of uranium that occured in Britain some months after the radioactive cloud passed over Europe (verified by farmers who ended up with radioactive meat from their cows) really got there.
-
Basically the easiest way to verify that atoms exist is take November 17 on a tour of Chernobyl (they actually do tours there now), and sneak him into the actual power plant. Next, place him close to reactor 4, retreat to a safe distance and watch him turn to sludge. Everybody wins.
On the topic of Chernobyl, you said the Soviet government overexaggerated the effects. Why then was Pripyat evacuated so late and the initial cleanup done under complete secrecy? People working on the reactor clean-up werent even aware it was a nuclear power plant, and were wondering why the red flag that the firefighters placed above the reactor (soviet symbolism) paled to light pink in less than an hour.
Also explain to me how the build-up of uranium that occured in Britain some months after the radioactive cloud passed over Europe (verified by farmers who ended up with radioactive meat from their cows) really got there.
He won't listen, I have tried to prove that atoms exist before. November 17th either is faking it or he is just living in 100 BC.
As for what you said, I'm not aware that the people doing clean up didn't know what they were doing. I was under the assumption that the workers, who were soldiers, knew it was radioactive but were told that it was at a lower level than it really was. The videos showing them cleaning shows them being timed as to limit exposer. I'm pretty sure they knew somewhat of what they were doing but not all of what they were doing. There is a good video on it, which may even be on youtube. I have the name written somewhere, but its the PBS video.
-
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
-
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest
-
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest
No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
-
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest
No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
I didnt say that either was unacceptable, but im saying if you were picking out a crew for ur nuclear sub, you wouldnt pick a guy that you know doesnt believe in atoms.
Or if you needed to go to church im sure you wouldnt go to the church run by someone you know is atheist. Im saying those traits make people seem less professional
-
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest
No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
I didnt say that either was unacceptable, but im saying if you were picking out a crew for ur nuclear sub, you wouldnt pick a guy that you know doesnt believe in atoms.
Or if you needed to go to church im sure you wouldnt go to the church run by someone you know is atheist. Im saying those traits make people seem less professional
I really wouldn't give a shit if he believed in atoms or not, theoretical knowledge is unimportant, while practical knowledge of how to operate the systems is all that matters.
I thought you meant his willingness to travel on a submarine, I apparently assumed you were more intelligent than you really are. The lightbulb was made without knowledge of an electron, I'm sure monitoring a few gauges can be done without absolute belief in the atom.
-
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest
No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
I didnt say that either was unacceptable, but im saying if you were picking out a crew for ur nuclear sub, you wouldnt pick a guy that you know doesnt believe in atoms.
Or if you needed to go to church im sure you wouldnt go to the church run by someone you know is atheist. Im saying those traits make people seem less professional
I really wouldn't give a shit if he believed in atoms or not, theoretical knowledge is unimportant, while practical knowledge of how to operate the systems is all that matters.
I thought you meant his willingness to travel on a submarine, I apparently assumed you were more intelligent than you really are. The lightbulb was made without knowledge of an electron, I'm sure monitoring a few gauges can be done without absolute belief in the atom.
"Men, i have grave news. There has been an accident in the reactor compartment, and i need so and so to go in and do this and that"
"uhhhhhhhhh...."
You shouldnt care, but it is always good to have someone on who knows whats cracking.
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.
You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.
I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
-
Tsar Bomba Video
You do, really do realise, that is not the real vide of Tsar Bomba, and is a video made by someone totally random and unrelated to anything, as that is just a video of a random Nuclear bomb going off, and NOT the actual video of Tsar Bomba at all?
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.
You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.
I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.
You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.
I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic. ::)
No one floated away prior to understanding gravity
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.
You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.
I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic. ::)
No one floated away prior to understanding gravity
But some did attempt to fly.
We'll agree to disagree then. Somehow i think that out of two people with identical driving abilities, id rather get in a car with the person who knows how to do basic repairs on a car. Might just be me or might be the fact that russian cars are shit.
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.
You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.
I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic. ::)
No one floated away prior to understanding gravity
But some did attempt to fly.
We'll agree to disagree then. Somehow i think that out of two people with identical driving abilities, id rather get in a car with the person who knows how to do basic repairs on a car. Might just be me or might be the fact that russian cars are shit.
IN SOVIET RUSSIA, CAR REPAIRS YOU!
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.
You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.
I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic. ::)
If a zombie is chasing you, then you won't have time to wait for a tow truck or mechanic.
-
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.
But you should be expected to both know the very basics of how a car works and believe that there is a real engine inside and not that it runs because of gnomes.
My basics are this.
You put gas in it, and turn the key, and it runs. Turn the wheel and it turns.
I do not need to understand, or even know that their is an engine under the hood. It could be a squirrel in a cage for all i know. it doesn't affect my ability to drive safely.
Only works assuming the car never breaks down
Unless you have a tow truck and mechanic. ::)
If a zombie is chasing you, then you won't have time to wait for a tow truck or mechanic.
But if a zombie is stuck under your grill or undercarriage, you may want a mechanic to work on your vehicle instead of risking getting bit yourself.
-
Why do the soviets pay men on nuclear subs sterility pay? Isn't that a waste of money if they aren't sterile? Also, how does a nuclear sub stay underwater and still generate power? Wouldn't the carbon monoxide/dioxide from the diesel engines kill everyone?
The irony is that youre asking a former submariner that. Unless hes lying which he probably is. A sailor on a nuclear sub that doesnt believe in atoms is like having an atheist priest
No it is not. An atheist priest would be a perfectly acceptable person, though he would have quite the inner quandary. A priest's life does not depend on God's existence.
I didnt say that either was unacceptable, but im saying if you were picking out a crew for ur nuclear sub, you wouldnt pick a guy that you know doesnt believe in atoms.
Or if you needed to go to church im sure you wouldnt go to the church run by someone you know is atheist. Im saying those traits make people seem less professional
I really wouldn't give a shit if he believed in atoms or not, theoretical knowledge is unimportant, while practical knowledge of how to operate the systems is all that matters.
I thought you meant his willingness to travel on a submarine, I apparently assumed you were more intelligent than you really are. The lightbulb was made without knowledge of an electron, I'm sure monitoring a few gauges can be done without absolute belief in the atom.
"Men, i have grave news. There has been an accident in the reactor compartment, and i need so and so to go in and do this and that"
"uhhhhhhhhh...."
You shouldnt care, but it is always good to have someone on who knows whats cracking.
All you need to know about a decaying atom in a fission reactor is "this much mass puts off this much energy" the rest of it is completely irrelevant.
Practical knowledge is all that is needed, and it would all be supplied in training. A better example than the mechanic is, a mechanic doesn't need to know shit about metals and their properties to fix a hole in your steel frame. His practical knowledge of metals is far more important than his actual understanding of how a metal functions.
-
a "nuke" ... who are trained in the details of both the practicalities of operating a reactor and its corrollary systems as well as (the official version of) the theory behind it
The teaching of the theoretical aspect is heavily falsified. Unfortunately, this false theory (of the alleged real existence of atoms and molecules) is typically unquestioningly and blindly assumed correct and accepted as truth by students (whether military or civilian) because of an association with the obvious concrete practical reality it pretends to explain. The teaching of a veritable fabrication of a false reality is what makes these and other engineering schools houses of conceited liars.
Why do you still post? You are on a freaking computer. I have already brought up that computers can't work without atoms existing.
You can't even answer the question of why different "things"( atoms/molecules to me) have different properties.
-
I really wouldn't give a shit if he believed in atoms or not ... while practical knowledge of how to operate the systems is all that matters.
Well said.
This is the essence of one of Duhem's books which, for example, does not deny practical facts of the collusion of certain elements. More to the point, Duhem does not even deny the usefulness of certain models for their usefulness in the furtherance of understanding of chemical reactions, but he does deny the making of idols out of theoretical models (of atoms, molecules) which are not by any means proven to be physical reality reguardless of their utility in explaining chemical reactions to a certain extent.
Smaller assumes atoms exist, and he is just as wrong in that assumption as he is to assume that I was allegedly lying when I said that I am a veteran of the US Navy Submarine Force because I most definitely am. I was a submarine yeoman (secretary) and drove the ship (on both SSN and SSBN) and not a "nuke" (one who receives two years of "nuclear" training prior to submarine service (at schools in Ballston Spa, NY and another one in the Carolinas) and who are trained in the details of both the practicalities of operating a reactor and its corrollary systems as well as (the official version of) the theory behind it, but I did complete five years aboard such submarines - one boomer and one fast attack.
Sorry but i can also reason like you: pics or you werent.
So far youve just attacked my viewpoint and not responded to my arguments on page 20. So does this mean youll take up my offer of giving you a tour of chernobyl and then making you stand next to the reactor?
Raist: IMO people with practical but not even an ounce of theoretical knowledge lead to shit like the Komsomolets submarine disaster.
-
There are no nuclear weapons; the nuclear reactors are simply Reich/Tesla aether accumulators, as I have explained many times before here.
As for the correct model of the atom, which clearly shows that O. Hahn and L. Meitner (not to mention E. Fermi) faked their experiments...
No atoms had even remotely been seen visually until 1985, when IBM Research Almaden Labs was the first to use an electron tunneling microscope to actually photograph the organization of molecules of germanium in an ink-blot. Here what we see from this experiment are indistinct, fuzzy spherical objects that appear to have some non-spherical geometric qualities to their shape and are in an extremely geometric pattern of organization, which was definitely a surprise for conventional science. How could the random nature of atoms described by the Heisenberg principle, ever result in such an ordered pattern? Perhaps the probability distributions are not 'distributions' at all.
(http://www.blazelabs.com/pics/atomsibm.jpg)
Furthermore, when quantum physicists have studied the electrons of the atom, they have observed that they are not actually points at all, not particulate in nature, but rather form smooth, teardrop-shaped clouds where the narrowest ends of the drops converge upon a very tiny point in the center.
There are no Electron Orbits! Bohr's model, which started the notion of electrons traveling around the nucleus like planets has misled a lot of people and scientists. If you have learned such an idea, forget about it immediately. Instead, all calculations and all experiments show that no satellite-like orbital motion exists in the normal atom. Instead, there are standing wave patterns, very similar indeed to the polar plots of antenna radiation patterns. For example, see the case M=0 and L=0, where the standing wave pattern is entirely spherical, this being equivalent to a pure isotropic antenna radiation plot. Similarly for M=1, L=1, the pattern is exactly the same as that of a half wave dipole, and so on. No one ever asks or requires for an antenna's radiation pattern to be formed of orbiting electrons, and yet we know that the standing wave generated from a typical radio antenna, posseses inertia, and can act upon external matter by means of radiation pressure. The electron path is NOT around and far off the nucleus, nor is the atom made up of 99.999% empty space!. Instead, the center of the electron pattern is also the center of the proton pattern. This is the normal situation of the H atoms in the universe; they have spherical symmetry, not orbits. You see, particulate matter is not requirement to generate the effects known to define matter.
From one of the most prestigious physicists of the second half of the 20th century, Harold Puthoff:
Classical physics tells us that if we think of an atom as a miniature solar system with electronic planets orbiting a nuclear sun, then it should not exist. The circling electrons SHOULD RADIATE AWAY their energy like microscopic radio antennas and spiral into the nucleus. To resolve this problem, physicists had to introduce a set of mathematical rules, called quantum mechanics, to describe what happens. Quantum theory endows matter and energy with both wave and particle-like characteristics. It also restrains electrons to particular orbits, or energy levels, so they cannot radiate energy unless they jump from one orbit to another.
Measuring the spectral lines of atoms verifies that quantum theory is correct. Atoms appear to emit or absorb packets of light, or photons, with a wavelength that exactly coincides with the difference between its energy levels as predicted by quantum theory. As a result, the majority of physicists are content simply to use quantum rules that describe so accurately what happens in their experiments.
Nevertheless, when we repeat the question: "But why doesn't the electron radiate away its energy?", the answer is: "Well, in quantum theory it JUST DOESN'T". It is at this point that not only the layman but also some physicists begin to feel that someone is not playing fair. Indeed, much of modern physics is based on theories couched in a form that works but they do not answer the fundamental questions of what gravity is, why the Universe is the way it is, or how it got started anyway.
Bohr had no right to propose a postulate WHICH DID NOT INCLUDE THE SOURCE OF THE ENERGY REQUIRED FOR THE ELECTRONS TO CONTINUE TO ORBIT AROUND THE NUCLEUS. The assumptions made by both Rutherford and Bohr are dealt with in the Case against the Nuclear Atom by Dr. Dewey Larson, and are shown to be dead wrong.
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana02.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana03.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana04.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana05.htm
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana01.htm
W. Pauli introduced the notion of the neutrino, BASED TOTALLY ON THE ORBITING ELECTRON MODEL OF BOHR; here are some comments:
THE ELUSIVE NEUTRINO: In my opinion the neutrino concept is the work of a relativistic accountant who tries to balance his books by making a fictitious entry. He does not recognize the existence of the aether and so, when accounting for something where an energy transaction involves an energy transfer to or from the aether, he incorporates an entry under the heading 'neutrinos'.
Since the 1980s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.
(http://www.romunpress.co.nz/images/ElectronMicroscopeFig1.jpg)
Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures, which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.
If as kinetic theory suggests, each of the atoms of a solid are oscillating eternally within a set volume of empty space separating it from adjacent atoms, then instead of the clearly defined images of rows of spherical atoms, the images of the atoms would be indistinct and blurred.
Any independent observer would accordingly conclude that in this state of matter atoms do not have any characteristic of independent motion and that no empty space or vacuum exists, between them, eminent physicists however, instead of accepting these visual images as representing the reality of atomic interactions in solids, cling to current scientific dogma and reject these clear results, inventing vague and patently unsatisfactory reasons as to why these empirical results do not contradict the hypothetical concepts of kinetic motion and discontinuity.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050206091142/http://luloxbooks.co.uk/findings1.htm
A fascinating look at the fact that J. Chadwick discovered ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in 1932, NO PARTICLE CALLED THE NEUTRON...there are some threads which attempt to prove the fake nuclear weapons scenario (see the material I have posted here already)...the physics behind the nuclear atom is completely false...
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=894
Sun Neutrino Paradox.
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm
http://www.jyi.org/volumes/volume9/issue2/features/cull2.html
The explanation offered in the 1930s by H. Bethe (thrown out of Germany for incompetence) is completely wrong, and the modern arguments using the tau-neutrino/muon-neutrino (from electron-neutrino), and a fourth type of neutrino, do not work either.
A site which shows that the sun neutrino problem has not been solved at all:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sudbury.htm
The 'missing neutrinos' problem is a serious one. *Corliss considers it 'one of the most significant anomalies in astronomy.' (W.R. Corliss, Stars, Galaxies, Cosmos (1987), p. 40.) Bahcall comments on the seriousness of the problem:
'At least one part of the theory of stellar interiors is probably wrong, although there is yet no observational evidence that the basic ideas of stellar evolution and nuclear fusion in stars are incorrect. We of course do not know which part of the theory is wrong, but it seems likely that the solution of the solar neutrino problem may affect other applications of the theory of stellar interiors.'John N. Bahcall, 'Some Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics,' Astronomical Journal, 76:283 (1971).
It is hoped that some type of 'barrier' will yet be found which is shielding the earth so that solar neutrinos which ought to be there since the hydrogen fusion theory 'has to be correct'will yet be discovered. But Larson takes a dim view of the situation.
'The mere fact that the hydrogen conversion process can be seriously threatened by a marginal experiment of this kind emphasizes the precarious status of a hypothesis that rests almost entirely on the current absence of any superior alternative. 'Dewey B. Larson, Universe in Motion (1984), p. 11.
Scientists have searched for incoming solar neutrinos since the mid-1960s, yet hardly any arrive to be measured. Yet, they dare not accept the truth of the situation?for that would mean an alternative which would shatter major evolutionary theories.
Neutrinos, as N. Tesla showed, COME FROM THE AETHER AND NOT FROM THE ATOM ITSELF.
-
Since the 1980s technological advances such as the the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) have made it possible to view, and even manipulate, the individual atoms on the surfaces of solid matter. Such images are widely available, but each one takes a considerable amount of time to produce by moving the tip of the probe slowly back and forth across the target, and in every case the atoms depicted are clearly defined, as in the image below, which is a representation of the image of atoms at the surface of a sample of solid matter.
(http://www.romunpress.co.nz/images/ElectronMicroscopeFig1.jpg)
Such images, when first produced, finally confirmed beyond all doubt the existence of atoms as individual, spherical structures, which in solids are in close proximity to others and arranged in the rows or patterns that could be expected to form for a conglomeration of larger spherical objects such a balls or oranges. But the most striking result is that there is no evidence of discontinuity in these images, and even more significantly there is no evidence of the assumed independent motion or oscillation of atoms in this state.
You question so much, have you ever questioned the following? Pictures like this have been around since the 1980s. There is even one on one of my physics text book covers. Does it see odd that your claim that these pictures disproves physics, yet these "disproven" theories are still taught? Why would you not question your own assumption. "Well these images should change physics but they don't so maybe my assumptions are wrong and these theories are still right"
Did you ever wonder that?
-
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.
-
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.
I thought those were Atomic weapons, not nuclear. (What the difference is, I'm not sure)
-
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.
I thought those were Atomic weapons, not nuclear. (What the difference is, I'm not sure)
They are the same thing.
-
Raist: IMO people with practical but not even an ounce of theoretical knowledge lead to shit like the Komsomolets submarine disaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_submarine_K-278_Komsomolets
"On 7 April 1989, while under the command of Captain 1st Rank Evgeny Vanin and running submerged at a depth of 335 metres (1,099 ft) about 180 kilometres (100 nmi) southwest of Bear Island (Norway), fire broke out in the aft compartment, and even though watertight doors were shut, the resulting fire spread through bulkhead cable penetrations. The reactor scrammed and propulsion was lost. Electrical problems spread as cables burned through, and control of the boat was threatened. An emergency ballast tank blow was performed and the submarine surfaced eleven minutes after the fire began. Distress calls were made, and most of the crew abandoned ship."
I have not yet looked for a more detailed explanation of what happened, but I suspect proper emergency procedures were not followed. Knowledge and working familiarity with emergency procedures is what is important in an emergency like a fire on a boat. Reguardless of its origin, the fire obviously became electrical. Submarine reactors supply two kinds of energy: propulsion (turning the shaft) and electrical power for the boat. At least with US submarines in a fire in the engine room, power from the reactor is temporarily shut off to identify which of two electrical circuits is affected. I do not know about Soviet boats, but the reactor compartments of US submarines have two loops coming off the reactor (which are quite hot and turn water passing by them into steam which itself turns turbines which power equipment). After the fire is located, one of the circuits is restored and thus supplies power for everything. My understanding is that if a running reactor is left without an outlet for too long, then the reactor must be shut down (i.e. scram) to avoid a worse catastrophe such as overheating or explosion.
More likely than not, the Komsomolets reactor had to be shutdown for this reason. I would expect that it was purposely shutdown (and probably rightly so given the conditions at the moment, but I would like to see more details of the event to confirm that). What led to that necessity was most likely improper emergency response to the fire.
Knowledge of reactor components and what they do by the personnel who operate it and knowledge of emergency response procedures by everyone onboard is what is needed in such dire emergencies - not reflection upon esoteric atomic theory.
So how do they work with your model?
-
So how do they work with your model?
Obviously you are talking about the theory of how so-called nuclear reactors generate heat.
It's actually a good question.
The following quote is from this link:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
"Despite all the cosmic energy that the word "nuclear" invokes, power plants that depend on atomic energy don't operate that differently from a typical coal-burning power plant. Both heat water into pressurized steam, which drives a turbine generator. The key difference between the two plants is the method of heating the water. While older plants burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants depend on the heat that occurs during nuclear fission, when one atom splits into two."
I agree with everything except for the last sentence which is what your question is essentially about. For one thing, the article is also wrong about coal which does not come from fossils. That is another modern myth concocted by Lomonosov in the eighteenth century. Aside from that, I discern two essential differences between burning coal and burning uranium for the production of energy.
1) Burning uranium (or plutonium) produces a lot more energy than coal for the same volume of material (and we would likely agree).
2) The other difference is that more disinformation in the form of outright lies accompanies the burning of uranium. Coal produces heat simply because it burns. Uranium is the same way. It just produces a whole lot more heat. Unlike burning coal, burning uranium is a chemical fire (there are different kinds of fire). The condition of the uranium that is installed in reactors is chemically designed deliberately to burn at a high temperature so it is natural for it to be dangerous. Nothing magical about that. Most of the reactor rods are constructed of chemicals which are designed to lower the rate of burning. The more they are inserted into the fire, the weaker it becomes. These rods perform the same function as closing the lid on a barbecue pit.
All this talk of the movement of neutrons as well as splitting atoms is all rubbish. It has no place in reality. What is important is that chemicals react with other chemicals to make a fire. The uranium inside a reactor begins to burn because chemicals which create a fire within it upon contact are inserted into the reactor via a rod. The interaction of these chemicals is what initiates the heat process (as opposed to mythical fission) in a reactor.
Nuclear fission is mythical. It never existed.
I'm retarded for even ask that. I knew your answer would be crap.
Edit: there was stuff here but it's not even worth it, I just can fix stupid.
Also don't lecture me about chemistry. It's what I do for a living and what you know nothing about.
-
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.
If you are speaking of the people who underwent the bomb attacks of August 1945 and were interviewed shortly after it happened, then you think wrong.
According to some people here, those cities weren't nuked or anything, they were the victims of some sort of big fire bomb or something, and the U.S. never developed nuclear weapons. But they believe the earth is flat so what do they know?
-
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.
If you are speaking of the people who underwent the bomb attacks of August 1945 and were interviewed shortly after it happened, then you think wrong.
(http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg)
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/atomic_nagasaki_postattack_375.jpg)
Do those look firebombed, or utterly destroyed? Firebombs cannot do that kind of city-leveling damage. Nuclear weapons can, however.
Here is a picture of Dresden, a city that was heavily bombed in 1902.
(http://www.ivu.org/congress/2008/pics/Dresden1945.jpg)
-
You can't even answer the question ...
there was stuff here but it's not even worth it
So until you answer, we also presume that you cannot.
... chemistry. It's what I do for a living ...
...I'm retarded ...
Look again tex, you didn't even ask a question.
Also In truth, there exist only four basic elements: Earth, water, air, and fire.
I swear you said this in this thread too but nothing is coming up. I'm glad you are somewhat learning. You went from the element earth to chemicals actually existing. Not only that but chemicals causing fire. I wonder what book of yours taught you that.
Nice quote change too, that was pretty funny.
-
So how do they work with your model?
Obviously you are talking about the theory of how so-called nuclear reactors generate heat.
It's actually a good question.
The following quote is from this link:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
"Despite all the cosmic energy that the word "nuclear" invokes, power plants that depend on atomic energy don't operate that differently from a typical coal-burning power plant. Both heat water into pressurized steam, which drives a turbine generator. The key difference between the two plants is the method of heating the water. While older plants burn fossil fuels, nuclear plants depend on the heat that occurs during nuclear fission, when one atom splits into two."
I agree with everything except for the last sentence which is what your question is essentially about. For one thing, the article is also wrong about coal which does not come from fossils. That is another modern myth concocted by Lomonosov in the eighteenth century. Aside from that, I discern two essential differences between burning coal and burning uranium for the production of energy.
1) Burning uranium (or plutonium) produces a lot more energy than coal for the same volume of material (and we would likely agree).
2) The other difference is that more disinformation in the form of outright lies accompanies the burning of uranium. Coal produces heat simply because it burns. Uranium is the same way. It just produces a whole lot more heat. Unlike burning coal, burning uranium is a chemical fire (there are different kinds of fire). The condition of the uranium that is installed in reactors is chemically designed deliberately to burn at a high temperature so it is natural for it to be dangerous. Nothing magical about that. Most of the reactor rods are constructed of chemicals which are designed to lower the rate of burning. The more they are inserted into the fire, the weaker it becomes. These rods perform the same function as closing the lid on a barbecue pit.
All this talk of the movement of neutrons as well as splitting atoms is all rubbish. It has no place in reality. What is important is that chemicals react with other chemicals to make a fire. The uranium inside a reactor begins to burn because chemicals which create a fire within it upon contact are inserted into the reactor via a rod. The interaction of these chemicals is what initiates the heat process (as opposed to mythical fission) in a reactor.
Nuclear fission is mythical. It never existed.
Uranium isn't flammable, you fool. And you still haven't said why nuclear fission isn't possible, because until you do, it's quite possible.
Finally, how do you explain the radioactive byproducts or fission (or burning, whatever)? Burning a substance wouldn't cause this.
-
In truth, there exist only four basic elements: Earth, water, air, and fire.
I swear you said this in this thread too but nothing is coming up.
Let me make it easy for you:
All matter is composed of four basic elements: earth, water, air, and fire.
lol how cute, you are trying to talk down to me.
Stop contradicting yourself. If as you would put it, I can add earth to earth to create fire. That would lead to earth and fire being one. But you list them as two separate things. So which is it?
You are not helping your cause at all.
-
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.
If you are speaking of the people who underwent the bomb attacks of August 1945 and were interviewed shortly after it happened, then you think wrong.
(http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg)
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/atomic_nagasaki_postattack_375.jpg)
Do those look firebombed, or utterly destroyed? Firebombs cannot do that kind of city-leveling damage. Nuclear weapons can, however.
Here is a picture of Dresden, a city that was heavily bombed in 1902.
(http://www.ivu.org/congress/2008/pics/Dresden1945.jpg)
Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think Dresden was fire bombed in 1902. It was during the 2nd world war I'm pretty sure.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think Dresden was fire bombed in 1902. It was during the 2nd world war I'm pretty sure.
I noticed that myself. He is probably referring to February 1945. The number of deaths is controversial, but the British are liars in any case. Depending upon whom you quote, the numbers of dead were higher in Dresden - for others Nagasaki. I have no intention of minimizing the wrongness of the attack on Hiroshima or Nagasaki - the US was wrong as the attack was unnecessary as Japan already wanted to surrender reguardless of what kind of weapons were used.
The number killed really isn't what is in question here, it's more about damage to the buildings of the city.
-
So how do they work with your model?
Although levee does believe in atoms, I should add that what he said about Reich/Tesla aether accumulators as the essence of how a "nuclear" reactor works is worthwhile looking into.
hahaha that is almost my latest quote.
-
Uranium isn't flammable, you fool.
Nonsense. Anything put to enough heat will burn. That is characteristic of all matter.
Burning has to do with an oxidative reaction, so by default if it cant oxidize, you cant burn it in the traditional sense of the word. Go ahead and try to "burn" some gold and see if you can get an exothermic reaction.
-
As to Uranium I would agree that it can burn, since uranium does form oxides, which is what the depleted Uranium dust is inside the tanks we shot up with sabots in Iraq. However, fission reactors dont "burn" uranium to generate heat.
Yes, no matter is eternal, but that doesnt mean that everything can burn.
-
this is dumb, there are accounts of Japanese whose bones had been irradiated to the point where they crumbled to ash upon cremation
-
After just getting back from personally visiting the peace park and museum in Hiroshima, I find this thread offensive to the 140,000 people that lost their lives. You are insane if you don't think nuclear weapons exist.
-
After just getting back from personally visiting the peace park and museum in Hiroshima, I find this thread offensive to the 140,000 people that lost their lives. You are insane if you don't think nuclear weapons exist.
They aren't offensive. You are completely retarded. If I said "C4 actually works through magic" would that be offensive to the people wounded by landmines?
The nuclear weapons were used against a society that thought their leader was a God. They were preparing to fight to the last person "women and children were being trained in combat" and there was literally no chance of surrender. The firebombings killed twice as many people as the nukes yet they get a museum lol.
I guess propaganda is all it is cracked up to be.
-
Some of the Japanese people may have indeed wanted to end the war, but it is pretty clear that the leadership did not. Preparing to use Sherman Carpets when a simple phone call would end it is not exactly the best sign of capitulation.
-
You are literally crazy.
See I can respond with irrelevant comments as well.
As far as these third World countries go, the nuclear myth has brainwashed the leaders of these countries most of whom have been educated in western institutions. Certainly
The atomic hysteria of the late 1940's and 1950's and today is not only propaganda for obvious political purposes. It is an attempt to maintain the Rutherfordian concept of a nuclear atom. At the height of this propaganda in the 1950's, Dewey Larson wrote an expose of the basis of the myth - the idea that atoms are composed of lesser substances called protons, neutrons, and electrons.
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
by Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
Of course, the nuclear atom is a myth on top of a myth. Atoms themselves do not exist at all. It is a false theory of Pythagoras's students Leucippus which Pythagoras learned from secret sects in India when he visited there in the sixth century BC at the behest of the jews in Babylon to spread the worst heresies of the hindus in the West.
Beast cannot come up with verifiable proof of alleged nuclear explosions since 1945 so he has resorted to name calling and character assasination. In other words, I win.
In the meantime, I am still waiting for verifiable proof or convincing evidence of actual any actual nuclear explosions after 1945. Taking your word or the government's word for it is not good enough.
And you're a US Navy submariner?
I intended to go through all of your posts on this site, so that I can find clues to discover your identity. I will then pass it along to my friends in the US Navy and they can deal with you appropriately, since you're clearly not mentally fit for military service.
-
You are literally crazy.
See I can respond with irrelevant comments as well.
As far as these third World countries go, the nuclear myth has brainwashed the leaders of these countries most of whom have been educated in western institutions. Certainly
The atomic hysteria of the late 1940's and 1950's and today is not only propaganda for obvious political purposes. It is an attempt to maintain the Rutherfordian concept of a nuclear atom. At the height of this propaganda in the 1950's, Dewey Larson wrote an expose of the basis of the myth - the idea that atoms are composed of lesser substances called protons, neutrons, and electrons.
The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
by Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
Of course, the nuclear atom is a myth on top of a myth. Atoms themselves do not exist at all. It is a false theory of Pythagoras's students Leucippus which Pythagoras learned from secret sects in India when he visited there in the sixth century BC at the behest of the jews in Babylon to spread the worst heresies of the hindus in the West.
Beast cannot come up with verifiable proof of alleged nuclear explosions since 1945 so he has resorted to name calling and character assasination. In other words, I win.
In the meantime, I am still waiting for verifiable proof or convincing evidence of actual any actual nuclear explosions after 1945. Taking your word or the government's word for it is not good enough.
And you're a US Navy submariner?
I intended to go through all of your posts on this site, so that I can find clues to discover your identity. I will then pass it along to my friends in the US Navy and they can deal with you appropriately, since you're clearly not mentally fit for military service.
Stalking members of this site is unacceptable. I have no choice but to report you to the moderators. Your obsession with 17 november is clearly unhealthy and I do not even want to know what you intend to do once you figure out who he is. You really do need to seek some professional help, and realize your obsession is unhealthy.
-
And you're a US Navy submariner?
I intended to go through all of your posts on this site, so that I can find clues to discover your identity. I will then pass it along to my friends in the US Navy and they can deal with you appropriately, since you're clearly not mentally fit for military service.
Aristarchus, please stop harassing 17. If he wishes his indentity to remain undiscovered, then it shall be left as such. Consider this a warning.
-
And you're a US Navy submariner?
I intend to go through all of your posts on this site, so that I can find clues to discover your identity. I will then pass it along to my friends in the US Navy and they can deal with you appropriately, since you're clearly not mentally fit for military service.
Aristarchus, please stop harassing 17. If he wishes his indentity to remain undiscovered, then it shall be left as such. Consider this a warning.
I will not apologize. It is my duty to report his identity, once uncovered, to the proper authorities in the US Navy, since he is clearly mentally unfit for military service and represents a risk to those that he serves with. Having already talked to some US Navy pals about my concerns, they agree with me that I should make all effort to discover his identity.
-
Aristarchus, please remember that most people who claim that they are or were in the military are just big posers who saw Platoon, Iron Eagle, or Red Oktober one too many times. Why waste any time on internet wusses that couldnt even make it through basic?
-
Enjoy your short vacation. Perhaps you can enjoy a short cruise with your Navy friends.
-
Sry if this has been posted, but I saw it a few days ago and found it pretty interesting. Actually, very interesting. Mostly because I didn't know where Russia did most of their tests, and I didn't know where and how many tests the French and British did. It starts off slow, but wait until the 50's and watch the world start lighting up.
World's history of nuclear detonations (http://)
-
You are too funny. Someone made an interesting graphical representation of all the tests done over the years, and you claim that it does not contain enough detail. That is kind of the point of presentations like that, to boil down the basic information. However, the detail you seek can be found with a 2 second google search.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_tests
-
Aristarchus, please remember that most people who claim that they are or were in the military are just big posers who saw Platoon, Iron Eagle, or Red Oktober one too many times. Why waste any time on internet wusses that couldnt even make it through basic?
I find this ironic, I'd put my money on aristarchus being the troll.
In general the RE'ers claim titles to give themselves authority, while the FE'ers will just admit vague portions of their life (that usually are confirmed later on in one way or another)
-
World's history of nuclear detonations (http://)
Thank you for this. It would be particularly more valuable if accompanied by some annotation giving the locations and exact dates of these tests - in order that they may be investigated as to what really happened and shown to be nothing extraordinary aside from all the hype.
There is a source cited at the end. I think it's something like Sweden's nuclear research organization...or something.
-
Nuclear fission is mythical. It never existed.
And how your saying that "it never existed" makes it to not exist? You realize that you must take all the nuclear physics from the beginnig and start disproving it. Otherwise your words carry no meaning and weight whatsoever.
-
I like how the nay-sayers of nuclear technology basically ignored my post.
-
Nuclear fission is mythical. It never existed.
So, Nuclear Power Stations are in fact secret coal fired ones? Chernobyl? Please explain, I am genuinely intrigued.
-
Nuclear fission is mythical. It never existed.
So, Nuclear Power Stations are in fact secret coal fired ones? Chernobyl? Please explain, I am genuinely intrigued.
No, they are nuclear powered ones. Did you not read the thread? It went boom, made big hole in ground.
-
Nuclear fission is mythical. It never existed.
So, Nuclear Power Stations are in fact secret coal fired ones? Chernobyl? Please explain, I am genuinely intrigued.
No, they are nuclear powered ones. Did you not read the thread? It went boom, made big hole in ground.
Well, obviously they're Nuclear. I was questioning his beliefs. He is clearly either a persistent troll or just a stickler for anything that contains a conspiracy theory.
-
Nuclear fission is mythical. It never existed.
So, Nuclear Power Stations are in fact secret coal fired ones? Chernobyl? Please explain, I am genuinely intrigued.
No, they are nuclear powered ones. Did you not read the thread? It went boom, made big hole in ground.
Well, obviously they're Nuclear. I was questioning his beliefs. He is clearly either a persistent troll or just a stickler for anything that contains a conspiracy theory.
I was stating his beliefs. He says they're powered by uranium or whatever, but they simply do not act because of fission.
-
Thus defeating the point of powering them with uranium.
-
That really doesn't make any sense.
Is there any purpose to denying the existence of such positive technologies? It's completely irrelevant and irrational. You can't even troll with ideas like that, they're just too blatantly stupid.
-
That really doesn't make any sense.
Is there any purpose to denying the existence of such positive technologies? It's completely irrelevant and irrational. You can't even troll with ideas like that, they're just too blatantly stupid.
wut? You are seriously missing the point of this. He is not denying them because they aren't useful or are useful. He is simply saying they do not work. Less drugs plz.
-
Generally whether something works or not is indicative of its usefulness.
-
Generally whether something works or not is indicative of its usefulness.
I was avoiding his use of the word "positive" because it has literally nothing to do with technology. My bad.
-
Also: Chernobyl. What do you make of this? Thousands died, and thousands more are deformed from the radiation that is still in the air around the area and other parts of Eastern Europe? W
I was reading the thread and wanted to debunk that.
There is a paper by Soviet Nuclear Intelligence Officer Dimitri Khalezov
http://www.911-truth.net/Chernobyl_nuclear_disaster_vs_Manhattan_ground_zero.pdf (http://www.911-truth.net/Chernobyl_nuclear_disaster_vs_Manhattan_ground_zero.pdf)
He shows names of who exaggerated it. (Less than 30 people die and there was no radiation anywhere)
He is a very interesting figure, I'm amazed he hasn't been mentioned here yet.
The irony is he talk about layers of truth, several versions, each with more % of truth, but at the last moment lying in a critical aspect to protect a bigger lie.
-
Holy eff, this guy is serious? I thought the "lol nukes dun exest" was bad enough, but then it just went on and on into some crazy downward spiral of looniness.
Goddamn.
-
"Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist"... your lack of understanding a technology does NOT mean that it is not real. ::)
I swear, the intellectual level here is as low as it gets on the internet.
It's like going back to the 3rd grade.
-
"Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist"... your lack of understanding a technology does NOT mean that it is not real. ::)
I swear, the intellectual level here is as low as it gets on the internet.
It's like going back to the 3rd grade.
If you can't read more than half a sentence then please do not make comments on people's intelligence.
-
"Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist"... your lack of understanding a technology does NOT mean that it is not real. ::)
I swear, the intellectual level here is as low as it gets on the internet.
It's like going back to the 3rd grade.
YDEKHAWSYSSAAAIL
(You Don't Even Know How Abbreviation Works So You Shouldn't Say Anything About Anyone's Intelligence Level)
-
Nuclear weapons do exist. Fact.
-
Nuclear weapons do exist. Fact.
Glad we settled that.
-
Glad we settled that.
As am I.
-
Tsar Bomba
-
I think Japan might have something to say about this.
-
Tsar Bomba
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg976242#msg976242
One of the most impressive aspects of Russian propaganda is the reciprocation and cooperation it receives from the americans.
Tsar Bomba.
Do you really think we could fake all of the physical effects of the king of bombs? Hiroshima was like a hand grenade compared to this one
And what about the nuclear fallout?
And all you did was disprove that one video was fake. I never thought this video was real, as A) its so high def, and B) its unnaturally cinematic.
-
omg this site is comedy gold.
-
There's a spot where a nuke actually melted down in McGuire Air Force Base, which is about an hour's drive from my house.
-
There's a spot where a nuke actually melted down in McGuire Air Force Base, which is about an hour's drive from my house.
You should stay away from there, I think it's affecting your brain.
-
There's a spot where a nuke actually melted down in McGuire Air Force Base, which is about an hour's drive from my house.
You should stay away from there, I think it's affecting your brain.
Thanks.
-
omg this site is comedy gold.
.
There's a spot where a nuke actually melted down in McGuire Air Force Base, which is about an hour's drive from my house.
Are you serious? Geez, What happened?
-
omg this site is comedy gold.
.
There's a spot where a nuke actually melted down in McGuire Air Force Base, which is about an hour's drive from my house.
Are you serious? Geez, What happened?
It melted, can't you read.
How exactly does a nuke melt btw?
-
[/quote]
It melted, can't you read.
How exactly does a nuke melt btw?
[/quote]doi, your asking the same question more specifically. I also suppose I wanted to know if it went critical? But obviously if it exploded we would have heard about it by now.
-
It lit on fire. As far as I know, no one was harmed but to this day nobody is allowed near the spot without safety gear.. Here's what Wikipedia says about the incident:
The site at McGuire went operational in 1959 under the NYADS. Within a year of becoming operational, a Bomarc-A with a nuclear warhead caught fire on 7 June 1960 following the explosive rupture of its onboard helium tank. While the missile's explosives didn't detonate the heat melted the warhead, releasing plutonium which the fire crews then spread around. The Air Force and the Atomic Energy Commission cleaned up the site and covered it with concrete; fortunately, this was the only major incident involving the weapons system.
-
Oh okay it was recent.
But wow! That base got pretty lucky then..unless fire cant set one off? I'm not sure.
Neat story though, they probably should've burried it in lead.
-
Oh okay it was recent.
But wow! That base got pretty lucky then..unless fire cant set one off? I'm not sure.
Neat story though, they probably should've burried it in lead.
Almost nothing will set off an atomic bomb without the proper codes being inputted and a proper detonation happening.
-
I actually wish there were no Nuclear Weapons and no atoms, 'cause then the media might actually talk about the human suffering in Japan and not the "Nuclear Crisis".
-
I saw a nuclear weapon. In your face.
-
I actually wish there were no Nuclear Weapons and no atoms, 'cause then the media might actually talk about the human suffering in Japan and not the "Nuclear Crisis".
So you wish not to exist? No atoms = no you. lol
-
I finally typed the whole article into Micrsoft Word and will now post it.
Joy. :-\
-
'SOMETHING NEW- AND EXPLOSIVE'
H. Kingdon
(Sermon, 2/24/1946)
Something new has happened in the world! Not many realize all that it can mean, but most people know that it has happened. I was one of those who was slow in knowing about it at the outset.
Last August was the time for our household’s vacation and for a time we were away from this city though only about 40 miles. But that short distance put us away from our radio and from regular receipt of any newspaper. We did find the morning paper of August 5th which contained what seemed the routine news of the war-ridden world. Then for nearly 4 days we had no further news. You may imagine my utter surprise, then, on learning that during that brief period there had occurred in Japan two bombings the likes of which mankind at large had never before heard.
Out on Tinson island, wrested from the Japanese after the costly conquest of Saipan, the Americans had built probably the greatest airport in the world. Numerous runways two miles long were at length ready for the take-off of hundreds of the great B-29 superfortresses, with their heavy loads of lethal explosives and incendiaries.
The use of the Tinian facilities was built up until perhaps 300 of the giants of the air might be used from there on a single flight of destruction over Japanese cities. Taking off methodically, one every 15 seconds, the great ships roared down the runways and into the air. For more than an hour they continued to go.
In the evening, the first of them returned; and they would keep coming in for more than an hour, about 4 a minute. And the reconnaissance planes later verified their terrible destruction in another Japanese city.
There came a day when a single plane was made ready. Runways were clear; almost no one was around - it doesn’t take a multitude to get one plane ready for the air. Most of the hundreds of flight crew members and ground crewmen were asleep. The single plane, readied and loaded, roared down its runway, lifted at last and disappeared in the direction of the enemy cities.
After its return, reconnaissance planes told the same story they had brought in after the conventional multi-plane attacks. The city of Hiroshima lay in ruin - and only one American plane had flown over it.
American scientists and technologists of many fields, and their colleagues from a few allied nations, had won the international race to split the atom and release some of its unbelievable energy. And that energy had been channeled into a bomb that could and did destroy a large city with one explosion.
Another such bombing 3 days later - this time of the port of Nagasaki - brought the long war to a finish. For the people of Japan found it intolerable.
The great multi-plane bombing raids gave warning by their very numbers. A person could run to shelter. Some few might escape from their path. The brave could endure it somehow. But no one could run from work or sleep every time a single plane appeared in the sky. Nor did there now seem any point in running. If this plane carried one of the terrible new bombs, everything within a radius of miles would be destroyed anyway. And so the hard-pressed military machine of Nippon, and the tottering strength of Japan, capitulated at a nod from its emperor. And the most terrible of earth’s wars to date came to an end.
I suspect that a great many people - far too many - probably a majority of people - think of the atomic bomb as “just another bomb” for which some counter weapon will presently be devised. An article in the February “Reader’s Digest” by Major Alexander P. de Seversky refers to what he calls “Atomic Bomb Hysteria.” He claims that the effect of the bomb has been wildly exaggerated.
Early this month, I heard a lecture in Chicago by Dr. T. R. Hogness, director since 1943 of the chemistry division of the University of Chicago atomic bomb project. Dr. Hogness took sharp issue with de Seversky’s article, pointing out a cool scientific fact that one atomic bomb, such as that dropped over Hiroshima, has more explosive energy than 20,000 tons of TNT. Further than that, the bombs used over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were midgets. Dr. Hogness says that bombs can be built which are a thousand times more destructive than these; bombs which can destroy all of New York City or Greater Chicago in one flash.
And a physicist named Morrison who went to Tinian for the assembly of the bomb, and who visited Hiroshima after the surrender, believes that, while much of the wreckage in Japan burned clear, the damage to an American city would be just as great and its people just as dead, though the ruins might be rubble instead of ashes.
Now an arresting fact, in connection with this new scientific discovery, is that scientists, not just one or two, but many - seem frightened! For many years, through several generations, the scientist has tended to go about his discovery and application of natural truth with cool and undisturbed attitude. Truth is truth, an end in itself. The knowledge of truth would tend to make people free, to improve their life. There was a steady tendency in evolution to better and better life, as science uncovered more and more facts. The discoveries of science were announced with natural pride as benefits and blessing to mankind.
Now comes the momentous announcement that an ultimate source of cosmic power has been penetrated and that the power is available for human use - has already been used for destruction. And a shudder of anxiety has swept through the learned world. Many scientists are obviously worried. In general, that is a new mood for science! No other achievement of science has ever created anything like the general mood, with which atomic fission has been greeted.
Dr. Hogness believes that fear of the bomb, if no other motive will do it, will compel the nations of the world to live at peace with each other. He believes that there is no safety in secrecy. The greatest secret of the bomb project is that the bomb works! Every nation on earth now knows that it can be done!
Other nations lack what ours has for the time being - namely the “know-how.” But the fundamental scientific principles are known, and the scientists of any nation can develop the “know-how” in comparatively few years.
It doesn’t take great maturity of experience. Young men can do it -- have done it! 60% of the technical men on the University of Chicago atomic bomb project were under 30 years of age; 80% under 35, and 90% under 40! They were inexperienced in years, and yet they did the job. “Doesn’t it seem,” comments Dr. Hogness, “that Russia, or any scientifically developed country could repeat our program?”
Then he goes on with a summary of the situation as some scientists see it. The bomb is a reality. It has been used and it continues to be manufactured. There is no defense against it except to destroy its carrier. And that possibility has been so vastly reduced as to make this move nearly impossible. It could be dispatched by rocket. It might be “planted” before hostilities and detonated later by remote control.
In an armaments race a saturation point would be reached. Even if 2,000 such bombs were made, they wouldn’t be needed, for 1,000 would be enough to destroy a nation. So a small unscrupulous country could become as strong a threat as we, with all our size and strength.
The bomb is (1) frightful beyond imagination and much more powerful bombs are in the offing; (2) there is no secret that can be kept longer than a very few years, and thereby bring security from attack. And (3) there is no military defensive measure known, or in sight. So says a reputable scientist, and others agree with him. A new and truly terrible explosive has appeared.
A matter to disturb the scientists further is the attitude of military and political leaders. Military leaders seem bent on continuing manufacture of the bombs, though the scientists who have made the bombs are sure this brings no security. Enlisted men have been forbidden to attend meetings of the scientists, though scientists are desperately anxious for as wide a hearing as possible by all sorts of intelligent people.
The scientists are genuinely interested in the various solutions to the perilous problem of atomic control. (1) One suggestion offered is that the USA should immediately conquer the rest of the world and dictate the world order from now on. Specifically this would probably mean conquest of Russia, and thereafter all other nations would submit. But American people would never submit to the idea, nor to the dictatorship necessary to attempt such a feat. We don’t as a people believe in that kind of move; our nation has fought a war in opposition to that very kind of thing. We shall have a difficult time living up to our present commitments at policing, let alone undertaking any more.
(2) Another solution is to work through the present United Nations Organization despite its weakness in the lack of legislative ability. This puts a heavy burden on the necessity of international agreement; and the strong nations are too near a semi-dictatorial position in the UNO.
(3) A third solution offered is the proposed formation of a world federation immediately.
Dr. Hogness thinks that probably the best hope is to work through the UNO, remembering that American relations with Russia constitute the key to any hope or success. Here he points to the Anglo-American bomb alliance and the probable interpretation by Russia, that this is directed against herself. Then he says, “I fear the possible results of continued aggravation of a proud people. Russia can afford to wait the few years necessary to develop a bomb of her own. Present indications are that she is now acting in accordance with such a policy.” It can be pursued safely, because the USA is not an aggressor nation, nor likely to be.
Something new - something highly explosive - has happened! And the scientists are worried - fearful!
Mark this carefully; they are not afraid of atomic fission! They have already done a tremendous amount of work, accepting all of its dangers, including an unknown amount of radioactivity, as “hazards of the job.”
But they are afraid of people -- of man himself; afraid that man has by no means the character to handle this new knowledge for good; afraid that he now has in his grasp the power of complete self-destruction - the destruction of civilization, or mankind, of all life; even conceivably a power that could set off the destruction of this planet!
The doctrines of sin and depravity, discussed by theologians for generations are now desperately vivid to scientists! The talk of the “end of the world” which has been gradually put aside since the days of the apostles is now recalled with wonder, and some apprehension.
Now this is not new. For centuries, man has thought of the possibility that this world, or this kind of world, might be brought to an end - gradually or suddenly. Now man is abruptly confronted with the possibility that it might happen effectually in this generation! This is relatively new to modern minds. Though not conclusive, it at least seems a sober possibility and thoughtful people are sobered by it.
“The believer in Providence is not confronted with anything new in principle,” says Dr. Ernest Fremont Tuttle of Evanston. “The new idea is not that of a last generation; but that ours could be the last generation.”
Such a threat appears not as a result of scientific knowledge but of man’s sin! As Christians, we can accept the fact, now at last scientifically confirmed, that we live in a precarious world. Our Christian religion has always proclaimed this to us. Our security can be found only by walking humbly before God!
The path before the faithful is the same as before, in (1) trust of God; in (2) the practice from the heart of brotherhood under the Father; in (3) faith that the eternal God and the destiny of his own soul do not depend on our finite world, but God himself.
It is time for the Christian in name to be Christian in fact more urgently and more surely than ever before!
-
Also, this may have been asked before, but how do you explain the shadows?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gX5CJPJPRP8/TadtI9XL7UI/AAAAAAAABMs/bQMj4cMvEkc/s320/hiroshima-shadow-2.png)
-
Also, this may have been asked before, but how do you explain the shadows?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-gX5CJPJPRP8/TadtI9XL7UI/AAAAAAAABMs/bQMj4cMvEkc/s320/hiroshima-shadow-2.png)
It was discussed on the first page of the thread. The verdict was that the photo is fake.
-
I haven't searched the thread to see if you answered this question: Why do you want them to be fake?
-
I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? Let me put it in a more civil tone:
Please have a psychological evaluation.
-
This should tell you all you need to know about 17 here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Organization_17_November
-
He'll definitely end up on the news one day. Shot some place up then turned the gun on himself. Seriously dude, see a doctor.
-
He'll definitely end up on the news one day. Shot some place up then turned the gun on himself. Seriously dude, see a doctor.
1. Stop being insulting. It doesn't make you look any smarter.
2. No he won't. You don't seem to understand that most people here aren't like this in real life.
All the forum's a stage and all the men and women on it merely players: They have their logouts and logins; And one user in his time plays many parts.
-
He'll definitely end up on the news one day. Shot some place up then turned the gun on himself. Seriously dude, see a doctor.
1. Stop being insulting. It doesn't make you look any smarter.
2. No he won't. You don't seem to understand that most people here aren't like this in real life.
All the forum's a stage and all the men and women on it merely players: They have their logouts and logins; And one user in his time plays many parts.
I was being dead serious.
You don't seem to understand that most people on forums are exactly like they are in real life, even if just on the inside.
-
Also a forum is real. Just because it's words on a screen doesn't mean a real person didn't type them. Don't discount a form of communication just because it's not face to face. There are people who troll yes, but they are easy to spot. And even they are really trolling, it's not imaginary.
-
He'll definitely end up on the news one day. Shot some place up then turned the gun on himself. Seriously dude, see a doctor.
1. Stop being insulting. It doesn't make you look any smarter.
2. No he won't. You don't seem to understand that most people here aren't like this in real life.
All the forum's a stage and all the men and women on it merely players: They have their logouts and logins; And one user in his time plays many parts.
I was being dead serious.
You don't seem to understand that most people on forums are exactly like they are in real life, even if just on the inside.
Also a forum is real. Just because it's words on a screen doesn't mean a real person didn't type them. Don't discount a form of communication just because it's not face to face. There are people who troll yes, but they are easy to spot. And even they are really trolling, it's not imaginary.
What YOU don't seem to understand is where you are or the people here. Many are as they appear in real life, true, but some love to pretend. And the trolls are not as easy to spot as you may think. Not all of them anyway.
17November isn't going to off himself in real life nor will he go on a violent rampage. Notice how he hasn't yelled or insulted you yet? Notice how he's been calm and rational, even if he's wrong? He knows how to play his character and he plays it well. You, on the other hand, are becoming angry and insulting. And that's what makes him smile.
-
He'll definitely end up on the news one day. Shot some place up then turned the gun on himself. Seriously dude, see a doctor.
1. Stop being insulting. It doesn't make you look any smarter.
2. No he won't. You don't seem to understand that most people here aren't like this in real life.
All the forum's a stage and all the men and women on it merely players: They have their logouts and logins; And one user in his time plays many parts.
I was being dead serious.
You don't seem to understand that most people on forums are exactly like they are in real life, even if just on the inside.
Also a forum is real. Just because it's words on a screen doesn't mean a real person didn't type them. Don't discount a form of communication just because it's not face to face. There are people who troll yes, but they are easy to spot. And even they are really trolling, it's not imaginary.
What YOU don't seem to understand is where you are or the people here. Many are as they appear in real life, true, but some love to pretend. And the trolls are not as easy to spot as you may think. Not all of them anyway.
17November isn't going to off himself in real life nor will he go on a violent rampage. Notice how he hasn't yelled or insulted you yet? Notice how he's been calm and rational, even if he's wrong? He knows how to play his character and he plays it well. You, on the other hand, are becoming angry and insulting. And that's what makes him smile.
Well thanks for lesson in how FES works. I'm glad to have you around with your 21 months of experience.
-
I would love to think like you, dave. Where I would be 100% sure that people like 17 don't really exist and are all just trolling. However, people like him do exist, they do believe some very crazy ideals, and they have the potential to become very violent. Do I think 17 will end up murdering people? No. Do I think that is a real possibility? Yes.
-
Well thanks for lesson in how FES works. I'm glad to have you around with your 21 months of experience.
And yet I seem to know more about 17November than you. Interesting isn't it?
I would love to think like you, dave. Where I would be 100% sure that people like 17 don't really exist and are all just trolling. However, people like him do exist, they do believe some very crazy ideals, and they have the potential to become very violent. Do I think 17 will end up murdering people? No. Do I think that is a real possibility? Yes.
I didn't say people like that don't exist. I just said he's not one of them.
-
Well thanks for lesson in how FES works. I'm glad to have you around with your 21 months of experience.
And yet I seem to know more about 17November than you. Interesting isn't it?
I would love to think like you, dave. Where I would be 100% sure that people like 17 don't really exist and are all just trolling. However, people like him do exist, they do believe some very crazy ideals, and they have the potential to become very violent. Do I think 17 will end up murdering people? No. Do I think that is a real possibility? Yes.
I didn't say people like that don't exist. I just said he's not one of them.
So what seperates him out as a troll? At what point does real belief meet trolling?
Nevermind dave, I know why...
I believe that subterranean dragons are the source of terrestrial volcanoes, and submarine dragons (i.e. sea serpents) are the source of underwater volcanoes.
Yeah, hes a troll.
-
Well thanks for lesson in how FES works. I'm glad to have you around with your 21 months of experience.
And yet I seem to know more about 17November than you. Interesting isn't it?
No you don't get it at all. I remember 17 November quite well. Look, I even have a post on page 5. This guy is a genuine whacko.
-
Well thanks for lesson in how FES works. I'm glad to have you around with your 21 months of experience.
And yet I seem to know more about 17November than you. Interesting isn't it?
No you don't get it at all. I remember 17 November quite well. Look, I even have a post on page 5. This guy is a genuine whacko.
Why?
What evidence do you have beyond this forum?
-
I know it might not seem like it but unlike some people on here I don't enjoy arguing for the sake of it.
-
I know it might not seem like it but unlike some people on here I don't enjoy arguing for the sake of it.
Then why are you here?
-
I know it might not seem like it but unlike some people on here I don't enjoy arguing for the sake of it.
Then why are you here?
Because you touch yourself at night.
-
I know it might not seem like it but unlike some people on here I don't enjoy arguing for the sake of it.
Then why are you here?
Because you touch yourself at night.
I touch myself during the day too.
In bed and on the train.
In the sun and in the rain.
When it's cold and when it's hot.
I seem to touch myself a lot.
But I would think you would too. After all, you do shower right?
-
Only the golden variety
-
Only the golden variety
I see.
Well, lime juice isn't a good way to shower. I recommend water and soap. Maybe even some shampoo if you're feeling adventurous.
-
I'm always feeling adventurous. That's what I call it by the way.
-
Then adventure onward and leave this stale site behind. It and you have seen many days and nights together and neither holds surprises.
-
Then adventure onward and leave this stale site behind. It and you have seen many days and nights together and neither holds surprises.
Au contraire, you humans never cease to surprise me.
-
And you missed my penis joke.
-
Then adventure onward and leave this stale site behind. It and you have seen many days and nights together and neither holds surprises.
Au contraire, you humans never cease to surprise me.
But we are not humans. We are constructs of ideas presented on a computer screen.
And you missed my penis joke.
No, I dodged it. Big difference.
-
If dragons do exist I'll be sure to ally myself with them as soon as possible.
-
I believe that subterranean dragons are the source of terrestrial volcanoes, and submarine dragons (i.e. sea serpents) are the source of underwater volcanoes.
Yeah, hes a troll.
Wrong, and I meant what I said when I posted that.
'Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents, and Other Denizens of the Deep'
By Loren Coleman
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Monsters-Serpents-Mystery-Denizensof/dp/1585422525
'In the Wake of the Sea Serpents'
By Bernard Heuvelmans
http://www.amazon.com/Wake-Sea-Serpents-Bernard-Heuvelmans/dp/0809058146/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324776835&sr=1-1
Dragons are real. They have been very well documented in the Bible and other ancient sources as well as modern times.
The fact that you have the faith of a loser changes nothing aside from the entrenchment of your own delusion.
Why are they so well documented yet have never been capture or even photographed?
And don't say it's because science won't let them because we all know that science does add cryptids in when they find them.
Also:
If I start WW3 and Greece is nuked while you're in it, will you believe nuclear weapons exist?
-
I believe that subterranean dragons are the source of terrestrial volcanoes, and submarine dragons (i.e. sea serpents) are the source of underwater volcanoes.
Yeah, hes a troll.
Wrong, and I meant what I said when I posted that.
'Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents, and Other Denizens of the Deep'
By Loren Coleman
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Monsters-Serpents-Mystery-Denizensof/dp/1585422525
'In the Wake of the Sea Serpents'
By Bernard Heuvelmans
http://www.amazon.com/Wake-Sea-Serpents-Bernard-Heuvelmans/dp/0809058146/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324776835&sr=1-1
Dragons are real. They have been very well documented in the Bible and other ancient sources as well as modern times.
The fact that you have the faith of a loser changes nothing aside from the entrenchment of your own delusion.
Why are they so well documented yet have never been capture or even photographed?
And don't say it's because science won't let them because we all know that science does add cryptids in when they find them.
Also:
If I start WW3 and Greece is nuked while you're in it, will you believe nuclear weapons exist?
I don't think he'd believe much of anything at that point.
-
I believe that subterranean dragons are the source of terrestrial volcanoes, and submarine dragons (i.e. sea serpents) are the source of underwater volcanoes.
Yeah, hes a troll.
Wrong, and I meant what I said when I posted that.
'Field Guide to Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents, and Other Denizens of the Deep'
By Loren Coleman
http://www.amazon.com/Field-Monsters-Serpents-Mystery-Denizensof/dp/1585422525
'In the Wake of the Sea Serpents'
By Bernard Heuvelmans
http://www.amazon.com/Wake-Sea-Serpents-Bernard-Heuvelmans/dp/0809058146/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324776835&sr=1-1
Dragons are real. They have been very well documented in the Bible and other ancient sources as well as modern times.
The fact that you have the faith of a loser changes nothing aside from the entrenchment of your own delusion.
Why are they so well documented yet have never been capture or even photographed?
And don't say it's because science won't let them because we all know that science does add cryptids in when they find them.
Also:
If I start WW3 and Greece is nuked while you're in it, will you believe nuclear weapons exist?
I don't think he'd believe much of anything at that point.
He would if there is an afterlife.
-
I did not think such a thread exists.
I have long suspected and was convinced there was no such thing as "atomic weapons". They are fiction, and utter fluffery. Just like USSR's "Ivan" bomb that would remain on a ship and would destroy the entire world if USSR was destroyed by these so called "atomic weapons", which don't even exist.
If atomic weapons were ever real, or could be real, Hitler would have kept all those idiot scientists who suggested this theory, instead of throwing them out of the Third Reich.
Then used those "bombs" to destroy London, remove Britain out of the war, destroy USSR's massive industrial factories, that made all those tanks in WW2, and conquered most of Eurasia, in less than a year.
Since that did not happen, it's obvious there is no such thing as bombs stronger than common mines. Or at best, the siege cannons that germans moved by train rails. Those are obviously true, and they can be fired at any time, against any target within it's range. With clear visible effects. Same as the V1 and V2 rockets, which I assume are harder to fake, since they apparently did some damage in England?
Clearly those silly drawings of Nagawaki or Fapan, are made up. They have absolutely no crater. No animals suffering from so called "radiation". Just like the wild nature and animals in Chernobyl that are utterly unaffected by any of this. So nuclear plants are not harmful, they're not even capable of killing someone or nature around them, in a worst case disaster. They just heat up and melt things around, exactly like a volcano. Big deal.
But that's it. There's no radiations. Except maybe concentrated radio waves, like EMP's which I suspect are real. But they just short out every sensitive electrical pulse from a certain range. Again, not really a weapon of mass destruction.
If it were, the US would have destroyed every enemy in the world by now. Vietnam, Korea, Russia, you name it. They would be history by now. None of them were destroyed. The US fears them so much, they were forced to make up a fictional "Evil Bomb" that supposedly .... does nothing. And some countries are stupid enough to fear those lies. Idiots.
Of course those bombs are impossible. They have never existed. Nor will they ever.
Unless of course, one of you "believers" or "Atomic Thumpers" are packing, and have an atomic bombs in a suitcase. In which case let's take a short trip to New York or Washington, and I'll be there with you on ground zero, when you plant it.
Then we'll safely sail to Ellis Island, and "watch the fireworks" as we sail back to Europe. Yaaaaaay !! Since that will never happen, because these bombs do not exist, I am saddened to say New York and the White House are there to stay.
Drat !!
-
I did not think such a thread exists.
I have long suspected and was convinced there was no such thing as "atomic weapons". They are fiction, and utter fluffery. Just like USSR's "Ivan" bomb that would remain on a ship and would destroy the entire world if USSR was destroyed by these so called "atomic weapons", which don't even exist.
If atomic weapons were ever real, or could be real, Hitler would have kept all those idiot scientists who suggested this theory, instead of throwing them out of the Third Reich.
Then used those "bombs" to destroy London, remove Britain out of the war, destroy USSR's massive industrial factories, that made all those tanks in WW2, and conquered most of Eurasia, in less than a year.
Since that did not happen, it's obvious there is no such thing as bombs stronger than common mines. Or at best, the siege cannons that germans moved by train rails. Those are obviously true, and they can be fired at any time, against any target within it's range. With clear visible effects. Same as the V1 and V2 rockets, which I assume are harder to fake, since they apparently did some damage in England?
Clearly those silly drawings of Nagawaki or Fapan, are made up. They have absolutely no crater. No animals suffering from so called "radiation". Just like the wild nature and animals in Chernobyl that are utterly unaffected by any of this. So nuclear plants are not harmful, they're not even capable of killing someone or nature around them, in a worst case disaster. They just heat up and melt things around, exactly like a volcano. Big deal.
But that's it. There's no radiations. Except maybe concentrated radio waves, like EMP's which I suspect are real. But they just short out every sensitive electrical pulse from a certain range. Again, not really a weapon of mass destruction.
If it were, the US would have destroyed every enemy in the world by now. Vietnam, Korea, Russia, you name it. They would be history by now. None of them were destroyed. The US fears them so much, they were forced to make up a fictional "Evil Bomb" that supposedly .... does nothing. And some countries are stupid enough to fear those lies. Idiots.
Of course those bombs are impossible. They have never existed. Nor will they ever.
Unless of course, one of you "believers" or "Atomic Thumpers" are packing, and have an atomic bombs in a suitcase. In which case let's take a short trip to New York or Washington, and I'll be there with you on ground zero, when you plant it.
Then we'll safely sail to Ellis Island, and "watch the fireworks" as we sail back to Europe. Yaaaaaay !! Since that will never happen, because these bombs do not exist, I am saddened to say New York and the White House are there to stay.
Drat !!
Reported for terrorism.
-
Reported for terrorism.
You reported America for terrorism?
Great, I can't wait to see them locked up. HAHAHAHAHA
-
Reported for terrorism.
You reported America for terrorism?
Great, I can't wait to see them locked up. HAHAHAHAHA
Your IP has been sent to homeland security as well as your post. I have also given them your email and all other pertinent information.
Have a great day.
-
Of course those bombs are impossible. They have never existed. Nor will they ever.
Thank you for this post.
I am still waiting for the bombs they claimed Saddam Hussein had - let alone the United States itself.
Why are you waiting for bombs from Iraq when it was already learned that the intelligence was wrong?
As for the US:
Well, would you like us to use them to prove they exist? Or is there a country, like Iran, whom you trust to provide that information?
-
Nuclear fission is just a conspiracy.
-
Why are you waiting for bombs from Iraq when it was already learned that the intelligence was wrong?
As for the US:
Well, would you like us to use them to prove they exist? Or is there a country, like Iran, whom you trust to provide that information?
Convince Homeland Suckurity to send all their A-Bomb at my location. Fortunately Raist already gave them my IP and all perky infomercials.
I'd love to see how a bunch of fireworks land in my neighbourhood on Christmas and New Year's Eve. Although I fear for the lone wolf who is hiding in the middle of my city.
No one else has heard that wolf, except me. At the late late hours of night, in the darkest of darkest, it howls. Sorrow filled the wolf howled, yet no wolf answered.
I suspect it has found it's way here, from the Serbian realm, after crossing the frozen Danube, or swimming here. How it manages to hide in such a massive busy city, is fascinating. I hope it doesn't get scared away because of the fireworks now.
Poor wolf. Fortunately most of the people in my city are idiots. They would just confuse it with a dog, if they saw it, and no one could realise it's a wolf. Even if they heard it howl, or if it ate their face. Tragic.
-
Nuclear fission is just a conspiracy.
Excuse me, are you speaking to a Chernobyl baby right now? I don't see myself growing tentacles, extra eyes, cancer, or any unusual signs of exposure to radioactivity.
The russians used to mine some radioactiv metal, like uranium or plutonium from a mountain village few hundred miles from my city, and the peasants there have lived for decades with the unclosed mines near and around their village. Despite the radiations they are still normal people.
When those metals are overused, they just heat up. Concrete tends to melt around them. Just like gunpowder only very slow in it's reaction. So it needs large rivers like the Danube to cool down it's metal cores.
Again, none of this sounds deadly or dangerous or what ever you have grown up worshiping, fearing and loving at the same time.
Cold fission also exists, and it's a good source of Zero Point "energy". Perfectly harmless, of course.
You're like one of those people in old villages that look like Dracula movies who live in eternal darkness and mists, fearing Frankenstein, crucifying witches every forthnight, and keeping chicken feet amulets on your hut, to ward off the evil spirits.
Frankenstein isn't real either. Neither are cursed mummies. Swamp monsters on the other hand ... I hope are real. Just like forest people.
-
Can you provide the name of this peasant village? Or perhaps the city name you speak of? An exact location of the mine would also be helpful.
Also, can you describe in detail cold fusion? I would like to run my house on zero point energy.
And finally: where do you think the heat comes from with regards to Uranium and plutonium?
-
Dave, he said cold fission. Which quite frankly is hilarious.
-
Can you provide the name of this peasant village? Or perhaps the city name you speak of? An exact location of the mine would also be helpful.
Also, can you describe in detail cold fusion? I would like to run my house on zero point energy.
And finally: where do you think the heat comes from with regards to Uranium and plutonium?
Outside sources, they just store it better.
I would but being apart of the FET conspiracy I am forbidden from helping the world achieve "Great Success".
Sure, if you travel to my country, I will personally escort you to the village, where the russians mined some radioactive metal, and left the mines unsealed. You will see no one there died, or grew wings.
They're fine. The name cannot be translated into English. It's native European name. It's general translation is something like "The Red One", only female.
Basically the suffix of the name has a female termination, which red or one, simply do not. So telling you the name would just look like a bunch of stupid letters.
But I can say it's in the Carpathian mountains, possibly in Transilvania, if I recall well. Between gold mines, which appear in the same mountain and even the romans mined it, and left their galleries there.
-
That would be because Uranium in and of itself is harmless. It is only the isotope that is harmful. So unless there was an exposed centrifuge next door, your account is not surprising.
-
That would be because Uranium in and of itself is harmless. It is only the isotope that is harmful. So unless there was an exposed centrifuge next door, your account is not surprising.
All uranium is radioactive. At natural concentrations it would be harmless, however at unnatural amounts (i.e. a mine) it could cause a great amount of health concerns. I don't understand why you thought that, or why you took silverdane seriously.
-
Can you provide the name of this peasant village? Or perhaps the city name you speak of? An exact location of the mine would also be helpful.
Also, can you describe in detail cold fusion? I would like to run my house on zero point energy.
And finally: where do you think the heat comes from with regards to Uranium and plutonium?
Outside sources, they just store it better.
I would but being apart of the FET conspiracy I am forbidden from helping the world achieve "Great Success".
Sure, if you travel to my country, I will personally escort you to the village, where the russians mined some radioactive metal, and left the mines unsealed. You will see no one there died, or grew wings.
Nobody dies there? That is the most amazing thing I've ever heard. Uranium is the cure for death, but only the non radioactive isotopes according to hazbollah.
-
Uranium is the cure for death, but only the non radioactive isotopes
What a shame.
-
Can you provide the name of this peasant village? Or perhaps the city name you speak of? An exact location of the mine would also be helpful.
Also, can you describe in detail cold fusion? I would like to run my house on zero point energy.
And finally: where do you think the heat comes from with regards to Uranium and plutonium?
Outside sources, they just store it better.
So it is deadly. Gotcha.
I would but being apart of the FET conspiracy I am forbidden from helping the world achieve "Great Success".
You do not seem to understand TFES.
Sure, if you travel to my country, I will personally escort you to the village, where the russians mined some radioactive metal, and left the mines unsealed. You will see no one there died, or grew wings.
They're fine. The name cannot be translated into English. It's native European name. It's general translation is something like "The Red One", only female.
Basically the suffix of the name has a female termination, which red or one, simply do not. So telling you the name would just look like a bunch of stupid letters.
But I can say it's in the Carpathian mountains, possibly in Transilvania, if I recall well. Between gold mines, which appear in the same mountain and even the romans mined it, and left their galleries there.
You say "my country" without naming the country. You also seem to be unsure of it's location yet say you can take me there.
Also, why would I need the English name? It will not be labeled as such on a map would it? Please give me the original language name.
And why would anyone grow wings from radiation?
Also:
How is it that no one died in that village? Surely the elderly died of natural causes? Or maybe the mine had an accident and someone was killed by falling rocks or poison gas? Or is the village full of immortals?
-
Dave, I'm not sure if you know, but Silverdane was banned a few days ago.
-
Dave, I'm not sure if you know, but Silverdane was banned a few days ago.
I did not. Why was he banned? And is it a perma ban?
-
Dave, I'm not sure if you know, but Silverdane was banned a few days ago.
I did not. Why was he banned? And is it a perma ban?
Why was he banned, haha good one. Silverdane is probably from the Balkans, somewhere.
-
Sure, if you travel to my country, I will personally escort you to the village, where the russians mined some radioactive metal, and left the mines unsealed. You will see no one there died, or grew wings.
The village of which you speak sounds like it is located in Romania.
I have definitely noticed a tendency among eastern euopeans to see through the transparency of myths fabricated by news media.
Thank you for the posts, Mr. Silverdane.
Except when they say something you don't like.
Dave, I'm not sure if you know, but Silverdane was banned a few days ago.
I did not. Why was he banned? And is it a perma ban?
Why was he banned, haha good one. Silverdane is probably from the Balkans, somewhere.
I don't keep up with his posts so I really don't know.
-
I think silverdane was banned for personal attacks in upper fora, roundy said in another post somewhere.
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
Just for the sake of argument.
If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?
If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
Just for the sake of argument.
If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?
If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.
There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
Just for the sake of argument.
If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?
If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.
There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.
Einstein would disagree with this sentence.
Just saying.
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
Just for the sake of argument.
If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?
If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.
There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.
Einstein would disagree with this sentence.
Just saying.
His relativity never meant that mass could ever be converted straight into energy. The only energy released is the energy bonding the nucleus together. Which does not generate enough for a weapon.
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
Just for the sake of argument.
If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?
If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.
There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.
Einstein would disagree with this sentence.
Just saying.
His relativity never meant that mass could ever be converted straight into energy. The only energy released is the energy bonding the nucleus together. Which does not generate enough for a weapon.
Yes it does o.0
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
Just for the sake of argument.
If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?
If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.
There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.
Einstein would disagree with this sentence.
Just saying.
His relativity never meant that mass could ever be converted straight into energy. The only energy released is the energy bonding the nucleus together. Which does not generate enough for a weapon.
Yes it does o.0
Nope.
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
Just for the sake of argument.
If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?
If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.
There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.
Einstein would disagree with this sentence.
Just saying.
His relativity never meant that mass could ever be converted straight into energy. The only energy released is the energy bonding the nucleus together. Which does not generate enough for a weapon.
Yes it does o.0
Nope.
Can you prove it doesn't?
You can check it here a few details about nuclear fission http://chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-09.html
Scientists know there is a 10% conversion rate of energy, they know how much mass you need of uranium. I mean, they know everything.
If you say it is false you have to be able to prove it, or you are just assuming is false by your own bias.
-
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
17N doesn't believe that nuclear fission is fake, he just doesn't think it can create a single large bomb. Since heating water and blowing up cities take quite a different amount of energy, attacking his argument from this angle won't work.
Just for the sake of argument.
If nuclear fission does exist and the technology to harvest exists, what would stop us from making a bomb?
If there is one thing I believe, is the human capability of doing harm to others.
There simply isn't enough energy created by fission to create a bomb.
Einstein would disagree with this sentence.
Just saying.
His relativity never meant that mass could ever be converted straight into energy. The only energy released is the energy bonding the nucleus together. Which does not generate enough for a weapon.
Yes it does o.0
Nope.
Can you prove it doesn't?
You can check it here a few details about nuclear fission http://chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-09.html
Scientists know there is a 10% conversion rate of energy, they know how much mass you need of uranium. I mean, they know everything.
If you say it is false you have to be able to prove it, or you are just assuming is false by your own bias.
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.
-
ha
The conspiracy card =)
-
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.
The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.
-
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.
The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.
Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.
-
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.
The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.
Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.
Devil's advocate. We've already met the dumbass quota for the year.
-
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.
The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.
Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.
Devil's advocate. We've already met the dumbass quota for the year.
You mean 2013?
-
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.
The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.
Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.
Devil's advocate. We've already met the dumbass quota for the year.
You mean 2013?
It was doubled this year to account for low productivity after December 21st.
-
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.
The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.
Devil's advocates or dumbasses? I can do both.
Devil's advocate. We've already met the dumbass quota for the year.
You mean 2013?
It was doubled this year to account for low productivity after December 21st.
Ahhh.
Well we'll if the world ends this year, I guess all the surplus will go to waste.
-
The idea that nuclear weapons do not exist is kind of offensive to all the poor Japanese that died in those two explosions. . .
-
The idea that nuclear weapons do not exist is kind of offensive to all the poor Japanese that died in those two explosions. . .
Why? They will be dead regardless.
-
So if a child is killed by getting pushed off a cliff and people tell you that he was mauled by goats... is it disrespectful to the child to research the situation and allude to the fact he might have been pushed off a cliff when the evidence suggests that?
I don't think so. No one is saying the Japanese did not die or weren't murdered. They are claiming that it was not done by nuclear weapons. Just as Holocaust revisionists aren't denying people being murdered in WWII they are simply denying the official story which is not disrespect at all. In fact, it is an honor that people care enough to find out the truth about past atrocities.
What's disrespectful in my opinion is all the people that could give a shit less about the terror that we as a people are experiencing throughout the world and the degeneration of our morals, values and way of life. What's despicable is everyone that mindlessly chases money, material wealth and not think at all about the future of our world.
We have to know where we came from to get where we are going.
-
So saying they were killed by conventional bombs instead of atomic bombs is offensive?
-
So saying they were killed by conventional bombs instead of atomic bombs is offensive?
iWitness was agreeing with you (Perhaps you didn't read his entire post?), unless you were just compiling this with your original post. In that case you should have simply edited it.
-
So saying they were killed by conventional bombs instead of atomic bombs is offensive?
Lying about the way that someone was killed is in fact disrespectful. Not to mention you seem to be forgetting that those who died were not the only victims. Cancer, dis-figuration, and the fact that we sent doctors to observe and not help are all things that we NEED to remember, because if we forget them it is the same as implying they are insignificant. The trauma and the horror witnessed by those in the region is not equal to that of conventional bombing, and suggesting it is is in my mind disrespectful.
-
So you believe Lying is Disrespectful? Me too. At least we can agree on something :P
-
Has anyone come up with a response to my laid out explanation of why 'nuclear weapons being fake' is in fact politically impossible?
-
Has anyone come up with a response to my laid out explanation of why 'nuclear weapons being fake' is in fact politically impossible?
I read your post and you make some good points, but have you ever heard of the idea of Zionism and how it played a role in the Bolshevik revolution which overthrew the Romanov Christian monarchy to establish Communism in Russia? It's a popular idea out there whether or not it is true.
Also, To say that Conspiracies do not exist is simply ignorant and none of the World leaders seem afraid of a Nuclear Armageddon. They appear to be starting conflicts left and right begging the world to riot and kill each other. War is the only time where you can bomb cities and destroy civilizations and maybe get away with it. If the world is in total chaos then you could easily Ooops! Fire a rocket at a target or drop 100's of M-69 Clusterbombs whatever your thing is I don't know.
I am no anti-semite or Jew hater like that even means anything. Jewish people talk about killing Muslims and Christians all the time. All I am doing is talking about events. I think we are all brothers and sisters and creatures with purpose. No man-made Temple could ever be more holy than Creation.
A little off topic, but I'll try to tie it all together. The 3rd temple is a Spiritual temple that Jesus led ALL of Man to when he Died on the Cross. It is symbolic of the Curtain tearing in the temple after he died.
Ephesians 2:14
"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;"
The first Christians were Jews who recognized Jesus as the Prophesied Messiah. The reason that John had Revelations is because he knew there were some who rejected Christ and ultimately Truth.
Revelations 3:9
I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
-
I read your post and you make some good points, but have you ever heard of the idea of Zionism and how it played a role in the Bolshevik revolution which overthrew the Romanov Christian monarchy to establish Communism in Russia? It's a popular idea out there whether or not it is true.
Yes, but that's not related to what I'm talking about. I could hardly care less about supposed Zionist plots. Especially when the results didn't favor them at all.
Also, To say that Conspiracies do not exist is simply ignorant and none of the World leaders seem afraid of a Nuclear Armageddon. They appear to be starting conflicts left and right begging the world to riot and kill each other. War is the only time where you can bomb cities and destroy civilizations and maybe get away with it. If the world is in total chaos then you could easily Ooops! Fire a rocket at a target or drop 100's of M-69 Clusterbombs whatever your thing is I don't know.
Prove it. I say they are afraid due to them making a big deal about radical regimes acquiring nuclear weapons and the intensive efforts made to prevent, prepare for, and survive the use of nuclear weaponry.
The fact there are widespread conflicts has nothing to due with whether or not the nonexistence of nuclear weapons is politically impossible. We have a long history of where the supposed first possessors of nuclear weaponry have had to gone to extreme lengths to control their spread, set up defensive measures against them and then later worry about rouge states getting them. Why continue the charade when it will only cause further harm to the instigators?
Indeed, if the Russians knew it was fake (thanks to them being in a position to know), why did they not expose us? They felt the need to join a conspiracy that would cost them billions of dollars to be apart of, just for the hell of it?
-
If its a lie to keep Iran down, why is Iran not dismissing the existence of nuclear weapons? Why did North Korea not dismiss it?
-
If its a lie to keep Iran down, why is Iran not dismissing the existence of nuclear weapons? Why did North Korea not dismiss it?
You really think a country would try the politcal move of "we tried to research nuclear weapons but its turns out they're fake"?
-
If its a lie to keep Iran down, why is Iran not dismissing the existence of nuclear weapons? Why did North Korea not dismiss it?
Fidel Castro who does believe in the existence of nuclear weapons asserted that his sovereign country has every right that the US does to posess such alleged weapons.
Iran and North Korea do deny the existence of nuclear weapons in their own countries.
I do not presently recall either of these verbally accepting the existence of nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the United States. In the event that the leaders of Iran or North Korea do believe in such weapons, then a mistake in their own education (as is the case with Castro in spite of the correctness of his defence of sovereignty) might explain this.
However, a better explanation is the fact that the leaders of the Iran and North Korea lack of opportunity to conduct in depth and unobstructed investigations of US arsenals of alleged nuclear weapons.
Why would they need to examine the US arsenal? Clearly you know they don't exist without having to have examined it so why not them?
Also the KNCA back in 2009 said this:
"We have successfully conducted another nuclear test on 25 May as part of the republic's measures to strengthen its nuclear deterrent."
So clearly they have proven nuclear weapons exist by actually testing one.
-
The Russians use this charade for the same reason as american interventionists. The FSB/KGB uses this lie to exagerrate the american threat in order to legitimize actions which would otherwise be politically impossible. The Russians have continuously systematically imitated the imperial tactics of west european states since the time of Tsar Peter over 300 years ago.
So wait..... the sole purpose for the Soviets to continue the charade which would have costed them billions and deny them a critical blow against America's supposed might.... it to support political action in a total authoritative state?
How does this make any sort of sense? Indeed, if they had revealed the charade:
- They would have delivered a critical political blow against the Western Powers in general.
- Not waste billions on a fake program.
- Not help escalate an arms race that essentially dissolved the Soviet Union
- Etc.
There is no sense behind them choosing to abide by the conspiracy based on simply having more political weight.... when they were an authoritative regime with control over all of Eastern Europe.
Iran and North Korea do deny the existence of nuclear weapons in their own countries.
Source? And not just listing a book like you are prone to do - I want actual quotes with several sources in support. Not just a single statement by a rouge politician.
-
If everyone knew the world was flat, nukes were fake and we are the center of our known universe.... Then what is there to be afraid of? Why would we give so much power to the governments that do not care about us.
They use fear, manipulation, deceit, control of knowledge and media and MURDER to expand their vast empire. Is this not evident? Why would anyone need to be forced to do what is right? The very fact that Marijuana is illegal should prove that things are not balanced in our society. Marijuana is a God-given herb with medicinal use as well as many other uses. For anyone to tell you that you cannot use an herb on this earth is a liar.
They did a variety of tests with Marijuana and I'm sure they found that it has a positive effect on the mind and body. I am guessing that this did not fit well in their plan for global enslavement so they started a smear campaign against it. It grows in nearly every environment and quite fast too. You can make rope, paper, food, oils, clothing, etc. Why is it illegal? Because they cannot control it so they must control it.
It's quite obvious we are dealing with psychopathic control freaks that will go through any length for power. It is the extreme end of the human condition. And it is very possible that Iran is in on the conspiracy too. Things are so departmentalized around the world it doesn't take many to be in on the conspiracy for it to remain afloat.
A lot of people mention how it is possible for so many to be in on it without leaking? Well things leak all the time and whistleblowers come forward, but until the Mass Media says "Nukes do not exist" or "The Earth is Flat" society will not accept it. I guarantee if the news said it was a hoax it would trend on Twitter instantly.
-
If everyone knew the world was flat, nukes were fake and we are the center of our known universe.... Then what is there to be afraid of? Why would we give so much power to the governments that do not care about us.
They use fear, manipulation, deceit, control of knowledge and media and MURDER to expand their vast empire. Is this not evident? Why would anyone need to be forced to do what is right? The very fact that Marijuana is illegal should prove that things are not balanced in our society. Marijuana is a God-given herb with medicinal use as well as many other uses. For anyone to tell you that you cannot use an herb on this earth is a liar.
They did a variety of tests with Marijuana and I'm sure they found that it has a positive effect on the mind and body. I am guessing that this did not fit well in their plan for global enslavement so they started a smear campaign against it. It grows in nearly every environment and quite fast too. You can make rope, paper, food, oils, clothing, etc. Why is it illegal? Because they cannot control it so they must control it.
It's quite obvious we are dealing with psychopathic control freaks that will go through any length for power. It is the extreme end of the human condition. And it is very possible that Iran is in on the conspiracy too. Things are so departmentalized around the world it doesn't take many to be in on the conspiracy for it to remain afloat.
A lot of people mention how it is possible for so many to be in on it without leaking? Well things leak all the time and whistleblowers come forward, but until the Mass Media says "Nukes do not exist" or "The Earth is Flat" society will not accept it. I guarantee if the news said it was a hoax it would trend on Twitter instantly.
If the government wanted control, weed would be perfect. In high quantities, it makes you lazy, hungry, and open to suggestion.
Or they'd use soma.
-
If everyone knew the world was flat, nukes were fake and we are the center of our known universe.... Then what is there to be afraid of? Why would we give so much power to the governments that do not care about us.
Wars, plague, depression, economic problems, viruses, drowning, sharks, etc.
We don't give governments control over us because the world is round and nukes exist. If that was the case - how the hell do you explain the governments before 1945?
They do not control us with fear. I suggest looking up the concept of a 'social contract.' That and the fact it seems that human nature tends to drift towards organization.
The very fact that Marijuana is illegal should prove that things are not balanced in our society.
..... Widespread use 'for the hell of it' is illegal. Medical purposes are not in many states.... what was your point again? And how does this relate to nuclear weapons?
Things are so departmentalized around the world it doesn't take many to be in on the conspiracy for it to remain afloat.
Prove it. I can state random things and claim they're true too. Here - 'I believe that JFK was assassinated by a ninja.'
Well things leak all the time and whistleblowers come forward, but until the Mass Media says "Nukes do not exist" or "The Earth is Flat" society will not accept it.
I want you to compile a list of these whistle-blowers and present them on this thread. Preferably in order of their importance as well as the amount of proof they have presented. Otherwise, your statement is worthless. I can state any number of random things and claim they're true. Are they? Well until I present some truth - not really.
-
Well I have experienced Weed in high quantities over long periods of time and can assure you that it did not make me lazy or open to suggestion. Hungry yes ;D Creative yes, grounded absolutely. Happy You betcha
-
If the government wanted control, weed would be perfect. In high quantities, it makes you lazy, hungry, and open to suggestion.
Or they'd use soma.
As much as I hate to agree with iWitness on this one the fact that marijuana is illegal is just mind blowingly stupid. Its been made illegal twice, and for the exact opposite reason each time. Then Reagan suffocated a bunch of monkeys using marijuana smoke and claimed it kills brain cells. Then you have the fact that industrial hemp is also illegal to grow even though you cannot get high from it and you start to see that they made it illegal because they wanted to have a legitimate reason (or legal) to arrest anti-vietnam war protesters. Today we spend huge amounts of money to fight an unsuccessful war against it, when in terms of addictiveness and danger its one of the safest drugs on the planet (safer than most pain killers).
In terms of it being a gateway drug, there is zero evidence that anything in pot makes you more likely to want to try crack cocaine, meth, or anything else. The only reason it is a gateway drug is because its illegal and your dealer always asks you if you want to try something else. And if you claim that it makes you want to feel what other "highs" feel like thats bullshit too, because alcohol is a drug, and its legal as well.
Anyways this really just tells you that the government is stupid/inefficient. it does not say anything about nuclear bombs existing.
Oh and i don't smoke pot, i just want a rational government.
-
Well I have experienced Weed in high quantities over long periods of time and can assure you that it did not make me lazy or open to suggestion. Hungry yes ;D Creative yes, grounded absolutely. Happy You betcha
So when high on weed you were more productive at work than if you weren't high?
Tell me, have you ever video taped yourself getting high?
If the government wanted control, weed would be perfect. In high quantities, it makes you lazy, hungry, and open to suggestion.
Or they'd use soma.
As much as I hate to agree with iWitness on this one the fact that marijuana is illegal is just mind blowingly stupid. Its been made illegal twice, and for the exact opposite reason each time. Then Reagan suffocated a bunch of monkeys using marijuana smoke and claimed it kills brain cells. Then you have the fact that industrial hemp is also illegal to grow even though you cannot get high from it and you start to see that they made it illegal because they wanted to have a legitimate reason (or legal) to arrest anti-vietnam war protesters. Today we spend huge amounts of money to fight an unsuccessful war against it, when in terms of addictiveness and danger its one of the safest drugs on the planet (safer than most pain killers).
In terms of it being a gateway drug, there is zero evidence that anything in pot makes you more likely to want to try crack cocaine, meth, or anything else. The only reason it is a gateway drug is because its illegal and your dealer always asks you if you want to try something else. And if you claim that it makes you want to feel what other "highs" feel like thats bullshit too, because alcohol is a drug, and its legal as well.
Anyways this really just tells you that the government is stupid/inefficient. it does not say anything about nuclear bombs existing.
Oh and i don't smoke pot, i just want a rational government.
Oh I'm not saying it should be illegal. In high quantities, alcohol is far worse. I used to be totally against it but after a great deal of research and the whole Portugal experiment, I've retracted my opinion and think it should be legal in the same way alcohol is.
As for it being a gateway drug, I disagree on that.
The reason I disagree is mostly based on experience but here's my rational for it:
You smoke weed to get high. If you don't wanna get high, you wouldn't do it. Period.
Now, your body is very good at adapting to things. Every single drug you take, if taken often enough (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, Prozak, etc...) will have it's effect diminish simply because your body has adapted to it.
The two ways to solve this problem and keep the levels the same is either
a) Use more of the drug (ingest, smoke, put into your veins, etc...) over the same period of time.
b) Find something stronger.
With Caffeine, there really aren't any drugs that do the same job that are easy to obtain and produce a bigger impact so instead you just drink more coffee or switch to espressos.
With alcohol you may work from beer to mixed drinks to straight shots of Whiskey.
With nicotine you just smoke more cigarettes.
With Prozak, you either take more of it or you get a stronger drug.
With Weed you either smoke more of it or you find something stronger.
So, when the choices for weed are:
Smoke more
Or
Find something stronger
It's a gateway drug. Doesn't mean you will go into harder drugs, just means that it's possible.
And if weed was legal, people who need help could get it without feeling like they'll be arrested.
-
Well I have experienced Weed in high quantities over long periods of time and can assure you that it did not make me lazy or open to suggestion. Hungry yes ;D Creative yes, grounded absolutely. Happy You betcha
So when high on weed you were more productive at work than if you weren't high?
Tell me, have you ever video taped yourself getting high?
If the government wanted control, weed would be perfect. In high quantities, it makes you lazy, hungry, and open to suggestion.
Or they'd use soma.
As much as I hate to agree with iWitness on this one the fact that marijuana is illegal is just mind blowingly stupid. Its been made illegal twice, and for the exact opposite reason each time. Then Reagan suffocated a bunch of monkeys using marijuana smoke and claimed it kills brain cells. Then you have the fact that industrial hemp is also illegal to grow even though you cannot get high from it and you start to see that they made it illegal because they wanted to have a legitimate reason (or legal) to arrest anti-vietnam war protesters. Today we spend huge amounts of money to fight an unsuccessful war against it, when in terms of addictiveness and danger its one of the safest drugs on the planet (safer than most pain killers).
In terms of it being a gateway drug, there is zero evidence that anything in pot makes you more likely to want to try crack cocaine, meth, or anything else. The only reason it is a gateway drug is because its illegal and your dealer always asks you if you want to try something else. And if you claim that it makes you want to feel what other "highs" feel like thats bullshit too, because alcohol is a drug, and its legal as well.
Anyways this really just tells you that the government is stupid/inefficient. it does not say anything about nuclear bombs existing.
Oh and i don't smoke pot, i just want a rational government.
Oh I'm not saying it should be illegal. In high quantities, alcohol is far worse. I used to be totally against it but after a great deal of research and the whole Portugal experiment, I've retracted my opinion and think it should be legal in the same way alcohol is.
As for it being a gateway drug, I disagree on that.
The reason I disagree is mostly based on experience but here's my rational for it:
You smoke weed to get high. If you don't wanna get high, you wouldn't do it. Period.
Now, your body is very good at adapting to things. Every single drug you take, if taken often enough (caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, Prozak, etc...) will have it's effect diminish simply because your body has adapted to it.
The two ways to solve this problem and keep the levels the same is either
a) Use more of the drug (ingest, smoke, put into your veins, etc...) over the same period of time.
b) Find something stronger.
With Caffeine, there really aren't any drugs that do the same job that are easy to obtain and produce a bigger impact so instead you just drink more coffee or switch to espressos.
With alcohol you may work from beer to mixed drinks to straight shots of Whiskey.
With nicotine you just smoke more cigarettes.
With Prozak, you either take more of it or you get a stronger drug.
With Weed you either smoke more of it or you find something stronger.
So, when the choices for weed are:
Smoke more
Or
Find something stronger
It's a gateway drug. Doesn't mean you will go into harder drugs, just means that it's possible.
And if weed was legal, people who need help could get it without feeling like they'll be arrested.
I might agree if the numbers were stronger, only 4 out of 100 pot users use cocaine. I see your point, but i think many more people are just going to turn to mixing weed and alcohol than turning to something stronger. Or at least at UCSC (SO MUCH POT) thats been my experience. people just use it too unwind after a long day, and if they want to party they smoke and drink. Never have any of the pot users i know contemplated using cocaine because they use pot.
But yeah i see your point.
-
I might agree if the numbers were stronger, only 4 out of 100 pot users use cocaine. I see your point, but i think many more people are just going to turn to mixing weed and alcohol than turning to something stronger. Or at least at UCSC (SO MUCH POT) thats been my experience. people just use it too unwind after a long day, and if they want to party they smoke and drink. Never have any of the pot users i know contemplated using cocaine because they use pot.
But yeah i see your point.
Crack? pfft.
I knew plenty of guys in High School who were into heroine, speed, and who knows what else. And they all started with Weed. Coincidence? Perhaps.
But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks. Or you're boring. Or, more likely, both.
-
Weed is not a gateway drug. It is probation that is the gateway drug. As soon as you're on probation and can't smoke weed you are forced to try other means. Thus if weed was legal and everyone got to choose which drug was the best and safest people would stick with weed because everything else sucks.
-
Crack? pfft.
I knew plenty of guys in High School who were into heroine, speed, and who knows what else. And they all started with Weed. Coincidence? Perhaps.
According to statistics, yes.
But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks. Or you're boring. Or, more likely, both.
I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better? What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs. I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.
-
But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks. Or you're boring. Or, more likely, both.
I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better? What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs. I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.
When you have to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality in order to enjoy a party, what does that tell you?
-
That people are depressed from all the bullshit being fed day in and day out along with the poisons in the food/water and stresses of every day life and desperately need to relax. Weed provides that relaxation and helps brings you back down to flat ol' reality.
-
But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks. Or you're boring. Or, more likely, both.
I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better? What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs. I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.
When you have to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality in order to enjoy a party, what does that tell you?
You like really ignored my post. Ill try to be more clear. I have been to parties sober, and had a great time. I have been to parties drunk, and had a great time. Its a different experiences to be drunk with all your friends, it makes certain activities more fun. You are making it sound like people who drink at parties do so because otherwise they will have no fun. Its black and white, either you have fun, or you do not, but its a scale.
If i get really drunk and do a bunch of crazy things with my friends, its a different expierience than nights where i do not get drunk. Its an activity in itself, drinking as a group. Its not just to make other things better.
If you dislike drinking that's fine, but it does not make me boring or unable to enjoy a party without alcohol, it just means you dislike it for whatever reason.
-
But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks. Or you're boring. Or, more likely, both.
I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better? What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs. I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.
When you have to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality in order to enjoy a party, what does that tell you?
That you like to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality so you can enjoy a party? :P
-
That people are depressed from all the bullshit being fed day in and day out along with the poisons in the food/water and stresses of every day life and desperately need to relax. Weed provides that relaxation and helps brings you back down to flat ol' reality.
So you use weed to run away from your problems instead of solving them?
Cause the food/water issue can be solved by either
1. Getting drinking water from a well and organic food.
2. Petitioning your local town to get less chemical water.
3. Get elected in public office and change it yourself.
The bullshit being fed day in and day out... well, that depends on what you consider bullshit and why you're letting it be fed to you. Remember, you can't be fed if you don't open your mouth.
But in all honestly, if you have to be drunk and stoned to enjoy a party, then the party sucks. Or you're boring. Or, more likely, both.
I don't understand your logic, why is it that someone could never have a good time unless they were stoned or drunk, perhaps it just makes stuff better? What does them being boring have to do with it, this just seems like your own personal bias against people who use drugs. I enjoy having a couple of beers at a party, does that mean the party sucks or that i am boring, not at all.
When you have to use chemicals to alter your perception of reality in order to enjoy a party, what does that tell you?
You like really ignored my post. Ill try to be more clear. I have been to parties sober, and had a great time. I have been to parties drunk, and had a great time. Its a different experiences to be drunk with all your friends, it makes certain activities more fun. You are making it sound like people who drink at parties do so because otherwise they will have no fun. Its black and white, either you have fun, or you do not, but its a scale.
If i get really drunk and do a bunch of crazy things with my friends, its a different expierience than nights where i do not get drunk. Its an activity in itself, drinking as a group. Its not just to make other things better.
If you dislike drinking that's fine, but it does not make me boring or unable to enjoy a party without alcohol, it just means you dislike it for whatever reason.
Yes I did. I ignored it because you didn't understand my meaning. All the stuff you just said? Irrelevant to what my point is. It doesn't apply to you because you just said you can have fun at a party without being drunk or stoned. There are people who can't.
Look it boils down to this:
If I throw a party without alcohol or weed with 50 people who don't know each other and no room to dance, it will suck.
If I throw a party with alcohol and weed with 50 people who don't know each other and no room to dance, it should suck. Anyone who says it doesn't suck is having their brains scrambled so much that they can't see how badly it sucks and instead think it's great.
This is a chemical change of perspective. This is why I dislike drugs and alcohol. This is also my argument.
Anyone who does week or alcohol to get a different experience but would have fun without it is not relevant to my point.
-
Yes I did. I ignored it because you didn't understand my meaning. All the stuff you just said? Irrelevant to what my point is. It doesn't apply to you because you just said you can have fun at a party without being drunk or stoned. There are people who can't.
Look it boils down to this:
If I throw a party without alcohol or weed with 50 people who don't know each other and no room to dance, it will suck.
If I throw a party with alcohol and weed with 50 people who don't know each other and no room to dance, it should suck. Anyone who says it doesn't suck is having their brains scrambled so much that they can't see how badly it sucks and instead think it's great.
This is a chemical change of perspective. This is why I dislike drugs and alcohol. This is also my argument.
Anyone who does week or alcohol to get a different experience but would have fun without it is not relevant to my point.
Okay, I understand now.
-
less chemical water.
lol
-
'Nuclear Fallacy'
By Morton Halperin
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Fallacy-Dispelling-Myth-Strategy/dp/0887301142
"Halperin argues that most of the history of nuclear confrontations since the 1940s has become myth: nuclear threats were "never" decisive in these crises; but the mythology has imprisoned American strategy, and created a dangerous reliance on nuclear threats."
It is easy to maintain credibility in a lie when the details necessary for confirmation of its veracity are classified "for reasons of national security."
If Nuclear Weapons are fictional, why is Iran and North Korea trying so hard to get them? And North Korea in fact having done some kind of test to that effect.
-
'Nuclear Fallacy'
By Morton Halperin
http://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Fallacy-Dispelling-Myth-Strategy/dp/0887301142
"Halperin argues that most of the history of nuclear confrontations since the 1940s has become myth: nuclear threats were "never" decisive in these crises; but the mythology has imprisoned American strategy, and created a dangerous reliance on nuclear threats."
It is easy to maintain credibility in a lie when the details necessary for confirmation of its veracity are classified "for reasons of national security."
If Nuclear Weapons are fictional, why is Iran and North Korea trying so hard to get them? And North Korea in fact having done some kind of test to that effect.
This is a bad way to look at the situation and may even be evidence for a "nuclear weapons do not exist" argument. What nation wouldn't want a bomb capable of leveling entire cities? (other than a neutral nation I suppose) They are essentially trying to obtain weapons that may not exist. It is well known that they are having a lot of trouble creating them. These facts may lead one to the conclusion that they quite simply cannot be made. Do you think either Kim Jong would have accepted that conclusion from a physicist?
-
Building a nuclear weapon is fairly straightforward in it's design. You say it is impossible but that would mean nuclear theory is wrong but then explain Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would make such a big deal out of a fantasy and have fake radiation testing and such for a nuclear reactor that doesn't do anything except lie about nuclear theory. Also, why the heck is France building so many nuclear reactors and supp;y 50% of their total electricity when nuclear reactors don't work. I mean they have very similar principles to nuclear bombs
-
Building a nuclear weapon is fairly straightforward in it's design. You say it is impossible but that would mean nuclear theory is wrong but then explain Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. It seems highly unlikely that anyone would make such a big deal out of a fantasy and have fake radiation testing and such for a nuclear reactor that doesn't do anything except lie about nuclear theory. Also, why the heck is France building so many nuclear reactors and supp;y 50% of their total electricity when nuclear reactors don't work. I mean they have very similar principles to nuclear bombs
All you have done is point out that you understand neither the nuclear bomb nor nuclear power.
-
Do explain
-
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html
Also, in terms of nuclear theory, the principles are the same. They both involve nuclear fission which is predicated of the atomic model being correct. Please point out what in my remarks is confusing to you and I will explain.
-
Do explain
My stove can heat water to its boiling point. Can I destroy entire cities with my stove?
-
Uh how does that apply at all. Where did I reference stoves? Are you referring to nuclear energy? And if so then it is you who misunderstands. Fission is common between both weapons and power sources (nuclear). The only difference is the power generators have control rods to prevent a massive chain reaction that would occur in the bomb. They both are bombarded to create a chain reaction. There is a big difference between a stove and a nuclear power plant just fyi.
-
Uh how does that apply at all. Where did I reference stoves? Are you referring to nuclear energy? And if so then it is you who misunderstands. Fission is common between both weapons and power sources (nuclear). The only difference is the power generators have control rods to prevent a massive chain reaction that would occur in the bomb. They both are bombarded to create a chain reaction. There is a big difference between a stove and a nuclear power plant just fyi.
Are you claiming there is no difference between having enough energy to boil water and having enough energy to destroy an entire city?
-
No not at all sorry I must not have explained myself well. I'm saying the fundamental principles of how nuclear bombs and nuclear reactor function is basically the same in that it relies on nuclear fission. A reactor could theoretically produce much more energy near a low yield bomb if all control rods were removed and there was more fissile material but that has only happened at Chernobyl to my knowledge and that was more controlled. All I'm saying is that nuclear power plants work obviously otherwise France would have to have hidden power plants for 75% of its power and because they rely on the same principle atomic theory must be correct and nuclear weapons as well because they are fundamentally the same in design just one has a much smaller magnitude. While this is more a reason to believe the atomic model, I feel that due to the similarities and out ability to build power plants, I see no reason that we wouldn't build the bomb if it relies on the same tech of power plants that we currently use and has the potential to deter and maintain US hegemony.
-
You explained yourself just fine, Locke.
Irushwithscvs likes to pretend that he doesn't understand something so you'll waste your time explaining it. He thinks it's funny, I guess.
Anyway, it's usually best to just ignore him.
-
No not at all sorry I must not have explained myself well. I'm saying the fundamental principles of how nuclear bombs and nuclear reactor function is basically the same in that it relies on nuclear fission. A reactor could theoretically produce much more energy near a low yield bomb if all control rods were removed and there was more fissile material but that has only happened at Chernobyl to my knowledge and that was more controlled. All I'm saying is that nuclear power plants work obviously otherwise France would have to have hidden power plants for 75% of its power and because they rely on the same principle atomic theory must be correct and nuclear weapons as well because they are fundamentally the same in design just one has a much smaller magnitude. While this is more a reason to believe the atomic model, I feel that due to the similarities and out ability to build power plants, I see no reason that we wouldn't build the bomb if it relies on the same tech of power plants that we currently use and has the potential to deter and maintain US hegemony.
Well, if you don't agree that if you can boil water then you can blow up cities, why then are you using nuclear power plants as an explanation for why nuclear bombs exist?
Also, ignore Cat Earth Theory. He believes that the Earth is "cat shaped" and rambles on about other posters due to a lack of self-confidence.
-
If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.
-
Normal maximun stove wattage : 3000 W
Nuclear plant: about 2000 MW
"Little boy" 's energy: 5.439×10^13 J (joules)
Let´s make some calculations:
W (Power) = Work (Joules)/Time(seconds)
That means that we can calculate how much it will take to a power source to reach the energy of Little Boy
Time = Work / Power
Now here comes maths:
Time = 5.439×10^13 J / 3000 W for the stove.
Goggle calculator tells me that's about 574.517303 years at maximun power.
Let´s try with the nuclear plant:
Time = 5.439×10^13 J/ 2000 MW ; which is about *drumroll* 7.55416667 hours
And thats a Controlled nuclear reaction. As you can see, There is difference between a stove and a nuclear reaction
-
If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.
I wouldn't use the term "massive heat and energy." A nuclear power plant boils water. My stove can do that. Why should it make sense that something you use to boil water also makes massive bombs?
-
If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.
I wouldn't use the term "massive heat and energy." A nuclear power plant boils water. My stove can do that. Why should it make sense that something you use to boil water also makes massive bombs?
The sun can boil water. Would you suggest that the sun isn't powerful enough to destroy the world should it explode?
Or how about a camp fire?
Camp fires can boil water. They can also burn down cities.
-
If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.
I wouldn't use the term "massive heat and energy." A nuclear power plant boils water. My stove can do that. Why should it make sense that something you use to boil water also makes massive bombs?
Great analogy. A nuclear power plant can boil water, and it can also meltdown and kill or sicken many people. Can your stove do that?
-
If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.
I wouldn't use the term "massive heat and energy." A nuclear power plant boils water. My stove can do that. Why should it make sense that something you use to boil water also makes massive bombs?
Great analogy. A nuclear power plant can boil water, and it can also meltdown and kill or sicken many people. Can your stove do that?
If I turn it to max it can melt a great deal of things, your point?
-
Yes, you have a great and powerful stove. We bow to you in hopes that you will not use if for evil. Remember, with great power, there is great responsibility.
-
Rushy, man, keep the trollin' in check. Don't get carried away, you're making it too obvious.
-
Rushy, man, keep the trollin' in check. Don't get carried away, you're making it too obvious.
Who is trolling? My stove really can melt a variety of things, preferably butter for my Maine lobster.
-
Rushy, man, keep the trollin' in check. Don't get carried away, you're making it too obvious.
Who is trolling? My stove really can melt a variety of things, preferably butter for my Maine lobster.
Wouldn't it be easier to use your microwave for that?
-
Rushy, man, keep the trollin' in check. Don't get carried away, you're making it too obvious.
Who is trolling? My stove really can melt a variety of things, preferably butter for my Maine lobster.
Wouldn't it be easier to use your microwave for that?
And irradiate my food with the government's gamma rays? No thanks.
-
The government built your microwave?
-
The government built your microwave?
GE = Government Electric.
-
Are you talking about General Electric?
-
So they would have you believe, Saddam Hussein - if that is your real name.
-
Are you talking about General Electric?
That was back in the olden days, where the grass was green and the white picket fences sparkled in the sunlight.
-
I didn't think it was possible, but this thread made more sense when 17 November was posting in it.
-
Rushy, man, keep the trollin' in check. Don't get carried away, you're making it too obvious.
Who is trolling? My stove really can melt a variety of things, preferably butter for my Maine lobster.
Wouldn't it be easier to use your microwave for that?
And irradiate my food with the government's gamma rays? No thanks.
Since when did a microwave emit gamma rays?
-
Lol good point. I wonder why they call it a MICROwave... not a GAMAwave
-
I didn't think it was possible, but this thread made more sense when 17 November was posting in it.
Irush: making less sense than 17 November since November 17.
-
Since when did a microwave emit gamma rays?
Since 1946. Thought this was common knowledge. You really think the microwaves use microwaves that magically vibrate water molecules? How silly.
-
Lol that is not true at all.
-
Lol that is not true at all.
Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?
-
Must. Not. Feed. Troll
-
Lol that is not true at all.
Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?
Have you?? Where the heck are you getting this information it is completely incorrect for a few reasons:
1st gamma rays have incredibly short wavelengths and are awful for cooking
2nd gamma rays are on the opposite side of the spectrum as microwaves so there is no chance a MICROWAVE can produce gamma waves
3rd Why the hell would they call it a microwave if it only produces gamma waves
4th Every site I looked at to confirm my argument concurs, nowhere could I find any article discussing normal microwave ovens creating gamma radiation.
And Sokarul is right. This is stupid.
-
Why bother doing a spectral analysis? All you need to do is take it apart and run a Geiger counter over it.
-
Irush, while I commend you on your effort, your trolling skills leave something to be desired. This thread has been derailed from the start.
This is when a thread should be locked. I'll await the mods while I warm my coffee up in my gamma ray oven.
-
Lol that is not true at all.
Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?
You don't have to. You just have to do this: Faraday jails partially/completelly block an electromagnetic source if they are connected to ground. As you don't believe in no component of the microwave, do this:
-Take a copper cable, connect it to the external case (specially the door) and on the other side to a tap.You've just made a Faraday jail.
-Take a cup of water, with nothing more than cup, and water. Hold it next to the door. Put a cup of water (this time be sure to PUT SOMETHING like tea on it, it´s really important, the water could explode in your hand) INSIDE of the microwave and switch it on. Check both water cups.
What happens? The microwaves used on your "Gamma wave oven" belong to the short wave radio zone of the electromagnetic spectrum. That means that a Faraday jail can stop them (If you don't believe me, wrap a radio with several layers of tinfoil, you should stop hearing anything if the antenna is not touching the tinfoil). But what about gamma rays? They can pass through almost every material in the world. I think you don´t need nothing more to understand my point. Oh! And try to call to a cellular that is inside a switched off microwave.
-
I didn't think it was possible, but this thread made more sense when 17 November was posting in it.
Irush: making less sense than 17 November since November 17.
December 22nd, 2011 actually.
-
Lol that is not true at all.
Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?
Have you?? Where the heck are you getting this information it is completely incorrect for a few reasons:
1st gamma rays have incredibly short wavelengths and are awful for cooking
2nd gamma rays are on the opposite side of the spectrum as microwaves so there is no chance a MICROWAVE can produce gamma waves
3rd Why the hell would they call it a microwave if it only produces gamma waves
4th Every site I looked at to confirm my argument concurs, nowhere could I find any article discussing normal microwave ovens creating gamma radiation.
And Sokarul is right. This is stupid.
How the hell did you fall for that?
-
Lol that is not true at all.
Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?
Have you?? Where the heck are you getting this information it is completely incorrect for a few reasons:
1st gamma rays have incredibly short wavelengths and are awful for cooking
2nd gamma rays are on the opposite side of the spectrum as microwaves so there is no chance a MICROWAVE can produce gamma waves
3rd Why the hell would they call it a microwave if it only produces gamma waves
4th Every site I looked at to confirm my argument concurs, nowhere could I find any article discussing normal microwave ovens creating gamma radiation.
And Sokarul is right. This is stupid.
How the hell did you fall for that?
Thanks for ignoring me
-
Lol that is not true at all.
Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?
Have you?? Where the heck are you getting this information it is completely incorrect for a few reasons:
1st gamma rays have incredibly short wavelengths and are awful for cooking
2nd gamma rays are on the opposite side of the spectrum as microwaves so there is no chance a MICROWAVE can produce gamma waves
3rd Why the hell would they call it a microwave if it only produces gamma waves
4th Every site I looked at to confirm my argument concurs, nowhere could I find any article discussing normal microwave ovens creating gamma radiation.
And Sokarul is right. This is stupid.
How the hell did you fall for that?
Thanks for ignoring me
No problem
-
Lol that is not true at all.
Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?
Have you?? Where the heck are you getting this information it is completely incorrect for a few reasons:
1st gamma rays have incredibly short wavelengths and are awful for cooking
2nd gamma rays are on the opposite side of the spectrum as microwaves so there is no chance a MICROWAVE can produce gamma waves
3rd Why the hell would they call it a microwave if it only produces gamma waves
4th Every site I looked at to confirm my argument concurs, nowhere could I find any article discussing normal microwave ovens creating gamma radiation.
And Sokarul is right. This is stupid.
At least someone learned something.
-
Yes. There is a lesson buried in there somewhere.
-
Placed my cell phone in my microwave, it still had two bars. Nothing can stop Verizon.
-
Placed my cell phone in my microwave, it still had two bars. Nothing can stop Verizon.
Did you connected the case to ground?. And I would think on buying another microwave ;D
-
Placed my cell phone in my microwave, it still had two bars. Nothing can stop Verizon.
Did you connected the case to ground?. And I would think on buying another microwave ;D
Indeed it is, the cell phone definitely had two bars (and a WiFi signal) inside the closed microwave.
-
Placed my cell phone in my microwave, it still had two bars. Nothing can stop Verizon.
Did you connected the case to ground?. And I would think on buying another microwave ;D
Indeed it is, the cell phone definitely had two bars (and a WiFi signal) inside the closed microwave.
That's odd. How many bars does it have after you run it for 30 seconds?
-
Placed my cell phone in my microwave, it still had two bars. Nothing can stop Verizon.
Did you connected the case to ground?. And I would think on buying another microwave ;D
Indeed it is, the cell phone definitely had two bars (and a WiFi signal) inside the closed microwave.
That's odd. How many bars does it have after you run it for 30 seconds?
For the first fifteen or so seconds it jumped up a bar, then back down to two for the rest of the duration.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
-
Nothing. It just proves that Gammawave ovens can not stop the power of Verizon. My walls must be lined with lead then.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
There's an app for that.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
Nope.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
If you can't detect gamma radiation, how do you know it exists?
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
If you can't detect gamma radiation, how do you know it exists?
Gamma radiation is a conspiracy to make us belive there are nuclear weapons.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
If you can't detect gamma radiation, how do you know it exists?
Where did I state that I can't detect gamma radiation?
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
If you can't detect gamma radiation, how do you know it exists?
Where did I state that I can't detect gamma radiation?
Your inability to purchase a Geigr counter. Unless you use another method we are unaware of.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
If you can't detect gamma radiation, how do you know it exists?
Where did I state that I can't detect gamma radiation?
Your inability to purchase a Geigr counter. Unless you use another method we are unaware of.
Rushy, buy a Spirantoscopie (?)
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
If you can't detect gamma radiation, how do you know it exists?
Where did I state that I can't detect gamma radiation?
Your inability to purchase a Geigr counter. Unless you use another method we are unaware of.
I get a warm, fuzzy feeling when I'm within ten meters of my active microwave oven. Gamma radiation.
-
No. Microwaves heating the water molecules of your body or more posibbly high EMF. BUY ANOTHER MICROWAVE OVEN
-
My computer is releasing high levels of radiation right now. It is.
-
My computer is releasing high levels of radiation right now. It is.
My Trojan is working then.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
If you can't detect gamma radiation, how do you know it exists?
Where did I state that I can't detect gamma radiation?
Your inability to purchase a Geigr counter. Unless you use another method we are unaware of.
I get a warm, fuzzy feeling when I'm within ten meters of my active microwave oven. Gamma radiation.
High levels of gamma radiation cause a tingling, or popping sensation in the body.
-
High levels of gamma radiation cause THE INCREDIBLE HULK
You wouldn't like me when I'm agnry.
-
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
I was trying to prove that Microwaves do not work with Gamma Rays, which was the outlandish claim Rushy did.
Trying and failing, unfortunately. My microwave still permeates gamma waves. I would get a Geigr counter but the ones that can detect gamma radiation at meaningful amounts are far too expensive.
If you can't detect gamma radiation, how do you know it exists?
Where did I state that I can't detect gamma radiation?
Your inability to purchase a Geigr counter. Unless you use another method we are unaware of.
I get a warm, fuzzy feeling when I'm within ten meters of my active microwave oven. Gamma radiation.
High levels of gamma radiation cause a tingling, or popping sensation in the body.
I did feel a few of my arteries pop the other day, but that was probably the McDonald's settling in.
-
If a piece of matter is burned into nothingness by fire, then it simply ceases to exist.
So speaketh Master November.
-
'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom'
By Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
Larson's book is also a case against the eternity of matter which the atomic myth is used to support.
If a piece of matter is burned into nothingness by fire, then it simply ceases to exist.
But what about the gas the fire emits?
What about the energy the fire emits?
I don't call those nothing, do you?
-
'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom'
By Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
Larson's book is also a case against the eternity of matter which the atomic myth is used to support.
If a piece of matter is burned into nothingness by fire, then it simply ceases to exist.
Sorry 17, but I don't think the author of that understands energy conservation.
-
If a piece of matter is burned into nothingness by fire, then it simply ceases to exist.
Sorry, but demonstrably not true.
-
We're sorry, 17.
-
If a piece of matter is burned into nothingness by fire, then it simply ceases to exist.
Sorry, but demonstrably not true.
Do you know what nothingness is?
-
Ssshhh, if you are to loud, the wild 17 November won't return.
-
He'll be back eventually. He has too many theories he hasn't shared with us yet.
-
He'll be back eventually. He has too many theories he hasn't shared with us yet.
Are they all at least equally as frightening as the ones he already had the pleasure of sharing with us?
-
No, most of them are just boring.
-
No, most of them are just boring.
Thank you guys for all of your unrelated posts and shilling. It really makes it much easier for the truth-seekers to find the information they are looking for and weed out the bullshit. You should all be fired from your jobs.
-
No, most of them are just boring.
Thank you guys for all of your unrelated posts and shilling. It really makes it much easier for the truth-seekers to find the information they are looking for and weed out the bullshit. You should all be fired from your jobs.
Why would anyone hire shills to discredit 17 November's views on matter disappearing? It's not like he's blowing the lid off of some super secret conspiracy here.
-
No, most of them are just boring.
Thank you guys for all of your unrelated posts and shilling. It really makes it much easier for the truth-seekers to find the information they are looking for and weed out the bullshit. You should all be fired from your jobs.
How do you know they have jobs?
-
No, most of them are just boring.
Thank you guys for all of your unrelated posts and shilling. It really makes it much easier for the truth-seekers to find the information they are looking for and weed out the bullshit. You should all be fired from your jobs.
How do you know they have jobs?
He is implying that we are hired by the government to portray their propaganda.
-
Where do I pick up my paycheck?
-
Where do I pick up my paycheck?
When you created an account on this site you actually agreed to a pro bono government contract.
-
I suspected I would get bono'd.
-
Where do I pick up my paycheck?
When you created an account on this site you actually agreed to a pro bono government contract.
As with all government contracts and oaths, I simply crossed my fingers as I signed up to void the deal.
-
First post here, was led here by a post on another forum. Sorry to be bumping an old thread, but I couldn't resist. Normally I would have just read what I was interested in here and gone on my merry way. BUT, 17November's first post here mentioned Alexander de Seversky, who I happen to be familiar with, I'm a bit of an aviation nut. De Seversky was pretty much a bad-ass. Born and raised in pre-revolution Russia, learned to fly, and was shot down bombing a German destroyer in WWI, losing both legs in the process. The military wouldn't let him fly again, even after being fitted with artificial legs. So he shows up at an airshow, in somebody elses plane, and impresses the hell out of everyone. Tsar Nicholas personally allows him to return to flying in combat.
He moved to the U.S. and became big friends with Gen. Billy Mitchell, who pretty much invented the concept of strategic bombing. I'm a big fan of Billy Mitchell so thats where I knew Seversky from. Seversky also started Seversky Aircraft Corp. which produced the P-47 Thunderbolt, my favorite fighter from WWII (though under the name Republic Aviation; Seversky went on vacation, the board of directors fired him and changed the company name, a good reason to never take a vacation). So I keep reading, and my jaw drops.
The majority of 17November's reasoning for not believing in nukes, according to this post anyway, is that Seversky didn't believe in them. Well, theres a teensy problem there. SEVERSKY DID KNOW/BELIEVE NUKES EXISTED. Seversky's issue was that nukes were/are not the miracle weapons that the 1940's press deemed them to be.
There was a great deal of speculation at the time that nukes made traditional standing armies/navies/air forces useless and a thing of the past. Keep in mind that Seversky was in the business of selling airplanes, and in developing combat strategies for airplanes. An all-nuclear defense strategy would put him out of business. Seversky said on many occassions that nukes were not a replacement for tradtional militaries. He expressed that nukes were not wonder weapons, and the same results could be had by traditional bombing. He did not, however, say that nukes were mythical/nonexistant.
17November on page 8 of this thread (and multiple other times) said that "Seversky's article merely compares and equates the destructiveness of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs with a 200-ton aerial bombardment." Sorry. No he didn't. What he DID say was that: "The same results could have been accompished by about 200 B-29s loaded with incendiaries, though the loss of life in that case would have been much smaller", page 239, Alexander P. de Seversky and the Quest for Air Power, James K Libbey. 2012 Potomac Books / University of Nebraska Press, and from Seversky, "Supplemental Reports on Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
"He estimated the identical level of destruction could have been caused by two hundred bomb-loaded aircraft. What was so incredible is that one atomic weapon from one B-29 could equal the devastation of two hundred bomb-loaded aircraft." Libbey pg. 236.
200 AIRPLANES, not 200 tons. What is confusing is that in 17's first post to this thread, he states the 200 airplane number, but thereafter shifts to 200 tons. Does 17 not realize than a B-29 could carry a hell of a lot more than a 1 ton payload?
All this says, and all that Seversky was trying to say, was that nukes couldn't do anything that ordinary explosives could, given enough quantity. Except for that little radioactivity/fallout problem.
17November also says that Seversky couldnt find anyone with radition sickness. Wrong. What he did say was that "the effects of the atom bombs...have been wildly exaggerated and that radiation sickness was only a minor cause of death at Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Seversky quoted page 134, Savage Perils: Racial Frontiers and Nuclear Apocalypse in American Culture. Patrick B. Sharp. 2007 University of Oklahoma Press.
Keep in mind that few people even knew about or expected radiation sickness from the bombs. "I thinks its good propaganda. The thing is these people got good and burned - good thermal burns" General Charles Rea in conversation with Gen. Leslie Groves discussing reports of radiation injuries at Hiroshima. To this day the government of Japan pays a special medical allowance to survivors of the bomb (known as Hibakusha) who are suffering from radiation related illness. Why would Japan continue to do that if it never happened?
Seversky also wrote an article "What the Atom Bomb Would Do to Us" Readers Digest 48 (May 1946): 125-28 and "Atomic Bomb Hysteria" Readers Digest, February 1946, pg 121-24. Why would Seversky write an article about what atomic/nuclear weapons would do to us if he didn't think they existed.
"Unlike the official bombing survey, de Seversky did not waffle. Air Power won the war. And it was ended by two B-29s dropping one atomic device each on Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Libbey page 235.
Show me one source where de Seversky actually states that nukes do not exist. I've shown some of mine showing where he does acknowledge them.
Also somebody on here said that atomic bombs and nuclear bombs weren't the same thing. Um, not quite, atomic bombs are a type of nuclear bomb - a single stage non-boosted device.
Someone also mentions that videos of nuke explosions seem to show the explosion/fireball keeps going and going. The explosion happens instantaneously, what keeps going and going is the fireball. When nuclear weapons detonate the temperatures at the centers of the explosions are millions of degrees. At such high temperatures, plain old air (and everything else) will burn. There was concern at Los Alamos that setting off the bomb would burn the whole atmosphere. Thankfully, the nuclear fuel is consumed instantly, and the air cools fairly rapidly.
Before the Trinity test, the people involved set up pools betting on the force of the explosion. I believe it was Enrico Fermi who was heard to be taking side bets that the Trinity test would destroy New Mexico. General Leslie Groves had a confidential agreement with the governor of New Mexico to evacuate the state. Why all the fuss for something that doesn't exist? Go ahead and call me a troll, but how many trolls actually back up there claims with sourced information, rather than "my notes are not in front of me presently".
-
Many countries have faked nuclear bomb test videos. The U.S., China, and Russia have some really poor fakes. Some of them are undeniably fake like the first H-bomb test in the U.S. and the Chinese have videos that are just funny to watch, and really should never had been released at all. I don't know if I have ever seen a real nuclear bomb test video before. It's a bad sign when you are looking for videos just to see if they really exist, but with so many tests that were supposed to have taken place, you would assume that they would all be filmed. So why are there so many fakes, and how come it is so hard to find one that you can claim is real? I suspect that nuclear weapons are probably BS, but I am always looking at evidence.
-
Many countries have faked nuclear bomb test videos. The U.S., China, and Russia have some really poor fakes. Some of them are undeniably fake like the first H-bomb test in the U.S. and the Chinese have videos that are just funny to watch, and really should never had been released at all. I don't know if I have ever seen a real nuclear bomb test video before. It's a bad sign when you are looking for videos just to see if they really exist, but with so many tests that were supposed to have taken place, you would assume that they would all be filmed. So why are there so many fakes, and how come it is so hard to find one that you can claim is real? I suspect that nuclear weapons are probably BS, but I am always looking at evidence.
If you seriously look into how they tell you they work, I'll guarantee you, you will be under no illusions that it's all fake.
-
We'd be at war with Russia still if nukes didn't exist.
CHECKMATE
-
We'd be at war with Russia still if nukes didn't exist.
CHECKMATE
You used your common sense to come over to the flat side. Now use it to see that Russia and the US are not at loggerheads at the top.
They just like to make us mere mortals think they are to keep us nice and scared.
-
We'd be at war with Russia still if nukes didn't exist.
CHECKMATE
You used your common sense to come over to the flat side. Now use it to see that Russia and the US are not at loggerheads at the top.
They just like to make us mere mortals think they are to keep us nice and scared.
I realize this, but that doesn't change the fact I've stated.
-
We'd be at war with Russia still if nukes didn't exist.
CHECKMATE
You used your common sense to come over to the flat side. Now use it to see that Russia and the US are not at loggerheads at the top.
They just like to make us mere mortals think they are to keep us nice and scared.
I realize this, but that doesn't change the fact I've stated.
Does it not seem weird to you why we would happily have Russians and Americans, etc all working together in all kinds of things and yet, always be afraid of destroying each other.
Of course you can call it mutual means to an end..we scratch your back and you scratch ours.
Think about it all, though.
No country can rip off their own if they don't have a game to play against an enemy...so create them.
I don't want to change your mind. I'll leave that up to you to have a think on.
Start by asking yourself how a few discs of super strong metal can smash into similar and blow up a city. Once you get past this ridiculous concept, you may see it for what it is.
I think you have a better chance than most, because you've shown you are capable of thinking outside of the box.
-
I don't know if I have ever seen a real nuclear bomb test video before.
Then how do you know what a real nuclear bomb test video is supposed to look like?
-
In truth, nobody really knows what a nuclear bomb test would look like. We can only go on what they tell us and what they show us.
Having said that...they are radiation soaking, city killing mass destruction fissioning weapons, unyielding the power of hell, as told to us.
The videos we see of detonations are ridiculous, regardless of us not knowing what one is supposed to look like. They just hit you in the face as fake and doesn't take long to see why if people view the footage of various blasts. The Indian ones are especially funny.
Those few words, "nuclear bombs", "atomic bombs", neutron bombs", "hydrogen bombs"..are enough to scare the hell out of people who know no better than to simply take it all on hear say value and so called video evidence.
Any rational person who takes their time to look at what makes up a so called nuclear bomb should quickly come to a very simple conclusion that they would not work.
The problem is, too many people rely on science and the amazement of what science can produce, so uranium/plutonium and other hellish mixes...as far as they are concerned....WORK.
The very basics of an atomic bomb, like "little boy" dropped on Hiroshima as we were told, consists of a make up of metal rings (uranium) at each end of the bomb.
At the back of the bomb, there is cordite powder charges. When this powder charge is set off inside this bomb, it propels the uranium metal rings into the other uranium metal rings... and boom, your city is razed to the ground, wiping out hundreds of thousands of people and rendering the place uninhabitable due to the radiation.
Yes folks! These little metal rings just need to be smacked together by the explosion of cordite and somehow they super fission and wipe everything out within a large area.
If you want to believe this, then I can't really say much more, because it would be pointless. It's like telling a supposed intelligent person that dropping an anvil from a high rise building onto another anvil on the ground, will destroy the city.
Everyone knows what would happen if a cordite charge was exploded inside a metal casing, right?
It would blow the casing apart, well before any rings had a chance to hit other rings.
I mean, this is how a bomb works, by exploding the casing, or how a hand grenade works.
It's impossible to do, regardless.
Have a think on how these discs are made. I mean: first of all the uranium has to be mined, they say... called "yellow cake"... then it gets refined and made into discs, obviously by super heating and melting, (whoops, a meltdown) because this stuff is apparently as hard as Titanium and is supposedly used on armour piercing artillery shells.
So it's getting heated up but now it has to be MIXED with plutonium which is apparently man made due to fissioning inside supposed nuclear reactors in which we are told that plutonium is a by product of this uranium fissioning. So how do they extract it and mix it with the uranium in what they call, enrichment?
How is this all done to get these metal discs which somehow blow up cities when clanged together at speed?
If anyone is familiar with metal, you know that it has to be melted, shaped/forged and what not, as well as super heated.
How would this be done in a safe environment if it was what they say it was?
If you can't see how ridiculous this all is, then, when they decide on having another cold war, you deserve to sit there crapping your pants or punching your way into someones underground shelter to sit out the nonsense; then to come back out knowing you lost all credibility and friends because you panicked over a lot of fake news bull crap, designed for you to do exactly what you did.
Those who have even a small bit of common sense...see it for what it is...it's crap! They don't work!
Forget about evaporation: forget about radiation poisoning: forget about hiding under tables: in cupboards: in basements, etc.
Here's your little boy atomic bomb. I'll briefly explain what happens in the diagram, then leave the rest to your common sense as to what they are.
(http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/3479/zkfk.gif) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/841/zkfk.gif/)
-
In truth, nobody really knows what a nuclear bomb test would look like. We can only go on what they tell us and what they show us.
Having said that...they are radiation soaking, city killing mass destruction fissioning weapons, unyielding the power of hell, as told to us.
The videos we see of detonations are ridiculous, regardless of us not knowing what one is supposed to look like. They just hit you in the face as fake and doesn't take long to see why if people view the footage of various blasts. The Indian ones are especially funny.
You keep saying that the test videos look fake, but you never say why they look fake. Is it the mushroom cloud that doesn't look right? Is it the blinding flash of light? Is it the hurricane force winds?
You claim that the cordite charge in the back of the bomb should blow it apart? Seriously? Do you not know how guns work?
-
In truth, nobody really knows what a nuclear bomb test would look like. We can only go on what they tell us and what they show us.
Having said that...they are radiation soaking, city killing mass destruction fissioning weapons, unyielding the power of hell, as told to us.
The videos we see of detonations are ridiculous, regardless of us not knowing what one is supposed to look like. They just hit you in the face as fake and doesn't take long to see why if people view the footage of various blasts. The Indian ones are especially funny.
You keep saying that the test videos look fake, but you never say why they look fake. Is it the mushroom cloud that doesn't look right? Is it the blinding flash of light? Is it the hurricane force winds?
You claim that the cordite charge in the back of the bomb should blow it apart? Seriously? Do you not know how guns work?
I may be wrong and I will look into it when I have a bit more time, but to second this post in pretty sure it was in fact a actual navel gun barrel that was used.
-
In truth, nobody really knows what a nuclear bomb test would look like. We can only go on what they tell us and what they show us.
Having said that...they are radiation soaking, city killing mass destruction fissioning weapons, unyielding the power of hell, as told to us.
The videos we see of detonations are ridiculous, regardless of us not knowing what one is supposed to look like. They just hit you in the face as fake and doesn't take long to see why if people view the footage of various blasts. The Indian ones are especially funny.
You keep saying that the test videos look fake, but you never say why they look fake. Is it the mushroom cloud that doesn't look right? Is it the blinding flash of light? Is it the hurricane force winds?
You claim that the cordite charge in the back of the bomb should blow it apart? Seriously? Do you not know how guns work?
Camera footage for starters is pathetic. No camera shaking, no film damage. The light from the mushroom cloud is just images of a rising sun with clouds overlaid on it...you know, how those at the lookout mountain fakery department would put something together like this.
The hurricane force winds and the blast into the sky which somehoe does not affects the clouds. lol.
Bombs supposedly dropped and exploded thousands of feet in the air and yet they make a mushroom cloud that starts from the ground. ;D
Oh and guns have an open barrel for the projectile to exit from, so don't even try that one. This is a sealed bomb, as you can see by the supposed design.
You know for a fact what would happen in this scenario so why you're arguing it is beyond me; except maybe just to argue it for arguing sake, which is fair enough.
-
In truth, nobody really knows what a nuclear bomb test would look like. We can only go on what they tell us and what they show us.
Having said that...they are radiation soaking, city killing mass destruction fissioning weapons, unyielding the power of hell, as told to us.
The videos we see of detonations are ridiculous, regardless of us not knowing what one is supposed to look like. They just hit you in the face as fake and doesn't take long to see why if people view the footage of various blasts. The Indian ones are especially funny.
You keep saying that the test videos look fake, but you never say why they look fake. Is it the mushroom cloud that doesn't look right? Is it the blinding flash of light? Is it the hurricane force winds?
You claim that the cordite charge in the back of the bomb should blow it apart? Seriously? Do you not know how guns work?
I may be wrong and I will look into it when I have a bit more time, but to second this post in pretty sure it was in fact a actual navel gun barrel that was used.
What does that mean? The fact is has no open end, renders the gun type mechanism useless. It would blow apart.
What you have to remember...by looking at the design as I showed you...it's cordite behind a metal pusher, then onto the uranium rings which sypposedly shoot down the barrel and smash into the uranium rings at the front.
There is no open exit hole to disperse the cordite explosion, which means the bomb will act like a conventional bomb and blow apart.
That's not even the main issue anyway. The very fact that smashing metal into metal, wipes out cities, is beyond laughable.
-
In truth, nobody really knows what a nuclear bomb test would look like. We can only go on what they tell us and what they show us.
Having said that...they are radiation soaking, city killing mass destruction fissioning weapons, unyielding the power of hell, as told to us.
The videos we see of detonations are ridiculous, regardless of us not knowing what one is supposed to look like. They just hit you in the face as fake and doesn't take long to see why if people view the footage of various blasts. The Indian ones are especially funny.
You keep saying that the test videos look fake, but you never say why they look fake. Is it the mushroom cloud that doesn't look right? Is it the blinding flash of light? Is it the hurricane force winds?
You claim that the cordite charge in the back of the bomb should blow it apart? Seriously? Do you not know how guns work?
Camera footage for starters is pathetic. No camera shaking, no film damage.
Why should the camera shake or film be damaged? You do realize that it takes a while for the shock wave to travel the several miles from the explosion to the camera, don't you?
The light from the mushroom cloud is just images of a rising sun with clouds overlaid on it...you know, how those at the lookout mountain fakery department would put something together like this.
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
The hurricane force winds and the blast into the sky which somehoe does not affects the clouds. lol.
What makes you say that?
Bombs supposedly dropped and exploded thousands of feet in the air and yet they make a mushroom cloud that starts from the ground. ;D
Do you actually see the ground in those videos?
Oh and guns have an open barrel for the projectile to exit from, so don't even try that one. This is a sealed bomb, as you can see by the supposed design.
Do you understand how guns work? You do know that the bullet seals the barrel until it hits the end, don't you? In this case, the target is simply still inside the barrel.
You know for a fact what would happen in this scenario so why you're arguing it is beyond me; except maybe just to argue it for arguing sake, which is fair enough.
This isn't a question of what I know, it's a question of trying to get you to justify what you claim to know.
-
Why should the camera shake or film be damaged? You do realize that it takes a while for the shock wave to travel the several miles from the explosion to the camera, don't you?
Several miles my arse. You put too much faith in camera distance. If nuclear bombs were that powerful and could blow up cities, then a few miles is nothing and a blast wave would hit in seconds if they were what we were told.
The light from the mushroom cloud is just images of a rising sun with clouds overlaid on it...you know, how those at the lookout mountain fakery department would put something together like this
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Just look and observe, it's not difficult to see the absurdity of it.
The hurricane force winds and the blast into the sky which somehow does not affect the clouds. lol
What makes you say that?
The pathetic videos show that. Take a look and see for yourself, it's not hard to miss.
Bombs supposedly dropped and exploded thousands of feet in the air and yet they make a mushroom cloud that starts from the ground. ;D
Do you actually see the ground in those videos?
Yes you do in some of them. Have a look for yourself, they're easily brought up.
Oh and guns have an open barrel for the projectile to exit from, so don't even try that one. This is a sealed bomb, as you can see by the supposed design.
Do you understand how guns work? You do know that the bullet seals the barrel until it hits the end, don't you? In this case, the target is simply still inside the barrel.
, The bullet is propelled forward in a gun which is why the gun does not explode, because the speed of expansion forces the bullet out of a gun. If that bullet was welded in, you would have a shredded barrel. In the bomb, it is sealed and could only push the first uranium rings so far before the pressure tore the bomb apart...you should know this.
You know for a fact what would happen in this scenario so why you're arguing it is beyond me; except maybe just to argue it for arguing sake, which is fair enough.
This isn't a question of what I know, it's a question of trying to get you to justify what you claim to know.
To thoroughly justify it, I would need to be there to see for myself. That will clearly not happen, so the next best thing is to piece it all together and see through the bull crap.
Have you taken a look at any of the footage of all this stuff?
-
Why should the camera shake or film be damaged? You do realize that it takes a while for the shock wave to travel the several miles from the explosion to the camera, don't you?
Several miles my arse. You put too much faith in camera distance. If nuclear bombs were that powerful and could blow up cities, then a few miles is nothing and a blast wave would hit in seconds if they were what we were told.
If you're talking about the Hiroshima bomb, the shock wave did hit in a matter of seconds:
Hiroshima Atomic Bomb (1945) (http://#ws)
The light from the mushroom cloud is just images of a rising sun with clouds overlaid on it...you know, how those at the lookout mountain fakery department would put something together like this
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Just look and observe, it's not difficult to see the absurdity of it.
Please post the video that you are referring to. The ones that I've seen look reasonable to me.
The hurricane force winds and the blast into the sky which somehow does not affect the clouds. lol
What makes you say that?
The pathetic videos show that. Take a look and see for yourself, it's not hard to miss.
Again, please post the video that you're referring to.
Bombs supposedly dropped and exploded thousands of feet in the air and yet they make a mushroom cloud that starts from the ground. ;D
Do you actually see the ground in those videos?
Yes you do in some of them. Have a look for yourself, they're easily brought up.
Which bomb are you referring to? The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were detonated only about 2000 feet high so it's more than likely that the fireball from the bombs did reach the ground.
Oh and guns have an open barrel for the projectile to exit from, so don't even try that one. This is a sealed bomb, as you can see by the supposed design.
Do you understand how guns work? You do know that the bullet seals the barrel until it hits the end, don't you? In this case, the target is simply still inside the barrel.
, The bullet is propelled forward in a gun which is why the gun does not explode, because the speed of expansion forces the bullet out of a gun. If that bullet was welded in, you would have a shredded barrel. In the bomb, it is sealed and could only push the first uranium rings so far before the pressure tore the bomb apart...you should know this.
Bullet welded in? What are you talking about? The cordite charge pushes one set of uranium rings down the barrel into another set of uranium rings at the other end. What's so suspicious about that? It's not as if the barrel is supposed to survive the atomic blast. It just needs to survive the cordite blast long enough for one set of rings to slam into the other set of rings.
Have you taken a look at any of the footage of all this stuff?
Yes, I've seen a number of atomic/nuclear bomb test films. None look fishy to me.
-
...
Have a think on how these discs are made. I mean: first of all the uranium has to be mined, they say... called "yellow cake"... then it gets refined and made into discs, obviously by super heating and melting, (whoops, a meltdown) because this stuff is apparently as hard as Titanium and is supposedly used on armour piercing artillery shells.
Yellow cake is uranium oxide. You precipitate uranium as yellow cake to get it from ore. They would refine yellow cake to get uranium metal which needs to be enriched to get a high enough concentration of uranium-235. I don't know why you are guessing on how it's done. You clearly don't know how they do it. Uranium-238 would be the one used in armor piercing shells. The non fissile isotope.
So it's getting heated up but now it has to be MIXED with plutonium which is apparently man made due to fissioning inside supposed nuclear reactors in which we are told that plutonium is a by product of this uranium fissioning. So how do they extract it and mix it with the uranium in what they call, enrichment?
It is never mixed with plutonium for nuclear bombs. Once again you are making stuff up and then using it as evidence.
How is this all done to get these metal discs which somehow blow up cities when clanged together at speed?
If anyone is familiar with metal, you know that it has to be melted, shaped/forged and what not, as well as super heated.
How would this be done in a safe environment if it was what they say it was?
Thirty minutes away from me they used to make plutonium spheres. I believe they used a lathe among other things.
Who says uranium and plutonium can't be heated?
If you can't see how ridiculous this all is, then, when they decide on having another cold war, you deserve to sit there crapping your pants or punching your way into someones underground shelter to sit out the nonsense; then to come back out knowing you lost all credibility and friends because you panicked over a lot of fake news bull crap, designed for you to do exactly what you did.
How many of your friend's parents died from making plutonium triggers for thermonuclear bombs? I have a few. But know, tell me how they are fake.
Those who have even a small bit of common sense...see it for what it is...it's crap! They don't work!
Forget about evaporation: forget about radiation poisoning: forget about hiding under tables: in cupboards: in basements, etc.
You do realize plutonium and uranium are mostly alpha emitters? A sheet of paper can stop an alpha particle.
...[/quote]
-
Take a look at just this video. It doesn't need in depth thought to see what a pile of garbage this all is, does it?
# (http://#)
Sokarul: people need to make up their minds about this plutonium/uranium crap. It's either deadly or it's so weak that paper stops it. Hahahahah.
-
I didn't realise they has such good cgi back in the 50s
-
I didn't realise they has such good cgi back in the 50s
If you call that good CGI, then you are deluding yourself. Any person that is clued up to how manipulated footage is done, will 100% see the absurdity in all of these poor Hollywood productions.
-
Let me rephrase that, I didn't realsie they had any capability to fake images like this in the 50s
-
Let me rephrase that, I didn't realsie they had any capability to fake images like this in the 50s
Not really hard to fake is it. Let's be honest. I mean, they aren't exactly good quality and they do look (by todays standards of hoaxing) rather poor.
Any expert on this stuff would see in seconds what it all is. I'm fairly sure you know as well. Obviously you won't admit that to me as you are in direct conflict with my thoughts, which is fair enough.
-
Then why have no experts exposed them as fakes?
Where are the hoards of experts marching on government demanding to know why these images are fake?
-
Then why have no experts exposed them as fakes?
Where are the hoards of experts marching on government demanding to know why these images are fake?
You mean the experts who are paid by the Government? You mean the experts that are allowed to work in their field of expertise? Film makers?
Or do you mean random experts, here and there who aren't afraid of losing their jobs?
What's to say that many haven't already tried and were ridiculed into oblivion, then shunned by people for their views.
I think you're intelligent enough to figure out why this doesn't gain public attention, personally.
-
Can I have an example of a fake image expert paid by the government
-
Can I have an example of a fake image expert paid by the government
It's not about being a fake image expert. It's about people who know how video can and is manipulated, overlayed and what not.
Do you think Hollywood film makers know a bit about making footage look real?
I don't think you are that naive. There's no way in hell that you think everything told to you is true. No way.
-
No I don't belive everything I'm told at face value but you seem to have a problem where your dont belive in anything you are told.
-
No I don't belive everything I'm told at face value but you seem to have a problem where your dont belive in anything you are told.
I rarely believe much of the media, you're right about that. That's because they tell so many lies, it's hard to know what is real and what isn't.
Even globulites are like this so this isn't a flat Earth thing, either.
-
Countries don't have sovereignty anymore. It is BS. Learn about the Jesuits and what they have been doing for hundreds of years. I'm sorry, but powerful people control the world.
Nukes are like the moon landings in that this fraud doesn't happen again in modern times. I do think that there is science being withheld from humanity like how 9/11 was actually accomplished, but we are limited to knowing what we are told. I know that it seems crazy, but that is only because of what we are allowed to know our whole lives.
I myself am a RE but I love this forum because it confronts some of the very real frauds that exist in the world. I do not claim to know much, I only claim to know what is actually BS. I feel like I am really incredibly ignorant even though I loved science before all of this. I just want people to start looking at evidence, because we are actually in a lot of trouble.
-
Take a look at just this video. It doesn't need in depth thought to see what a pile of garbage this all is, does it?
# (http://#)
Sokarul: people need to make up their minds about this plutonium/uranium crap. It's either deadly or it's so weak that paper stops it. Hahahahah.
Your ignorance does not constitute as evidence for your argument.
-
That is fake video. There are a lot of them. What about the definitive proof that they exist? I can't find any. That should be the goal of this thread.
-
Hundreds of thousands if not millions that have seen them?
-
Hi Pythagoras. I just have to say at this point that we need video evidence. The amount that is claimed to have occurred would warrant video evidence, and even though I have been looking, I can't find any. One big barrier to all of this is the fact that people don't understand that their world is controlled. This forum is like a beacon shining in absolute oblivion, because we are being lied to every day, and people just can't see this. I understand why, but it is time that we start using our brains.
-
Hundreds of thousands if not millions that have seen them?
Seen what?
-
Nuclear eplosions
-
Nuclear eplosions
Who are these millions and where did they actually see these nuclear explosions?
-
Hi Pythagoras. I just have to say at this point that we need video evidence. The amount that is claimed to have occurred would warrant video evidence, and even though I have been looking, I can't find any. One big barrier to all of this is the fact that people don't understand that their world is controlled. This forum is like a beacon shining in absolute oblivion, because we are being lied to every day, and people just can't see this. I understand why, but it is time that we start using our brains.
Fair enough but their is plenty of video eveidence of there, of which I have never seen a credible or realistic explanation of how and in what way it looks fake.
-
Hi Pythagoras. I just have to say at this point that we need video evidence. The amount that is claimed to have occurred would warrant video evidence, and even though I have been looking, I can't find any. One big barrier to all of this is the fact that people don't understand that their world is controlled. This forum is like a beacon shining in absolute oblivion, because we are being lied to every day, and people just can't see this. I understand why, but it is time that we start using our brains.
Fair enough but their is plenty of video eveidence of there, of which I have never seen a credible or realistic explanation of how and in what way it looks fake.
If you weren't a thinker and were just the ordinary, everyday type of person that just gets on with life without giving much thought to anything other than your needs, I would believe what you are saying.
The problem is, you're not like that. You are a thinker and that's why I'm goign to have to call you a liar if you can't see that those videos stink to high heaven of fakery.
Your problem is quite simple and it's a major problem of lot of people. If you admit to even one being fake, you then open up a massive can of worms for yourself, so I can understand why you are afraid to do that. There are millions upon million just like you.
I have no doubt you're intelligent but I do doubt you are as naive as you're making out.
-
Even though I think that the science for NW might exist, there is a lot of fake videos provided by world powers that they have really tested them. I just don't see how they can exist in a few videos and all the rest are fake. I'm afraid that the cold war was a hoax on populations of the world and that nukes aren't real at all. I think we are lost until we learn the value of evidence. What we believe and learn is supposed to exist our whole lives so we never question it, and unfortunately the truth is that it is BS. Powerful people control all of it. I love science, and I want to learn real science.
-
Again I have never seen a explanation of a video that credibly discribed how it looks fake and how it was done. Or what a real one should look like. Let alone physics shows you how they work and like I said atleast hundreds of thousands on people have seen them in action.
-
Again I have never seen a explanation of a video that credibly discribed how it looks fake and how it was done. Or what a real one should look like. Let alone physics shows you how they work and like I said atleast hundreds of thousands on people have seen them in action.
I understand your concerns. Can I just ask a simple question? Because I'm so curious about this country. If it were true that you were being lied to every day, to a scale that you couldn't even fathom, would you really want to know the truth?
-
Again I have never seen a explanation of a video that credibly discribed how it looks fake and how it was done. Or what a real one should look like. Let alone physics shows you how they work and like I said atleast hundreds of thousands on people have seen them in action.
I understand your concerns. Can I just ask a simple question? Because I'm so curious about this country. If it were true that you were being lied to every day, to a scale that you couldn't even fathom, would you really want to know the truth?
Yes but believing in conspiricy like these and standing on a soap box preachig to people about how they are mindless sheep towing the party line allows governments and organisations to get away with the real conspiracy are lot closer to home and on a more logical scales because it lumps whistle blowers in with the tin foil brigade such as sceptic anxd some of the other more bizzare characters on this forum. Did you ever consider that governments love crazy conspiracy theorists for this reason?
-
Even though I think that the science for NW might exist, there is a lot of fake videos provided by world powers that they have really tested them. I just don't see how they can exist in a few videos and all the rest are fake. I'm afraid that the cold war was a hoax on populations of the world and that nukes aren't real at all. I think we are lost until we learn the value of evidence. What we believe and learn is supposed to exist our whole lives so we never question it, and unfortunately the truth is that it is BS. Powerful people control all of it. I love science, and I want to learn real science.
I'd love to learn the real truth; but like you say; what's the truth.
We know we are lied to on a constant basis. That's as plain as the nose on anyone's face.
I believe our whole history is a massive lie, going back as far as is humanly possible, right up until yesterday, the today when we reach tomorrow.
These people who orchestrate all of this are extremely clever. They appear to be flawed; but that's just a ruse to make people think they are dropping the ball at times.
They have conspiracy theorists arguing with themselves by giving out some real info mixed in with a lot of crap.
It can start with people believing that extra terrestrials enter Earth's atmosphere and abduct people, or dissect cattle.
People call these people nuts...the problem here is, they may be barking up the wrong tree where space is concerned; but not where craft and Alien beings are concerned, because those Alien beings could be actually from a part of this Earth that we will never get to see, unless we are abducted and taken there; maybe as part of a banquet; us being a main course. Lol.....laughable but it could be closer to the truth and the space Alien ruse is fed to us as part of a mixture of truth and lies.
So what we have here, is, we have conspiracy theorists who may believe in reptile like humanoids and laughing at the UFO nuts, whilst the UFO people are laughing at the reptilian nuts.
It simply gets the world to believe that both are as insane as each other.
That's why cults are labelled looneys, because they have a belief system.
Here's a thought: If cults get taken out, then there is a likelyhood that they are more closer to a truth than they are of being lunatics.
If you doubt nuclear bombs and power, you are a lunatic: an idiot, clueless, unscientific and ignorant.
If you doubt history as being different to what you were told, you are a basket case and need urgent treatment and should not be allowed to have children.
This is what people have to deal with by the super ignorant masses who hang onto every word that officials tell them...and also use the words that are programmed into them by those at the top, referring to people being conspiracy nuts and all the rest of the garbage attached to anyone daring to think outside of the box.
If people can be programmed to gather in masses with lit torches baying for the blood of someone with a free mind, then what chance have us mere, humble, easily led, naive humans got of ever being anything other than a pet of society to the higher ranks.
If someone said to me, "oh I think nukes are duds; they don't work." I would ask them why they thought like that.
If after explanation; I wouldn't think, " my god, what a frigging nutcase." I would be thinking, "hmmm, I'll look into this with a clear mind and see what hits me."
If I did all the looking and sifting and came to the conclusion that everything seemed ok, I would say to the person, "I disagree with your thoughts. I've looked at it all and I can't see why it would be fake."
What I wouldn't say, is, " OH, I've looked at it all and I can conclude that you're a frigging conspiracy nut and should be in a lunatic asylum." etc, etc.
-
I think people believe in a lot. That's the problem. You have to stop believing period. There is no reason for it. There is evidence. No matter who you respect or what you follow, evidence doesn't lie. If it is tampered with, then it can tell you about the fraud. That is the whole point. I don't believe anything. I am a real ignorant person because I understand the lies that we are told. I find it shocking that nukes don't exist or that satellites are BS, but even though this is supposed to be a fundamental fact of what we understand that can exist in the world, it is just false. There is no evidence for them. If there were any, I'd be the first one to point it out, because it is supposed to be backed by evidence. I know it seems impossible, but you have to start examining what we are told. Physical evidence, that is how you can start sifting through the BS.
http://telly.com/1J57DHR (http://telly.com/1J57DHR)
The world we really live in is F'd up. We are really victims of powerful people who control what we believe.
-
As far as aliens in our solar system goes, I've looked at a lot. It is true that NASA would have you believe that aliens are in our solar system. It is BS. You have to learn about the Jesuits, otherwise you are lost. They are the reason why everything is hell. If aliens were in our solar system, I would have found some evidence by now.
-
As far as aliens in our solar system goes, I've looked at a lot. It is true that NASA would have you believe that aliens are in our solar system. It is BS. You have to learn about the Jesuits, otherwise you are lost. They are the reason why everything is hell. If aliens were in our solar system, I would have found some evidence by now.
When did NASA say there were extraterrestrials in our solar system? ???
-
Honestly it is a hoax that has been going on for decades.
(http://)
There is a lot more than just NASA transmissions, admissions, and what astronauts saw, and this is not new and it is complete BS. Like I said before, I love science, but the truth is that NASA is generally a fraud. We never even went to the moon. I think that it might be that we can't even do it.
-
Honestly it is a hoax that has been going on for decades.
(http://)
There is a lot more than just NASA transmissions, admissions, and what astronauts saw, and this is not new and it is complete BS. Like I said before, I love science, but the truth is that NASA is generally a fraud. We never even went to the moon. I think that it might be that we can't even do it.
Sounds too English to be from NASA.
Buzz Aldrin is a crazy old bat, and a UFO doesn't mean extraterrestrials.
We never have been to the moon, and that's another big reason that this is kind of ridiculous.
-
It's worse than that. There are other astronauts saying the same thing. NASA is nothing. They don't do science. I don't know why but the people in control of the world have NASA do this nonsense. The best that I can come up with, is that it keeps us distracted and confused. That is essentially why we don't know anything. Even the internet is full of S and unless you start looking at real evidence and KNOW what you are talking about, you are just going to have your head spinning.
-
It's worse than that. There are other astronauts saying the same thing. NASA is nothing. They don't do science. I don't know why but the people in control of the world have NASA do this nonsense. The best that I can come up with, is that it keeps us distracted and confused. That is essentially why we don't know anything. Even the internet is full of S and unless you start looking at real evidence and KNOW what you are talking about, you are just going to have your head spinning.
UFO does not mean extraterrestrial.
If you can show me something official from NASA I might be more prone to not brush off what you're saying so easily.
-
Again I have never seen a explanation of a video that credibly discribed how it looks fake and how it was done. Or what a real one should look like. Let alone physics shows you how they work and like I said atleast hundreds of thousands on people have seen them in action.
I understand your concerns. Can I just ask a simple question? Because I'm so curious about this country. If it were true that you were being lied to every day, to a scale that you couldn't even fathom, would you really want to know the truth?
Yes but believing in conspiricy like these and standing on a soap box preachig to people about how they are mindless sheep towing the party line allows governments and organisations to get away with the real conspiracy are lot closer to home and on a more logical scales because it lumps whistle blowers in with the tin foil brigade such as sceptic anxd some of the other more bizzare characters on this forum. Did you ever consider that governments love crazy conspiracy theorists for this reason?
Governments put out shills for that very purpose. You're right, they do love conspiracy theorists. They know everyone isn't asleep, so it adds to their game.
They know that the main populations are sheep. They know that they can put out the most stupid theories and fake stuff and it will be believed by the masses.
They also know that the masses will do their jobs for them, in the main against lone theorists or a few gathered.
Their problems arise when cults rise up, because cults mean masses and people join masses, especially when they start tio wake up.
They have to be put to sleep by hook or by crook.
First you discredit them with the looney stuff. Then you discredit their leader with claims of paedophilia and such like and acts of violence on their clan.
When that doesn't work, it's time to crank up the effort and make out they fired upon law officers or whatever. Then the green light is given to put them to sleep.
They put shows on TV about conspiracy theories and talk shows, hosted by people like Jesse Ventura and Alex Jones, etc.
Then there's people like William Cooper and Phil Schneider who speak out on radio shows and in public arena's.
Both set have different versions of what's going on. Truth is mixed in with fiction to boggle your mind.
These people have loyal followers and those loyal followers are against the other loyal followers, yet all are conspiracy theorists. It's a case of baffling people's minds to make conspiracy theorists believe in different theories.
So how can we tell who are the ones that's closer to the truth?
Look who gets more air time, TV time. Ventura and Jones.
What else?
Look who's alive and who is dead.
Cooper was shot dead by law enforcement and Schneider was strangled to death.
If anyone is interested, look into Phil Schneider and William Cooper. It's interesting and it may open up your mind to possibilities.
Don't bother doing it if your aim is to merely do it to think of them as nutters, because you will never grasp any points they make.
Also Rik Clay is another one to look up. He had a lot of interesting things to say. I say, had, because he is dead as well, apparent suicide.
To say anyone of them is correct in all they are saying would be naive. To at least review it all and come to a conclusion about what would fit better with your thoughts, may give people more insight into what we are part of in this world or what is in store for future generations.
I think that those who aren't asleep can see the big brother society more or less in juggernaut motion. We also know that our pet dogs are the guineapigs for the microchip society that we all will become in time which will probably start from birth for those not too far into the future, maye a decade or so away, or closer.
The list is absolutely endless. I can say this though. I feel sorry for the kids that are born today and in the last 10 years or so, because they have a future of misery, unless they happen to be born into a silverspoon family.
-
I like that point you made. People need to understand that fact. UFO's mean Unidentified flying objects, and it doesn't have anything to do with aliens otherwise. We may see some craft in the sky, that is not evidence for aliens. I talk about NASA and what they are doing because it is all BS. Fake nonsense has been created to pretend that aliens exist.
http://telly.com/1J56P4I (http://telly.com/1J56P4I)
-
I think people believe in a lot. That's the problem. You have to stop believing period. There is no reason for it. There is evidence. No matter who you respect or what you follow, evidence doesn't lie. If it is tampered with, then it can tell you about the fraud. That is the whole point. I don't believe anything. I am a real ignorant person because I understand the lies that we are told. I find it shocking that nukes don't exist or that satellites are BS, but even though this is supposed to be a fundamental fact of what we understand that can exist in the world, it is just false. There is no evidence for them. If there were any, I'd be the first one to point it out, because it is supposed to be backed by evidence. I know it seems impossible, but you have to start examining what we are told. Physical evidence, that is how you can start sifting through the BS.
http://telly.com/1J57DHR (http://telly.com/1J57DHR)
The world we really live in is F'd up. We are really victims of powerful people who control what we believe.
At least you are switched on.
-
It's scary though because what it took to understand some of the lies. People in general are lost. They see what they are trained to see. How the hell do we wake up the world?
-
It's scary though because what it took to understand some of the lies. People in general are lost. They see what they are trained to see. How the hell do we wake up the world?
We can't. Only the people themselves can do that by all somehow starting to think for themselves.
The major problem to that is for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, where thinking for yourself comes in. Because those at the top are always 10 steps ahead and our reactions are gauged on everything.
They start an action, gauge the reaction, then bring in another action to couneract that.
In other words, they create a problem, gauge the reaction, then propose a solution to put the masses back to sleep.
For instance: Security risk. Suicide bombers or terrorists gaining easy access to your country and causing mayhem.
They create that problem, then gauge the reaction, which is natural fear of the people, who are wanting a solution to the problem.
No problem for those at the top. They solve your fears by telling you that we are going to war on those responsible, then you are xrayed, beeped, tagged, passports chipped and every other thing at airports.
You have cameras everywhere with more to come. They are basically telling you that your entire life will be logged and you, owned by them. You will be tracked by every footstep, soon.
They are in the early stages of this and it will get a lot worse...but the people beg for it. They are asking to have their open prison, they call a country to be on lockdown......begging for it and happy to do that.
Who said caged hamsters must be pissed off? They must look at us and think...."I wouldn't have their life." lol
We are basically guineapigs, rife for testing and easily tagged. They can make you feel as comnfortable or an uncomfortable as they see fit in their game,
The game is to make you comfortable in one sense whilst shit scared in another.
They make you feel safe, as I said above: security!
They then tell you that the US and Russia are arguing and tell you about nukes. This gets people worried.
Not worried enough though, so they saturate the TV with CANCER.
"Have you had a cough for 3 weeks or more?...go to your doctor , you could have lung cancer."
Lump in your breast? go to your doctor, it's probably breast cancer.
Feel your balls. Do you feel a lump? It could be testicular cancer.
Having trouble peeing? It could be prostate cancer.
Blood in urine or stool. It could be bladder or colon cancer.
1 in 3 people will get cancer.
Cornflakes may cause cancer.
Fat people are blah blah more likely to get cancer.
Smoking just one extra cigarette increases your chances of lung cancer by 20%.
Smoking one cigarette makes you lose so many hours from your life.
Eating too much red meat causes cancer.
Get your breasts crushed when we tell you. It's called a mamagram and can catch cancer before it starts.......what they mean is...crushing your breasts can cause it.
Flu epidemic. swine flu, normal flu, h1n1 virus, aids, hiv, rabies, tuberculosis, small pox , ebola, etc, etc, etc.
If you have diabetes, then get this flu jab...it does absolutely nothing other than gives you the flu or whatever virus and makes you feel like crap.
Get this every year because you aren't a guineapig, we are looking after you making sure you don't become a burden on society by becoming a burdening pensioner or a diabetic pensioner, so we will keep injecting until we get a happy medium where deaths don't just happen too quickly yet your life expecancy will be between 60 and 70 with the odd ones living beyond.
Have you ever wondered why high ranking people live until they are 100 or there abouts?
Have a think about it. Think of as many people as you can where there lifestyles re littered with drugs/drink or whatever and yet they are living into real old age whilst the rest of the population drops down like flies.
They tell you that people are living longer and you believe it. Why?
I see just as many deaths in their 40's to 50's as I do for people in their 60's and their 70's, etc. I kid you not.
Go and check your obituaries from now and do it for 1 year. You will get a shock, I promise you.
All this scare stuff is bollocks and designed to scare you into submission so you become reliant on pharmaceutical industries..MONEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY.
Not only money though. That's just to keep the puppets happy. Those at the top can print their own money. It's worthless to them. They don't pay for their material things, it's on tap.
POWER over the people. You are slaves to them and they love it, because they can control you easily and make you do what they want by using their puppets to make you do it.
They are playing board games with your lives. You are a pawn in their strategic chess game or the infantry in their floor full of set out plastic soldiers that they throw missiles at, then send the puppets out to play it out for real.
You are a skin and bone toy for them to pick off at will, whenever they please.
Nothing in this world happens by accident. It's all by design.
They administer sedatives as they repeatedly kick you in the bollocks, so you smile whilst they do it.
We think we are in paradise because we can tap letters on a mobile phone to a friend, or tap keys on a keyboard, or eat so called good food which is laced with all kinds of crap to wreck your body.
They fill you full of shitty hamburgers and fries and chocolate milkshakes, etc, then ridicule you into dieting, so you buy the stuff that nobody gives a stuff about, called health options of mashed up cardboard tasting garbage that you eat...because?....Because they told you to do it and it tastes crap because it's healthy and helps you slim.
It's a mindboggling system for any one person to figure out: but it's all there in front of your face if you can open your eyes and see what's going on.
All those who think life is a joy...good luck to you..it may be for you. Enjoy what you believe is your paradise, because soon enough some will start to see their savings disappearing and their eating habits cut down to making scraps into a meal or opting to eat shit whlst they treat you like shit and with contempt.
The robots will be fine. Those are the enforcement people. They will still be fed crap...but they have a purpose in life. They are given a uniform which gives them power over you even though they are in the same open jail as you, doing life, where your parole is only granted upon death, yet you are still buried in the grounds of your open jail. There is no escape.
My god, I've just pissed myself right off. ;D
-
Now that I know a lot of what's going on, it drives me nuts that people can't start seeing it for themselves because it is all so obvious to me. Americans know that they were lied to about Iraq, and they know that they were lied to about Syria. This is common knowledge. Now they are being told BS about the Cliven Bundy situation and the media should be completely exposing themselves at this point for being controlled lairs. Our rights and futures are being destroyed and people can't snap out of this trance that they are in. What the hell is it going to take?
-
Now that I know a lot of what's going on, it drives me nuts that people can't start seeing it for themselves because it is all so obvious to me. Americans know that they were lied to about Iraq, and they know that they were lied to about Syria. This is common knowledge. Now they are being told BS about the Cliven Bundy situation and the media should be completely exposing themselves at this point for being controlled lairs. Our rights and futures are being destroyed and people can't snap out of this trance that they are in. What the hell is it going to take?
I wish I had the answer to that.
-
How the hell do we wake up the world?
Two words: Massive. Alarm. Clock.
OK, that might have been more than two.
-
How the hell do we wake up the world?
Two words: Massive. Alarm. Clock.
OK, that might have been more than two.
Or maybe some evidence.
-
Evidence....whats that? Oh you mean spoon fed propaganda from the Illuminati ;)
you have to use your own mind like Septicmatic says....he is enlightened as to reaility
-
The US will not carpet bomb Iran and certainly would never drop a nuclear weapon on that country.
The politicial bias of beast's statement is so obvious and has been dealt with so much already
[/quote]
I am glad this 7 year old topic is still active. Going back to the first post, we see a specific prediction made by me, and two competing political ideologies. As a scientist, I think making testable predictions is the best demonstrations of the value of an ideology. In this case, we can compare how well my ideology and Dio's are at predicting the future.
-
Going back to the first post, we see a specific prediction made by me, and two competing political ideologies.
I certainly hope your prediction proves correct. It probably will hold true for at least as long as Obama remains president.
As a scientist, I think making testable predictions is the best demonstrations of the value of an ideology. In this case, we can compare how well my ideology and Dio's are at predicting the future.
The absolute and open-ended way your prediction was phrased places time on my side.
I am glad this 7 year old topic is still active.
Indeed.
It appears this thread has been noticed around the web and even played a part in the founding of a website:
http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/2007-dionysius-pioneering-nuke-skeptic.html (http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.nukelies.com/forum/2007-dionysius-pioneering-nuke-skeptic.html)
-
This is perhaps an opportune moment to summarize this thread which early developed two distinct yet interrelated themes:
1) the non-existence of nuclear weapons
and
2) the non-existence of atoms
The argument against the theory of atoms concerns the nature of matter and merits a separate thread. My chief sources against atoms included Pierre Duhem and Dewey Larson. Much of their information is not directly relevant to weapons of mass destruction as discussed in this thread.
My chief source concerning weapons of mass destruction has been US Army Air Force Major Alexander de Seversky. De Seversky was a disciple of US Air Force founder General Billy Mitchell as well as Royal Air Force founder Marshal Trenchard as well as fellow British air power writer and RAF Marshal Slessor – all of whom considered naval power as outmoded nineteenth century thinking. Their views largely explain the relative absence of cold war Russian aircraft carriers in favor of land based aircraft as well as the British decision to abandon aircraft carriers in the 1960’s. General Mitchell was famously court martialed circa 1925 by generals and admirals opposed to his views. He lobbied throughout the 1930’s and died just before World War II. General Mitchell’s perspective won over President Roosevelt in World War II when Walt Disney financed a movie version of De Seversky’s 1942 book which analyzed the history of air flight along with an astute analysis of the war’s battles up to that time from General Mitchell’s dynamic perspective. Therefore, this film directly led to a vast enlargement of the Army Air Force and the postwar founding of the US Air Force as a distinct entity. (Mitchell and De Seversky actually wanted the Army and Navy to be adjuncts subject to the Air Force as the centrepeice of the US military.)
Victory Through Air Power (1942)
Walt Disney Presents : Victory Through Air Power (1943) FULL MOVIE (http://#)
Major De Seversky was also the original founder of Republic Aviation which produced WWII planes like the P-47 Thunderbolt. He was given high awards by Roosevelt and Truman, and was a close and lifelong friend of key Air Force Generals such as Carl Spaatz, etc.
De Seversky’s led the Air Force’s public affairs department after the war, and his greatest enemies were admirals and their supporters who were guided by the nineteenth century pre-aviation ideology of Alfred Mahan. According to his biography, De Seversky’s severest test came in a February 1946 congressional hearing when he was grilled by pro-navy senators from Connecticut who questioned his dissenting views concerning atomic weapons. De Seversky’s views were confirmed that summer (1946) by the final report of an investigative team which took several months to conclude what De Seversky had concluded in two days in August 1945.
‘Alexander P. De Seversky and the Quest for Air Power’
By James Libbey
http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Seversky-Quest-Air-Power/dp/1612341799 (http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Seversky-Quest-Air-Power/dp/1612341799)
The Hump Express, November 1945
http://cbi-theater-10.home.comcast.net/~cbi-theater-10/hump_express/hump111545.html (http://cbi-theater-10.home.comcast.net/~cbi-theater-10/hump_express/hump111545.html)
The Hump Express was a military weekly. De Seversky’s Reader’s Digest article of February 1946 brought his findings in Nagasaki and Hiroshima to the general public.
De Severky eyewitnessed the summer 1946 bomb test at Bikini island (the famous one with the giant waterspout surrounded by naval destroyers) which is analyzed in De Seversky’s 1950 book
Air Power: Key to Survival which contains three chapters on this subject. De Severky says that the water spout disappeared as fast as it was created. Bikini island was chosen because its unusually deep harbor would create such a waterspout which would serve the Manhattan Project’s propaganda (which had changed its name to the US Atomic Energy Commission during that year). The destroyers were said to be uninhabitable because of excessive radiation, and they were promptly scuttled in the island’s harbor which prevented any confirmation of this claim.
Among other things, De Seversky quotes Manhattan Project scientist Ralph Lapp’s book ‘Must We Hide?’ which states that the early 1945 test bomb in Alamogordo, NM was held in place by a 100 foot tower, and the base of this tower was still intact after the bomb exploded.
I personally disagree with De Seversky’s right wing politics. De Seversky was a friend and mentor of cold war Air Force generals like Curtis LeMay who advoated using weapons of mass destruction against civilian populations in places such as Vietnam. However, De Seversky’s military analyses are very worthwhile and valuable to anyone who would understand how to defend or destroy the US in a major war. Following General Mitchell’s “vital centre” doctrine of aircraft bombers flying straight to an enemy’s industrial heartland, De Seversky advocates dispersal of vital industry because concentration makes it easy to destroy. The US has tended to consolidate its targets.
Having read more of this important source, I technically disagree with the nuke-sceptic website who goes to more extremes than I do. Although weapons of mass destruction do exist with enhanced explosiveness over prior bombs, this enhanced destructiveness is not as impressive as propaganda would have it, and De Seversky did a fine job analyzing and explaining the details.
-
I have not yet investigated the USS INDIANAPOLIS (CA-35) enough to know whether its 1945 torpedoing by a Japanese submarine and subsequent sinking in the South China was deliberately arranged by persons in the US or had anything to do with the fact that it had immediately prior transported key components of the little boy bomb from the US mainland to Tinian island in July 1945.
This is presented for information and the possibility of its relevance to the propaganda version of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
http://www.ussindianapolis.org/story.htm (http://www.ussindianapolis.org/story.htm)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Indianapolis_(CA-35) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Indianapolis_(CA-35))
...and its mention in Jaws…
"We delivered the bomb." From the film Jaws (http://#)
-
‘Hitler’s Uranium Club: The Farmhall Transcripts’ by Jeremy Bernstein contains the transcripts of secretly recorded conversations of Werner Heisenberg and his fellow captured Nazi nuclear scientists at the British Farmhall facility in 1945. These transcripts demonstrate that the Nazis never had a nuclear weapons program, and their leading nuclear scientists were ignorant of it and embarrassed when the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were dropped.
“The book is a refutation of the book "Heisenberg's War" by Thomas Powers, a revisionist history that claims that Heisenberg, Germany's top scientist, really knew how an Atomic Bomb worked, but withheld this information from his colleagues and the German Government.”
http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Uranium-Club-Secret-Recordings/dp/0387950893/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z44WJW3QAANXN72WP2T (http://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Uranium-Club-Secret-Recordings/dp/0387950893/ref=pd_sim_b_1?ie=UTF8&refRID=1Z44WJW3QAANXN72WP2T)
-
Another source of skepticism to have come out of the woodwork concerning atomic propaganda US Army Brigadier General Crawford Sams, a veteran medical officer and head of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission.
The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) was established in Japan by the US occupation force in 1946. It worked in tandem with the US Atomic Energy Commission. According to ‘Suffering Made Real’ by Susan Lindee, the ABCC was widely viewed by Japanese as an instrument of American colonialism.
http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3634560.html (http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo3634560.html)
The founding head of the ABCC was US Army medical General Crawford Sams. Sams confessed in a 1979 interview that the ABCC issued official lies which exaggerated the effects of the atomic bombs. He stated that he was ordered to exaggerate these effects. For example, every cause of death within six months of the bomb blasts in the two cities for any reason whatever including clearly unrelated events like bicycle traffic accidents, etc were all chalked up as having been caused by lethal radiation from the atomic bombings.
http://beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/oral/interviews/sams.html (http://beckerexhibits.wustl.edu/oral/interviews/sams.html)
General Crawford Sams autobiography also contains a chapter describing the nature of his work for the ABCC.
-
This is perhaps an opportune moment to summarize this thread which early developed two distinct yet interrelated themes:
1) the non-existence of nuclear weapons
and
2) the non-existence of atoms
If you guys were wondering, 17 November thinks there is only earth, not elements. For a laugh ask him what the difference between gold and silver is.
-
Nuclear weapons exist.
They do.
PS, November 17: What's the difference between gold and silver?
-
American propaganda used to justify the bombs claimed that the Japanese would have allegedly fought to the last man. The truth is the Japanese moderates had already ousted Tojo from power back in the summer of 1944 and had wanted to surrender with some measure of dignity. De Seversky states Hirohito actually welcomed the bomb and the accompanying psychological propaganda because it gave him the face saver he needed to surrender and retain his popularity.
According to historian Edwin Hoyt, MacArthur and american intelligence actually planned the transfer of power this way because they could use Hirohito as the figure head of a post-war neo-fascist government that served the american empire.
-
...
PS, November 17: What's the difference between gold and silver?
-
Since the information I had posted was spread out over many pages, I decided to delete those posts.
Thus, information can be posted here in one place.
Below is Major Alexander Seversky's February 1946 Reader's Digest Article:
------------------------------------------------------------------
'ATOMIC BOMB HYSTERIA'
By Major Alexander P. de Seversky
Author of "Victory Through Air Power," etc.
(READER'S DIGEST, February 1946, pages 121 to 126)
As Special Consultant to the Secretary of War, Judge Robert P. Patterson, I spent nearly eight months intensively studying war destruction in Europe and Asia. I became thoroughly familiar with every variety of damage - from high explosives, incendiaries, artillery shells, dynamite, and combinations of these.
In this study, I inspected Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the targets of our atom bomb, examining the ruins, interrogating eyewitnesses and taking hundreds of pictures.
It was my considered opinion, I told correspondents in Tokyo, that the effects of the atom bombs - not of future bombs, but of these two - had been wildly exaggerated. If dropped on New York or Chicago, one of those bombs would have done no more damage than than a ten-ton blockbuster; and the results in Hiroshima and Nagasaki could have been achieved by about 200 B-29's loaded with incendiaries, except that fewer Japanese would have been killed. I did not "underrate" atom bombs or dispute their future potential. I merely conveyed my professional findings on the physical results of the two bombs - and they happened to be in startling contrast to the hysterical imaginative versions spread through the world.
My findings were pounced upon in outraged anger by all sorts of people, in the press, on the air, at public forums; and by scientists who haven't been within 5000 miles of Hiroshima. But the violence of this reaction cannot alter the facts on view in the two Japanese cities.
I began my study of Japan by flying over Yokohama, Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, and dozens of other places. Later I visited them all on foot.
All presented the same pattern. The bombed areas looked pinkish - an effect produced by the piles of ashes and rubble mixed with rusted metal. Modern buildings and factories still stood. That many of the buildings were gutted by fire was not apparent from the air. The center of Yokohama, for instance, seemed almost intactwhen viewed from an airplane. The long industrial belt stretcing from Osaka to Kobe had been laid waste by fire, but the factories and other concrete structures were still standing. On the whole it was a picture quite different from what I had seen in German cities subjected to demolition bombardment. The difference lay in the fact that Japanese destruction was overwhelmingly incendiary, with comparatively little structural damage to noninflammable targets.
In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan.
There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima's clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.
It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.
I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.
At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the "bald spot" where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn't there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.
What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs - the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava - just as in other Japanese cities.
The concrete buildings nearest to the center of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual.
Then I questioned a great many people who were inside such buildings when the bomb exploded. Their descriptions matched the scores of accounts I had heard from people caught in concrete buildings in areas hit by blockbusters. Hiroshima's ten-story press building, about three blocks from the center of the explosion, was badly gutted by the fire following the explosion, but otherwise unhurt. The people caught in the building did not suffer any unusual effects.
Most of the window panels were blown out of the Hiroshima hospital, about a mile from the heart of the explosion. Because there were no wooden structures nearby, however, it escaped fire. The people inside the hospital were not seriously affected by the blast. In general the effects here were analogous to those produced by the blast of a distant TNT bomb.
The total death, destruction and horror in Hiroshima were as great as reported. But the character of the damage was in no sense unique; neither the blast nor the heat was so tremendous as generally assumed.
In NAGASAKI, concrete buildings were gutted by fire but were still standing upright.
All of downtown Nagasaki, though chiefly wooden in construction, survived practically undamaged. It was explained that apparently it had been shielded from the explosion by intervening hills. But another part of Nagasaki, in a straight, unimpeded line from the explosion center and not protected by the hills, also escaped serious damage. The Nagasaki blast had virtually dissipated itself by the time it reached this area. Few houses collapsed and none caught fire.
All destruction in Nagasaki has been popularly credited to the atom bomb. Actually, the city had been heavily bombed six days before. The famous Mitsubishi plant was badly punished by eight high-explosive direct hits.
What actually happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There is little evidence of primary fire; that is to say, fire kindled by the heat of the explosive itself. The bomb presumably exploded too far above ground for that. If the temperature within the exploding area of an atom bomb is super high (and the effects in New Mexico tend to indicate that) then the heat must have been dissipated in space. What struck Hiroshima was the blast.
It was like a great fly swatter two miles broad, slapped down on a city of flimsy, half-rotted wooden houses and rickety brick buildings. It flattened them out in one blow, burying perhaps 200,000 people in the debris. Its effectiveness was increased by the incredible flimsiness of most Japanese structures, built of two-by-fours, termite-eaten and ry-rotted, and top-heavy with thick tile roofs.
The wooden slats of the collapsed houses were piled like so much kindling wood in your fireplace. Fires flared simultaneously in thousands of places, from short-circuits, over-turned stoves, kerosene lamps and broken gas mains. The whole area burst into one fantastic bonfire.
In incendiary attacks, people have a chance of escape. They run from their houses into the streets, to open places, to the rivers. In Hiroshima the majority had no such chance. Thousands of them must have been killed outright by falling walls and roofs; the rest were pinned down in a burning hell. Some 60,000, it is estimated, were burned to death.
Those who did manage to extricate themselves rushed for the bridges. There is reason to believe that one of the bridges collapsed under the weight of the frenzied mobs, although some maintain that it was brought down by the bomb blast. On the other bridges, the crush of hysterical humanity pushed out the railings, catapulting thousands to death by drowning. The missing railings were not wrenched out by the bomb blast as widely reported.
On a vast and horrifying scale it was fire, just fire, that took such high toll of life and property in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The victims did not die instantaneously in a sort of atomic dissolution. They died as people die in any fire. Quite possibly the blast was strong enough to cause internal injuries to many of those caught in the center of explosion; particularly lung injuries - a familiar effect of ordinary high-explosive bombing.
Perhaps there were some deaths from radioactivity. I met people who had heard of casualties from radio burns and radio poisoning. But I could not obtain direxct confirmation. The doctors and nurses at the hospitals I visited had no such cases under their care, though some of them had heard of such cases. I also interrogated fire fighters and Red Cross workers who had rushed to the scene in the first few minutes. They all denied personal knowledge of any lingering radioactivity.
Such are the facts as I found them - they seem to me tragic enough without pseudoscientific trimmings. I am not alone in my opinions. Scientific observers on the spot to whom I talked in general shared my point of view. Nothing official came from the War Department to justify the wild exaggeration. It simply is not true that matter was vaporized in the intense heat - if steel had evaporated certainly wood would have done the same, and undamaged wood abounds everywhere in the rubble. In neither of the bombed cities was there a bald spot such as was created in the New Mexico experiment, and both atom-bombed areas have tree trunks and walls with growing vines to disprove the claims of super heat.
The more painstakingly I analyze my observations, indeed, the more convinced I am that the same bombs dropped on New York or Chicago, Pittsburgh or Detroit, would have exacted no more toll on life than one of our big blockbusters, and the property damage might have been limited to broken window glass over a wide area. Tue, the atom bombs apparently were released too high for maximum effect. Exploded closer to the ground, the results of intense heat might have been impressive. But in that case the blast might have been localized, sharply reducing the area of destruction.
Three scientists at the University of Chicago took me severely to task for saying 200 B-29's with incendiaries could have done as much damage. They pointed out "that if 200 Superforts with ordinary bombs could wipe out Hiroshima as a single atomic bomb did, the same number of planes could wipe 200 cities with atomic bombs."
These experts merely forgot to mention one detail - that the 200 cities should be as flimsy as Hiroshima. On a steel-and-concrete city high explosives would have to be added to the job. One atomic bomb hurled at Hiroshima was equal to 200 Superforts; but in New York or Chicago a different kind of atomic bomb exploding in different fashion, would be needed before it could equal one Superfort loaded with high explosives.
It seems to me completely misleading to say that the atomic bomb used on Japan was "20,000 times more powerful" than a TNT blockbuster. From the view of total energy generated, this may be correct. But we are not concerned with the energy released into space. What we are concerned with is the portion which achieves effective demolition. From that point of view, the 20,000 figure is reduced immediately to 200 for a target like Hiroshima. For a target like New York, the figure of 20,000 drops to one or less.
However, the comparison of the atom bomb with a TNT bomb, at this stage of development, is like comparing a flaming torch with a pneumatic drill. Everything depends on whether you're trying to burn a wooden fence or demolish a concrete wall. All we can say with certainty is that the atomic bomb proved supremely effective in destroying a highly flimsy and inflammable city. It was one of those cases when the right force was used against the right target at the right time to produce the maximum effect. Those who made the tactical decision to use it in these cases should be highly complimented.
The omb dropped on Nagasaki was said to be a great many times more powerful than the one dropped on Hiroshima. Yet the damage in Nagasaki was much smaller. In Hiroshima 4.1 square miles were razed; in Nagasaki only one square mile. The improved atom bomb, in other words, was only about one fourth as effective!
Why? There are various theories, but no one knows for certain. It underlines the fat that something besides additional mass will be needed to produce greater results on the target. Eventually, of course, the problem of obtaining maximum results from atom missile will be solved. Methods will surely be found for dissipating less of the released energy in space and directing more of it to destruction.
The Chicago scientists reminded me in their statement that "the bombs dropped on Japan were the first atomic bombs ever made. They are firecrackers compared with what will be developed ten or 20 years."
That is exactly the point I am trying to make: that they are as yet in the primitive stage. Humankind has stampeded into a state of near hysteria at the first exhibits of atomic destruction. Fantasy is running wild. There are those who think we ought to dispense with all other national defense. They talk of a dozen suicides who will put on false whiskers, take compact atomic bombs in suitcases, and blow this country to bits. Such hyperbole is exciting, but it is a dangerous basis for national thinking.
On the size of the bombs, incidentally, there has been much uninformed rhetoric. How do so many people know that the atomic bombs weighed only "a few ounces" or "a few pounds"? After all, our biggest bomber, not a pursuit plane, was chosen to carry it.
A conspiracy of circumstances whipped up atomic hysteria. The Japanese had every reason to propagate extreme versions. The atom bomb gave the perfect face saving excuse for surrender. They could now pretend that an almost supernatural element had intervened to force their defeat.
The BOMB provided a face saver for or leadership as well. Our leaders were deeply committed to invasion, insisting that there could be no victory without meeting the Japanese armies in traditional fashion. We were winning a victory over Japan through air power, but I am personally convinced that we would have gone through with the invasion anyway and paid the tragic and unnecessary cost in life. The momentum of the old assumptions was too great to be arrested.
The atom bomb instantly released everybody from past commitments. The nightmare of an invasion was cancelled, a miracle saving perhaps half a million American and several million Japanese lives. Though the Hiroshima and Nagasaki episodes added less than three percent to the material devastation already visited on Japan by air power, its psychological value was incalculable - for both the defeated and the victors.
The atom bomb fitted propaganda purposes. To isolationists it seemed final proof that we could let the rest of the world stew in its own juices - with our head start in atomic energy and our superior know-how, we were safe. The internationalists, on the other hand, tried to intimidate us by reminding us that we had no monopoly on science. Everyone could manufacture the atomic bomb, they said, and if we didn't play ball we would be destroyed.
I am one of those who fought against inertia in the domain of air power. Consequently I am gratified that in relation to atomic energy the public is alert, that we are planning well ahead. But there is no call for the kind of frenzy that paralyzes understanding. Our only safety is in a calm confrontation of the truth.
I earnestly urge a cooling-off period on atomic speculation.
I am the last one to deny that atomic energy injects a vital and perhaps revolutionary new factor into military science and world relations. But I do not believe that the revolution has already taken place and that we should surrender all our normal faculties to a kind of atomic frenzy. Whatever we decide to do, let us do it calmly, logically and above all without doing violence to
ascertainable facts.
-
A relevant article about Brigadier General Crawford Sams, head of the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Atom Bomb: “A Poor Killer”
Crawford Sams and the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission in Japan
General Crawford Sams reconstituted or, to be more accurate, recreated the Japanese public health system after World War II. No stranger to pride or self-confidence, he characterized himself as one the six men who ran Japan under MacArthur.
With good reason, Sams credited himself with decreasing mortality by five million lives through application of his exemplary professionalism, energy, and focus to the prevention of epidemics, upgrading the health care system, and improving nutrition during the occupation.
As a military medical man, General Sams had a healthy respect for epidemic disease as the leading cause of casualties and degraded fighting ability of armies amid the chaos and destruction of wartime. According to his experience, World War II was the first war in which actual fighting produced more U.S. casualties than disease.
His respect for the atomic bomb? Not so great.
General Sams also ran the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, charged with evaluating mortality and morbidity associated with Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
According to an oral history Sams recorded in 1979, his first job was to collect the data; the second job was to hype it:
There was a letter brought over by this first group that came up to Japan from the Philippines with me, from the Manhattan Project, in which the President was looking for a new deterrent against a future war…So the object of this instruction, called Letter of Instruction, was “You will play up the devastating effect of the atomic bomb.” All right?
So I was the one who set the deadline this time. Anybody who had been in Hiroshima and died within six months, whether they got run over by a bicycle or whatnot, would be credited to the atomic bomb. We had to set some kind of order to this…all the reports that came back were the result of these studies that came over my desk.
The atomic bomb went off and that city had about 250 thousand people in it…When the bomb went off, about 2 thousand people out of 250 thousand got killed – by blast, by thermal radiation, or by intense x-ray, gamma radiation.
Then, what happened is like an earthquake. The blast knocked down houses, hibachis had turned over and started fires. When you have an earthquake or an atomic bomb, you start fires and then people are trapped in the buildings.
And again, by endless interviews, “Where were you?” “Where was your great uncle?” “Where was grandma when this occurred?” We built up the evidence to show on a cookie-cutter basis that it took about thirty-six hours for about two-thirds of that town to burn.
You see, it wasn’t “Bing” like the publicity here [said]: a bomb went off and a city disappeared. No such thing happened. That was the propaganda for deterrent. They’re talking about after that, “One bomb and away goes Chicago,” you know? All you’ve got to do is look in Life magazine and whatnot back in ’45, ’46, and so on. ... Well, you have to keep your feet on the ground.
As near as we could figure then, about twenty-one thousand people died in thirty-six hours as a result of being trapped and burned and so on. It’s like those who died in the ’23 earthquake [and subsequent] fire.
Then, as I say, I set the six months’ deadline for anybody who had been there, even though they went away and so on, to put a deadline on deaths from delayed radiation effects as far as it takes six months or so for deaths from (what do they call it?) delayed effects.
One of us …got a priest there to say he guessed 100 thousand people died when the bomb went off. Well, you see, it didn’t. There never was 100 thousand people [who] died. I recall the figures to the ultimate, six months’ deaths from untreated burns, thermal burns – they didn’t have any drugs or anything else, except what we could get in to them – and the delayed effects of radiation which take several months. …It was about 76 [thousand] [who] ultimately died in six months, out of 250 thousand.
…
Actually, the atomic bomb was a poor killer.
Indeed, according to Sams, the only reason that the casualty numbers in Hiroshima were as high as they were was because the Japanese government had taken no measures to disperse the population there—as it had done in Tokyo in anticipation of the devastating U.S. incendiary raids of 1945.
Sams was even less impressed by the atom bombing of Nagasaki.
Down at Nagasaki, they missed the ground zero they tried to hit, but there’s still the fact that it hit Nagasaki Medical School and Hospital there and killed a lot of patients and so on – from the _____(?) of the concrete building. But the blast effected [sic] this and knocked down part of the concrete and so on. But you don’t hear much about the effects of Nagasaki because actually it was pretty ineffective. That was a narrow corridor from the hospital in _____(?) down to the port, and the effects were very limited as far as the fire spread and all that stuff. So you don’t hear much about Nagasaki.
Indeed, the structure of the Nagasaki Medical School and Hospital—700 meters from the hypocenter-- was still standing after the attack.
Sams had also participated in the famous post-World War II Strategic Bombing Survey of Europe, which concluded that Germany’s industrial output had simply increased as the U.S. and Great Britain had pounded its factories and infrastructure with huge bombing raids.
He placed the Truman administration’s need to exaggerate the destructive effects of the atomic bomb in the context of the desire to create a new, more credible deterrent now that the strategic bombing boogeyman was a thing of the past:
After each war, for political reasons, you’d try to find a deterrent to prevent the next war.
After the First World War, it was gas warfare and people – you probably wouldn’t remember – but after that we even had motion pictures (the movies) about gassing New York City and so on till somebody figured out the air currents were such [that] you couldn’t hold a concentration of gas to gas New York City if the people stayed in the buildings and closed the windows. So that failed.
The next deterrent was air power, and so from the time of Billy Mitchell in 1925 to the Second World War, [the belief was that] if we ever had another war, air power would destroy civilization. Sound familiar? So, the theoretical production of air casualties, the catching of troops in defiles and their obliteration was the thesis in which we were all indoctrinated up until the beginning of the Second World War.
…
As you know then again, the myth of strategic bombing carried on and finally “Tooey” [Gen. Carl A.] Spaatz, who was an ex-classmate of mine and so on, was given [command of the] Eighth Air Force [with] the authority, together with the RAF, to bomb Germany. And Germany industrially was to collapse. But of course it failed. ..
I was part of the Strategic Bomb Survey Group in the theater to assess damage as we progressed across where we had been bombing Tobruk, for instance, and supposedly had cut off [the enemy’s] oil supply. When we got there, we found, of course, we had knocked down the warehouses and so on, but he dispersed his supplies in the desert, so we hadn’t cut off anything.
…
So the casualty factor was – I sent back reports on this – that air power was not a major casualty producer. But when you have a whole senior echelon, like in Washington, indoctrinated over years, growing up with the idea that you could stop armored columns with air power and so on, it’s hard to get that reversal.
I had to do the same thing with the atomic bomb when I came back.
To Sams, the atom bomb was nothing new. It was a new form of strategic bombing, but the Germans and the Japanese had already figured out the appropriate countermeasure: dispersal.
Sams believed that the Soviet Union, unlike the United States, had made drawn the correct lesson from Hiroshima and Nagasaki: that the casualties and damages from an atomic attack could be mitigated by a strategy of dispersal and atomic attack was therefore survivable.
Interestingly, the Chinese government drew the same conclusion and engaged in a massive dispersal of industrial and military assets to remote areas of the country—primarily as a countermeasure to an anticipated atomic attack by the Soviets—during the 1960s.
Sams was a loyal MacArthur man and left Japan for reassignment (the Army had rejected his attempt to retire) when Truman relieved MacArthur at the height of the Korean War.
Back in the United States, Sams proselytized for a policy of strategic dispersal which seems to have run afoul of the U.S. military’s addiction to the doctrine of deterrence and the intoxicating effect of the budget-busting pursuit of Mutually Assured Destruction.
When I came back to this country, I was appalled, from a military standpoint, to find that our major planners in the War Department were using their own propaganda, 100 thousand deaths, Bing!
It took me a couple of years to get that comparison straightened out in our official training doctrine in this country. I used to tell them back in the general staff and so on and including the chief of staff, “...if you can deter a war, for God’s sake, let’s do it and blow up the effects all you want
…
It’s all right to put out propaganda, but don’t believe your own propaganda. That’s what happens too often in this business. That’s why you had the hysteria about this radiation thing up here. So I had a job of de-glamorizing, if you like, no that’s not the word – debunking the myth that air power alone could win a battle against ground troops, or that air power could win a war…
It took me about four years to get some facts straightened out about the atomic bomb at Hiroshima with our high echelon people and now you’ve got a generation of diplomats who still are swallowing the old nonsense and putting it out.
But anyway, this has been the kind of a thing I’ve gotten into, not because of choice, but because when I found something that doesn’t fit the generally-accepted thing, I try to find what’s true and what’s fallacious.
Source: http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2009/05/atom-bomb-poor-killer.html (http://chinamatters.blogspot.com/2009/05/atom-bomb-poor-killer.html)
-
I can post random links too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats)
Less than 30 minutes away, although it's not there anymore. I wonder if my old soccer teammate's mom is just going to magically appear since she couldn't have died from radiation poising from working there.
17 November isn't going to answer the question "What is the difference between gold and silver?" because he can't. I was looking for his old answer of "It just is".
So here, have picture I took(which is probably already posted in this thread.)
It's a bunch of 1000 ppm standards. Sure is strange there can be so many when they don't exist.
(http://i331.photobucket.com/albums/l448/sokarul/IMG_05961.jpg) (http://s331.photobucket.com/user/sokarul/media/IMG_05961.jpg.html)
Any response 17 November?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats)
...
Any response 17 November?
Yes. This link is a good contribution to this thread and should be considered along with those that I have posted to have a more complete and accurate assessment of this topic.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats)
...
Any response 17 November?
Yes. This link is a good contribution to this thread and should be considered along with those that I have posted to have a more complete and accurate assessment of this topic.
Of course not the picture though, as it disproves all you have said about atoms not existing.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats)
This link is a good contribution to this thread and should be considered along with those that I have posted to have a more complete and accurate assessment of this topic.
In particular, this makes an interesting comparison with a 1980 Financial Times article which I will try to locate and post which relates the history of a group of plutonium workers from the 1940's whose personal histories were incident free for decades afterwards - which is quite the opposite of the Rocky Flats story.
-
Alexander de Seversky's second book 'Air Power: Key to Survival' (1950) contains photographs of largely undamaged parts of Hiroshima which were censored from publication in the american press. I'll try to scan these and post them later this week. He also stated that parts of Hiroshima's tram network never ceased functioning and that the city's entire streetcar network was fully functioning less than 48 hours after the little boy bomb exploded.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats)
This link is a good contribution to this thread and should be considered along with those that I have posted to have a more complete and accurate assessment of this topic.
In particular, this makes an interesting comparison with a 1980 Financial Times article which I will try to locate and post which relates the history of a group of plutonium workers from the 1940's whose personal histories were incident free for decades afterwards - which is quite the opposite of the Rocky Flats story.
It's because Rocky Flats was unsafe to people and the environment. If they handled the plutonium and the plutonium waste correctly there wouldn't have been any problems later on.
-
Zbigniew Jaworowski was one of the more well informed writers in recent history to challenge exaggerations about nuclear radiation. He especially wrote about Chernobyl in particular.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zbigniew_Jaworowski)
"The survivors of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who received instantaneous radiation doses of less than 200 mSv have not suffered significant induction of cancers. And so far, after 50 years of study, the progeny of survivors who were exposed to much higher, near-lethal doses have not developed adverse genetic effects."
'Radiation Risk and Ethics'
By Zbigniew Jaworowski
http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htm (http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1999/jaworowski/NR99aa01.htm)
'Observations on Chernobyl'
By Zbigniew Jaworowski
https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdf (https://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/Summer_2010/Observations_Chernobyl.pdf)
'Nuclear Fear: A History of Images' by Spencer Weart is a comprehensive history of twentieth century nuclear propaganda.
online version:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Nuclear_Fear.html?id=NuFubjYl1poC (http://books.google.com/books/about/Nuclear_Fear.html?id=NuFubjYl1poC)
After the Japanese tidal wave and nuclear scare of 2011, Weart issued an updated but abridged version of this book entitled 'The Rise of Nuclear Fear.' In my opinion, the scope and success of nuclear propaganda chronicled in this book (as well as phenomena like space travel) confirms the theses of 1960's classics like those of (Librarian of Congress) Daniel Boorstin's 'Guide to Pseudo-Events in America' and Marxist Guy DeBord's 'Society of the Spectacle.' DeBord wrote years later that the society of spectacle began in earnest during the 1920's having been facilitated by radio.
-
Many countries that claim to have nuclear weapons have released fake nuclear bomb test videos. Why would this even happen? Aren't there supposed to be hundreds of nuclear tests that were conducted? Why wouldn't these be filmed? Where are the actual videos of real nuclear bomb tests? From any country. You would expect to get some from at least the U.S. or Russia. If you people can look at the U.S.'s first H-bomb test and still think that it is of an actual nuclear blast, then maybe you should start doing something else with your time. This forum can educate people with history and evidence that they are being lied to about, start dealing with reality on reality's terms.
-
Many countries that claim to have nuclear weapons have released fake nuclear bomb test videos. Why would this even happen? Aren't there supposed to be hundreds of nuclear tests that were conducted? Why wouldn't these be filmed? Where are the actual videos of real nuclear bomb tests? From any country. You would expect to get some from at least the U.S. or Russia. If you people can look at the U.S.'s first H-bomb test and still think that it is of an actual nuclear blast, then maybe you should start doing something else with your time. This forum can educate people with history and evidence that they are being lied to about, start dealing with reality on reality's terms.
Youtube has plenty of videos.
-
Youtube has plenty of videos.
Yes, that is what they are sort of known for. Thank you, once again, captain obvious. Are you going to tell us the colour of the sky next?
-
Youtube has plenty of videos.
Yes, that is what they are sort of known for. Thank you, once again, captain obvious. Are you going to tell us the colour of the sky next?
Normally it would be obvious, but to a typical fe'er, it is not.
-
Someone found a Dewey B Larson's speech, very interesting, skip the first 15 minutes if you want.
Does The Nuclear(uNclear) Atom Exist ? (http://#)
(I guess the original was here, one month sooner: Dewey B. Larson's 1978 Conference Keynote Address)
Dewey B. Larson's 1978 Conference Keynote Address (http://#)
What nuclear propaganda? Have you read a physics book lately? Splitting atoms is done all the time at numerous mass colliders around the world.
The nuclear propaganda I was referring to is the american political and scientific propaganda about nuclear weapons.
I did not have in mind so much the comparativley esoteric atomic theory as I did the political propaganda about nuclear weapons, but since you mention the atomic theory behind nuclear weapons, I take it you have not referenced the link I posted earlier in this thread to Dewey Larson's 'Case Against the Nuclear Atom':
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm (http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm)
Nathan Gwynne's 'Einstein and Modern Physics' also debunks the atomic myth even more forthrightly than Larson's:
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf (http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf)
Also, labour historian and MIT alumnus David Noble's 'America By Design' reveals much about the difference between engineering theory and reality which directly relates to why what you read in a common physics textbook about nuclear theory has nothing to do with the reality of the explosions which actually take place. The following is only a review, but as I have this book, I can retrieve it and quote some of the relevant portions about the way in which the educational segment of the engineering industry functions.
http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/280/class/ambydesn.html (http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/280/class/ambydesn.html)
-
Nathan Gwynne's 'Einstein and Modern Physics' also debunks the atomic myth even more forthrightly than Larson's:
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf (http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf)
That link for Mr. Gwynne's essay on Einstein is no longer valid. It has been relocated to:
http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf)
I might point out that Gwynne's claim on page four that Einstein was a lifelong zionist is untrue and unrelated even to Gwynne's topic.
It was true in 1930 when Einstein wrote the pro-zionist book cited by Mr. Gwynne, but Einstein later explicitly repented of his support for zionism and harshly criticized Israel.
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/Einstein.htm (http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/Einstein.htm)
However, Mr. Gwynne researched his scientific dissent a bit more thoroughly.
-
I'm pretty sure humans have the capability to make weapons grade plutonium and fire neutrons at it. Thus creating a chain reaction that releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of heat and light. And that energy then transfers into a source of hydrogen in the bomb and fuses hydrogen nuclei together, releasing an even larger amount of energy. All of this happening in less than a millisecond. Yeah, I'm pretty sure humans have that capability. Just because you can't understand the physics doesn't mean it doesn't exist you fucking idiot.
-
Watch your language, TokyoRoyalty. Consider this a warning.
-
Nuclear weapons are a complete joke, and we have many shills out there to keep the sheep roped in that get out of line. That's why nobody knows anything. People are contained with fear porn and nonsense. Even Edward Snowden is a shill. Television is controlled, and the truth will never be televised. Learn about Freemasons, and learn of the Jesuit order. The countries are lying to their own people. Leaders are installed. The space programs of all of the world powers are also nonsense. Nobody is doing anything in "space", it's impossible. Learn about Chemtrails. That's the fastest and easiest way for you to see that the world is controlled.
(http://)
-
Nuclear weapons are a complete joke, and we have many shills out there to keep the sheep roped in that get out of line. That's why nobody knows anything. People are contained with fear porn and nonsense. Even Edward Snowden is a shill. Television is controlled, and the truth will never be televised. Learn about Freemasons, and learn of the Jesuit order. The countries are lying to their own people. Leaders are installed. The space programs of all of the world powers are also nonsense. Nobody is doing anything in "space", it's impossible. Learn about Chemtrails. That's the fastest and easiest way for you to see that the world is controlled.
(http://)
Your rhetoric is boring
-
Nuclear weapons are a complete joke, and we have many shills out there to keep the sheep roped in that get out of line. That's why nobody knows anything. People are contained with fear porn and nonsense. Even Edward Snowden is a shill. Television is controlled, and the truth will never be televised. Learn about Freemasons, and learn of the Jesuit order. The countries are lying to their own people. Leaders are installed. The space programs of all of the world powers are also nonsense. Nobody is doing anything in "space", it's impossible. Learn about Chemtrails. That's the fastest and easiest way for you to see that the world is controlled.
(http://)
Your rhetoric is boring
Instead of off handedly dismissing this, you should try to learn something.
-
Nuclear weapons are a complete joke, and we have many shills out there to keep the sheep roped in that get out of line. That's why nobody knows anything. People are contained with fear porn and nonsense. Even Edward Snowden is a shill. Television is controlled, and the truth will never be televised. Learn about Freemasons, and learn of the Jesuit order. The countries are lying to their own people. Leaders are installed. The space programs of all of the world powers are also nonsense. Nobody is doing anything in "space", it's impossible. Learn about Chemtrails. That's the fastest and easiest way for you to see that the world is controlled.
(http://)
Your rhetoric is boring
Instead of off handedly dismissing this, you should try to learn something.
Have you considered that he did examine Naga's claims and found them to be preposterous?
-
Nuclear weapons are a complete joke, and we have many shills out there to keep the sheep roped in that get out of line. That's why nobody knows anything. People are contained with fear porn and nonsense. Even Edward Snowden is a shill. Television is controlled, and the truth will never be televised. Learn about Freemasons, and learn of the Jesuit order. The countries are lying to their own people. Leaders are installed. The space programs of all of the world powers are also nonsense. Nobody is doing anything in "space", it's impossible. Learn about Chemtrails. That's the fastest and easiest way for you to see that the world is controlled.
(http://)
Your rhetoric is boring
Instead of off handedly dismissing this, you should try to learn something.
I would have to unlearn things for what he says to be true.
-
Nuclear weapons are a complete joke, and we have many shills out there to keep the sheep roped in that get out of line. That's why nobody knows anything. People are contained with fear porn and nonsense. Even Edward Snowden is a shill. Television is controlled, and the truth will never be televised. Learn about Freemasons, and learn of the Jesuit order. The countries are lying to their own people. Leaders are installed. The space programs of all of the world powers are also nonsense. Nobody is doing anything in "space", it's impossible. Learn about Chemtrails. That's the fastest and easiest way for you to see that the world is controlled.
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/watch?v=OK9QRL1BzQ8)
Your rhetoric is boring
Instead of off handedly dismissing this, you should try to learn something.
I would have to unlearn things for what he says to be true.
You could always get in a bad car accident and become massively brain damaged, you'd probably be able to believe what he is saying is true then as well.
-
Instead of off handedly dismissing this, you should try to learn something.
You're right. I should follow your advice, as your posts always contain substance and reasoning, and are never just random, unproductive and passive aggressive one-liners
-
If you want better understanding on this topic, read "BOMB: The race to build, and steal, the world's first nuclear weapons". Very nice.
-
Nathan Gwynne's 'Einstein and Modern Physics' also debunks the atomic myth even more forthrightly than Larson's:
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf (http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf)
That link for Mr. Gwynne's essay on Einstein is no longer valid. It has been relocated to:
http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf)
I might point out that Gwynne's claim on page four that Einstein was a lifelong zionist is untrue and unrelated even to Gwynne's topic.
It was true in 1930 when Einstein wrote the pro-zionist book cited by Mr. Gwynne, but Einstein later explicitly repented of his support for zionism and harshly criticized Israel.
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/Einstein.htm (http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/old/Einstein.htm)
However, Mr. Gwynne researched his scientific dissent a bit more thoroughly.
Really no one posted what did Hiroshima casualities seen? What? A magic, big fairy's fart?
-
Ooh I just noticed this thread.
nukelies.org is a frozen forum on this subject.
But there are also youtubes by rerevisionist.
Search for 'Lords of the Nukes' youtube which looks into nuclear bombs, nuclear power, the Cold War and Cuba etc
The name comes from Lord of the Rings: if you can take a 3 1/2 hour film, you can take a 3 1/2 hour video which
should change your entire world view. mostly in an optimistic direction.
-
Hello everybody (first post),
I'd like to point out an important proof of nuclear weapons being faked that has been long overlooked.
A "nuclear weapon" cannot possibly create a mushroom cloud. It is physically impossible. All pictures of nuclear explosions are faked.
Why? A mushroom cloud is made of gasses and nukes produce deadly radiation from splitting Uranium, not gasses. The "explosion" of a nuke would produce only energy. It would heat the air, but hot air does not form clouds, nor does it burn. Nor do radioactive particles form clouds. Nor would a few Kg of Uranium be enough to produce a gigantic cloud even if you could convert a metal to a gas directly. It is not possible for "the air to catch on fire" as they suggest occurs in a nuclear explosion. Go find a blowtorch and try to light the air.
The whole "nuclear bomb" hoax is based on TNT. 1 gram of TNT equals 1 L of gas. Even a small stick of dynamite makes a significant cloud of expanding gas. Because the 1940's public had been conditioned (as we all are) to think of a bigger ball of gas as a sign of an explosion of greater force by WWII film reels, movies, etc... the nuke hoaxers convince us of the weapons great power with the dramatic mushroom cloud formation, which is only caused by large volumes of cooling gasses and has no link whatsoever to radioactivity.
-
Hello everybody (first post),
I'd like to point out an important proof of nuclear weapons being faked that has been long overlooked.
A "nuclear weapon" cannot possibly create a mushroom cloud. It is physically impossible. All pictures of nuclear explosions are faked.
Why? A mushroom cloud is made of gasses and nukes produce deadly radiation from splitting Uranium, not gasses. The "explosion" of a nuke would produce only energy. It would heat the air, but hot air does not form clouds, nor does it burn. Nor do radioactive particles form clouds. Nor would a few Kg of Uranium be enough to produce a gigantic cloud even if you could convert a metal to a gas directly. It is not possible for "the air to catch on fire" as they suggest occurs in a nuclear explosion. Go find a blowtorch and try to light the air.
The whole "nuclear bomb" hoax is based on TNT. 1 gram of TNT equals 1 L of gas. Even a small stick of dynamite makes a significant cloud of expanding gas. Because the 1940's public had been conditioned (as we all are) to think of a bigger ball of gas as a sign of an explosion of greater force by WWII film reels, movies, etc... the nuke hoaxers convince us of the weapons great power with the dramatic mushroom cloud formation, which is only caused by large volumes of cooling gasses and has no link whatsoever to radioactivity.
A nuke produces energy.
Questions.
Where does the energy go after the explosion?
If you heat air very rapidly, where does it go?
If you had lots of very hot air moving and rising in one spot, would air not drag dust/ other debris with it?
If you rapidly increased then decreased the atmosphere, what happens to the moisture in the air?
If the moisture condensed, would it move with hot air?
Figure those questions out first then come back here.
-
Hello everybody (first post),
I'd like to point out an important proof of nuclear weapons being faked that has been long overlooked.
A "nuclear weapon" cannot possibly create a mushroom cloud. It is physically impossible. All pictures of nuclear explosions are faked.
Why? A mushroom cloud is made of gasses and nukes produce deadly radiation from splitting Uranium, not gasses. The "explosion" of a nuke would produce only energy. It would heat the air, but hot air does not form clouds, nor does it burn. Nor do radioactive particles form clouds. Nor would a few Kg of Uranium be enough to produce a gigantic cloud even if you could convert a metal to a gas directly. It is not possible for "the air to catch on fire" as they suggest occurs in a nuclear explosion. Go find a blowtorch and try to light the air.
The whole "nuclear bomb" hoax is based on TNT. 1 gram of TNT equals 1 L of gas. Even a small stick of dynamite makes a significant cloud of expanding gas. Because the 1940's public had been conditioned (as we all are) to think of a bigger ball of gas as a sign of an explosion of greater force by WWII film reels, movies, etc... the nuke hoaxers convince us of the weapons great power with the dramatic mushroom cloud formation, which is only caused by large volumes of cooling gasses and has no link whatsoever to radioactivity.
you cannot say a large explosion is incapable of causing a mushroom cloud, and then say large explosions do cause mushroom clouds.
try to at least be consistent with your idiocy.
-
Hello everybody (first post),
I'd like to point out an important proof of nuclear weapons being faked that has been long overlooked.
A "nuclear weapon" cannot possibly create a mushroom cloud. It is physically impossible. All pictures of nuclear explosions are faked.
Why? A mushroom cloud is made of gasses and nukes produce deadly radiation from splitting Uranium, not gasses. The "explosion" of a nuke would produce only energy. It would heat the air, but hot air does not form clouds, nor does it burn. Nor do radioactive particles form clouds. Nor would a few Kg of Uranium be enough to produce a gigantic cloud even if you could convert a metal to a gas directly. It is not possible for "the air to catch on fire" as they suggest occurs in a nuclear explosion. Go find a blowtorch and try to light the air.
The whole "nuclear bomb" hoax is based on TNT. 1 gram of TNT equals 1 L of gas. Even a small stick of dynamite makes a significant cloud of expanding gas. Because the 1940's public had been conditioned (as we all are) to think of a bigger ball of gas as a sign of an explosion of greater force by WWII film reels, movies, etc... the nuke hoaxers convince us of the weapons great power with the dramatic mushroom cloud formation, which is only caused by large volumes of cooling gasses and has no link whatsoever to radioactivity.
you cannot say a large explosion is incapable of causing a mushroom cloud, and then say large explosions do cause mushroom clouds.
try to at least be consistent with your idiocy.
What I am saying is that fission produces no gas. TNT explosion do.
A nuclear explosion cannot produce the cloud of gas they are so fond of showing in the pictures. When you have air heated to 50,000 degrees F by lightning strikes it turns to plasma, not a fireball. Ever notice how the air never explodes during a lighting strike? If nuclear explosions were real we'd see plasma clouds not smoke/gas clouds.
When they have a "nuclear test" its only tons of TNT with possibly some other chemicals added to give us a nice big fireball we can all be afraid of but it's not possible for it to be caused by fission.
-
and the emp pulse?
-
Hello everybody (first post),
I'd like to point out an important proof of nuclear weapons being faked that has been long overlooked.
A "nuclear weapon" cannot possibly create a mushroom cloud. It is physically impossible. All pictures of nuclear explosions are faked.
Why? A mushroom cloud is made of gasses and nukes produce deadly radiation from splitting Uranium, not gasses. The "explosion" of a nuke would produce only energy. It would heat the air, but hot air does not form clouds, nor does it burn. Nor do radioactive particles form clouds. Nor would a few Kg of Uranium be enough to produce a gigantic cloud even if you could convert a metal to a gas directly. It is not possible for "the air to catch on fire" as they suggest occurs in a nuclear explosion. Go find a blowtorch and try to light the air.
The whole "nuclear bomb" hoax is based on TNT. 1 gram of TNT equals 1 L of gas. Even a small stick of dynamite makes a significant cloud of expanding gas. Because the 1940's public had been conditioned (as we all are) to think of a bigger ball of gas as a sign of an explosion of greater force by WWII film reels, movies, etc... the nuke hoaxers convince us of the weapons great power with the dramatic mushroom cloud formation, which is only caused by large volumes of cooling gasses and has no link whatsoever to radioactivity.
you cannot say a large explosion is incapable of causing a mushroom cloud, and then say large explosions do cause mushroom clouds.
try to at least be consistent with your idiocy.
What I am saying is that fission produces no gas. TNT explosion do.
A nuclear explosion cannot produce the cloud of gas they are so fond of showing in the pictures. When you have air heated to 50,000 degrees F by lightning strikes it turns to plasma, not a fireball. Ever notice how the air never explodes during a lighting strike? If nuclear explosions were real we'd see plasma clouds not smoke/gas clouds.
When they have a "nuclear test" its only tons of TNT with possibly some other chemicals added to give us a nice big fireball we can all be afraid of but it's not possible for it to be caused by fission.
What did people at Rocky Flats do all day?
-
TNT cannot possibly cause an explosion the size of a nuclear bomb with any degree of practicality. I have calculated in another thread that to fake each of the Japan bombings you would need enough TNT to fill 2 average sized skyscrapers. Do I really have to tell you why dropping skyscraper sized bombs out of a plane won't work?
-
TNT cannot possibly cause an explosion the size of a nuclear bomb with any degree of practicality. I have calculated in another thread that to fake each of the Japan bombings you would need enough TNT to fill 2 average sized skyscrapers. Do I really have to tell you why dropping skyscraper sized bombs out of a plane won't work?
You also determined that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were desolate radio active waste lands. You hurt your credibility when you provide false in formation.
-
You also determined that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were desolate radio active waste lands. You hurt your credibility when you provide false in formation.
This is an online forum, no one has credibility.
He is not wrong though, the Hiroshima explosion was 15 kilotons worth of a TNT explosion. That is 15 000 tones of TNT you need to drop for an equivalent explosion.
You will need 2500 Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers to drop that much TNT. I think someone would have noticed if more than half of all B-29's ever produced where used in one bombing
-
You also determined that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were desolate radio active waste lands. You hurt your credibility when you provide false in formation.
This is an online forum, no one has credibility.
He is not wrong though, the Hiroshima explosion was 15 kilotons worth of a TNT explosion. That is 15 000 tones of TNT you need to drop for an equivalent explosion.
You will need 2500 Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers to drop that much TNT. I think someone would have noticed if more than half of all B-29's ever produced where used in one bombing
And yet, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabited to this day. ::)
-
There's a difference between a nuclear reactor meltdown, and a nuclear bomb. For example, a nuke doesn't deposit nuclear waste such as xenon gas.
-
And yet, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabited to this day. ::)
Yes they are, and this is not shocking news.
About 65kg of uranium-235 was used (not all of it detonated though)
The 65kg was detonated about 600m above ground and spread out over a massive area. A lot of radioactive material was taken up into the atmosphere and the rest fell to the ground. What went into the atmosphere probably got dumped over 1000's of square kilometers. Such small amounts will be nearly untraceable far away enough.
What fell to the ground was also spread out over the blast area, so there will probably still be trace amounts of radioactive material in the soil there.
The entire area does not become a radioactive wasteland for thousands of years as described in the movies. The radioactive material in the air that gets inhaled is what kills people after the explosion. After that radioactive material settles and you do not ingest or inhales radioactive material you will be fine.
-
TNT cannot possibly cause an explosion the size of a nuclear bomb with any degree of practicality. I have calculated in another thread that to fake each of the Japan bombings you would need enough TNT to fill 2 average sized skyscrapers. Do I really have to tell you why dropping skyscraper sized bombs out of a plane won't work?
You also determined that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were desolate radio active waste lands. You hurt your credibility when you provide false in formation.
They definitely have a fair bit more radiation then other places.
-
Man, you know you're way off track if JRS's views are in line with everyone else's.
-
Im sorey, but this is not just firebombing:
BAM!!!!!!!!
-
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm)
-
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm)
Did you just reply to a request more than nine years after it was made? That's the most epic necro I have ever seen!
-
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm)
You bumped this thread to post that crap?
-
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm)
Did you just reply to a request more than nine years after it was made? That's the most epic necro I have ever seen!
Not really, a software I use to track my web site visitors informed yesterday that a visitor here had visited the web page.
-
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm)
Did you just reply to a request more than nine years after it was made? That's the most epic necro I have ever seen!
Not really, a software I use to track my web site visitors informed yesterday that a visitor here had visited the web page.
So you a bot posted the link?
-
You also determined that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were desolate radio active waste lands. You hurt your credibility when you provide false in formation.
This is an online forum, no one has credibility.
He is not wrong though, the Hiroshima explosion was 15 kilotons worth of a TNT explosion. That is 15 000 tones of TNT you need to drop for an equivalent explosion.
You will need 2500 Boeing B-29 Superfortress bombers to drop that much TNT. I think someone would have noticed if more than half of all B-29's ever produced where used in one bombing
And yet, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are inhabited to this day. ::)
Yeah I know it almost a year later. but your post clearly indicates a complete lack of understanding of the effects and reasons behind an air burst.
I suggest finding a copy of Dr. Clayton's Life After Doomsday.
However I have reason to doubt you will trouble finding the truth, so I'll put it here in as simple terms as possible.
The first bomb Hiroshima was detonated at 1600 feet above the ground. The resulting fireball from the detonation, did not quite touch the ground.
There are two main reasons for an air burst. One, is the blast radius is larger, and two, it results in less fallout on site and down wind.
Fallout is caused by material being sucked up into the fireball and becoming an isotope, then cooling and falling out of the cloud of debris
The higher above the surface the bomb is detonated, the "cleaner" it is.
A bomb detonated at the surface is very dirty.
One say detonated in an underground parking garage is particular dirty as it carves out a huge crater and send all the material in that crater skyward as vaporized radioactive material.
Radioactive waste land?
But significantly higher rates of cancer than the rest of the world? YEP
he Hiroshima and Nagasaki tumour registries, which have been in operation since 1958, are among the few population-based cancer registries in Japan. This analysis evaluated cancer incidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki between 1958 and 1987. The overall age-adjusted (World Population Standard) cancer incidence has increased from 217 to 301 per 100 000 among males, and from 176 to 197 per 100 000 among females during the first 30 years of cancer registration. The most recent rates are intermediate to rates in other countries. Despite a gradual decrease, gastric cancer remained the most common malignancy among males and females throughout the surveillance period, accounting for 24% of all cancers by the late 1980s. The rate of liver cancer has increased dramatically among males during the past 20 years, with a 2-fold increase in incidence in the past 10 years alone. The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki now have among the highest rates of liver cancer in the world. Breast cancer incidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in contrast, is among the lowest in the world, althoug incidence rates have doubled since the 1960s. Other common malignancies include cancers of the lung, colon and rectum among males and cancers of the colon, cervix and lung among females.
-
Those cities are still not the radioactive wastelands that mikeman erroneously made them out to be.
-
Ask the people at Hiroshima if atomic weapons exist.
-
Those cities are still not the radioactive wastelands that mikeman erroneously made them out to be.
That is all ya got? You find one tiny flaw in an otherwise well documented historical event and that leads to discount ALL of it?
Take the advice and ask the citizens of Hiroshima if it was real. My daughter and son-in-law spent a year in Hiroshima, returning home not a year ago. They know and correspond with survivors.
-
Ask the people at Hiroshima if atomic weapons exist.
How would they know?
In those days they were told there was an atomic bomb dropped. None of them knew what one was. To this very day the word "atomic bomb" is heard of and thought of, but physically not observed.
So tell me. What would be the point in asking anyone?
-
Those cities are still not the radioactive wastelands that mikeman erroneously made them out to be.
That is all ya got? You find one tiny flaw in an otherwise well documented historical event and that leads to discount ALL of it?
Take the advice and ask the citizens of Hiroshima if it was real. My daughter and son-in-law spent a year in Hiroshima, returning home not a year ago. They know and correspond with survivors.
We've had all that.
-
Ask the people at Hiroshima if atomic weapons exist.
How would they know?
In those days they were told there was an atomic bomb dropped. None of them knew what one was. To this very day the word "atomic bomb" is heard of and thought of, but physically not observed.
So tell me. What would be the point in asking anyone?
One B-29, verified by witnesses, could not have dropped enough TNT to do that kind of damage. You can't stack 20Kt tonnes of TNT and have it ALL detonate, the pile blows itself apart before it happens.
-
Ask the people at Hiroshima if atomic weapons exist.
How would they know?
In those days they were told there was an atomic bomb dropped. None of them knew what one was. To this very day the word "atomic bomb" is heard of and thought of, but physically not observed.
So tell me. What would be the point in asking anyone?
One B-29, verified by witnesses, could not have dropped enough TNT to do that kind of damage. You can't stack 20Kt tonnes of TNT and have it ALL detonate, the pile blows itself apart before it happens.
TNT? The place was firebombed. Witnesses? Verified?
You know nothing for sure.
-
Ask the people at Hiroshima if atomic weapons exist.
How would they know?
In those days they were told there was an atomic bomb dropped. None of them knew what one was. To this very day the word "atomic bomb" is heard of and thought of, but physically not observed.
So tell me. What would be the point in asking anyone?
One B-29, verified by witnesses, could not have dropped enough TNT to do that kind of damage. You can't stack 20Kt tonnes of TNT and have it ALL detonate, the pile blows itself apart before it happens.
TNT? The place was firebombed. Witnesses? Verified?
You know nothing for sure.
One B-29 did that? Sure it did. It took hundreds of B-29s delivering 20,000 pounds each flying just over the buildings in Tokyo to that kind of damage
20K tonnes is 40,000,000 pounds is 2,000 B-29s with all the bombs detonating at the exact same time, at the exact same altitude.
Nukes are real. I worked around them for 7 years and have the DD Form 214 to prove it.
It is you who knows nothing. And STILL you believe it was all fake with nada to support it except a few spliced tougher agenda driven SB on Youtube
-
Those cities are still not the radioactive wastelands that mikeman erroneously made them out to be.
That is all ya got? You find one tiny flaw in an otherwise well documented historical event and that leads to discount ALL of it?
Take the advice and ask the citizens of Hiroshima if it was real. My daughter and son-in-law spent a year in Hiroshima, returning home not a year ago. They know and correspond with survivors.
My only reason for posting in this thread was to point out mikeman's errors. Are you going to defend what he said, or just make yourself look like more of an ass?
-
Ask the people at Hiroshima if atomic weapons exist.
How would they know?
In those days they were told there was an atomic bomb dropped. None of them knew what one was. To this very day the word "atomic bomb" is heard of and thought of, but physically not observed.
So tell me. What would be the point in asking anyone?
One B-29, verified by witnesses, could not have dropped enough TNT to do that kind of damage. You can't stack 20Kt tonnes of TNT and have it ALL detonate, the pile blows itself apart before it happens.
TNT? The place was firebombed. Witnesses? Verified?
You know nothing for sure.
One B-29 did that? Sure it did. It took hundreds of B-29s delivering 20,000 pounds each flying just over the buildings in Tokyo to that kind of damage
20K tonnes is 40,000,000 pounds is 2,000 B-29s with all the bombs detonating at the exact same time, at the exact same altitude.
Nukes are real. I worked around them for 7 years and have the DD Form 214 to prove it.
It is you who knows nothing. And STILL you believe it was all fake with nada to support it except a few spliced tougher agenda driven SB on Youtube
If we keep going I'm sure you'll end up an astronaut, too. If we carry on, I'm sure you've probably restored a B-29 on your own, in your back yard.
People like you are 10 a penny. Using bullshit to prove something that can't be directly proved.
You know nothing other than book reading and film/documentary watching or word of mouth and taking it all at face value without bothering to logically sift through it.
I can only do likewise but I look through it to see if things add up. Guess what?.....They don't.
-
Ask the people at Hiroshima if atomic weapons exist.
How would they know?
In those days they were told there was an atomic bomb dropped. None of them knew what one was. To this very day the word "atomic bomb" is heard of and thought of, but physically not observed.
So tell me. What would be the point in asking anyone?
One B-29, verified by witnesses, could not have dropped enough TNT to do that kind of damage. You can't stack 20Kt tonnes of TNT and have it ALL detonate, the pile blows itself apart before it happens.
TNT? The place was firebombed. Witnesses? Verified?
You know nothing for sure.
One B-29 did that? Sure it did. It took hundreds of B-29s delivering 20,000 pounds each flying just over the buildings in Tokyo to that kind of damage
20K tonnes is 40,000,000 pounds is 2,000 B-29s with all the bombs detonating at the exact same time, at the exact same altitude.
Nukes are real. I worked around them for 7 years and have the DD Form 214 to prove it.
It is you who knows nothing. And STILL you believe it was all fake with nada to support it except a few spliced tougher agenda driven SB on Youtube
If we keep going I'm sure you'll end up an astronaut, too. If we carry on, I'm sure you've probably restored a B-29 on your own, in your back yard.
People like you are 10 a penny. Using bullshit to prove something that can't be directly proved.
You know nothing other than book reading and film/documentary watching or word of mouth and taking it all at face value without bothering to logically sift through it.
I can only do likewise but I look through it to see if things add up. Guess what?.....They don't.
US Air Force Malstrom Air Force Base Montana, FSC Q-Flight, 10 Minuteman III Missiles 30 nuclear warheads totaling 10.1 megatons. Maelstrom has 200 Missiles and had 300 nukes mounted. The Minuteman III have been changed over now to carry a single nuke of 1 to 2 megaton yield.
You have chosen to ignore tens of thousands of pages of declassified documentation, the testimony of the bomber crews, and photo planes, the people on the ground, the documented investigation of the after effects, films and photos.
Then attack me personally because you fear my knowledge of the subject. And yes I KNOW the subject. I had to do the research, go on Amazon and look up White Hot Skies, Survival and Redemption.
One more thing you have chosen to ignore is the fall of the Soviet Union was Pres. Reagan's SDI. If nukes are not real, then why did Gorbachov fold over SDI? Under "Nukes are Fake" all Gorbachov had to do was build more fake nukes to overwhelm SDI which of course could not have been real and both leaders would have known it.
'splane that one Lucy
-
US Air Force Malstrom Air Force Base Montana, FSC Q-Flight, 10 Minuteman III Missiles 30 nuclear warheads totaling 10.1 megatons. Maelstrom has 200 Missiles and had 300 nukes mounted. The Minuteman III have been changed over now to carry a single nuke of 1 to 2 megaton yield.
I've read books as well, on all kinds of stuff. Some say fiction and some say fact. Hard to tell which is which when you actually pore through it all. A lot like your books.
You have chosen to ignore tens of thousands of pages of declassified documentation, the testimony of the bomber crews, and photo planes, the people on the ground, the documented investigation of the after effects, films and photos.
I haven't chosen to ignore anything. I've actually read through a lot of it. What I have chosen to do, is not to believe the stories just for the sake of it.
I chose to question it all and try to decipher what really happened.
I came to the conclusion that most of the stories are just that. Stories of fiction, or stories of mostly fiction with a hint of truth here and there. None of that truth having anything to do with nukes, which are fictional.
Then attack me personally because you fear my knowledge of the subject. And yes I KNOW the subject. I had to do the research, go on Amazon and look up White Hot Skies, Survival and Redemption.
The only knowledge you have is book reading. I can recite stories from books of any nature that is supposed fact or fiction. That only makes me knowledgeable about the content of the book...not the purported physical reality of a supposed fact based book. As for fiction - we can all use our imagination to manifest pictures from that fiction and see it as real. The same could be said of a supposed fact based book. It's easy to pretend you know what you're talking about when you're given the script.
One more thing you have chosen to ignore is the fall of the Soviet Union was Pres. Reagan's SDI. If nukes are not real, then why did Gorbachov fold over SDI? Under "Nukes are Fake" all Gorbachov had to do was build more fake nukes to overwhelm SDI which of course could not have been real and both leaders would have known it.
'splane that one Lucy
Easy to explain to anyone willing to use their common sense. There is no rise and fall of anything. There is no cold wars and what not. No big country threats. That's just for our benefit. To scare us all into submission and a belief that all the mass murdering weapons they tell us they have, are aimed at us and vice versa. It's one hell of a way to control people and make them shed dollars for whatever bullshit comes next.
-
US Air Force Malstrom Air Force Base Montana, FSC Q-Flight, 10 Minuteman III Missiles 30 nuclear warheads totaling 10.1 megatons. Maelstrom has 200 Missiles and had 300 nukes mounted. The Minuteman III have been changed over now to carry a single nuke of 1 to 2 megaton yield.
I've read books as well, on all kinds of stuff. Some say fiction and some say fact. Hard to tell which is which when you actually pore through it all. A lot like your books.
You have chosen to ignore tens of thousands of pages of declassified documentation, the testimony of the bomber crews, and photo planes, the people on the ground, the documented investigation of the after effects, films and photos.
I haven't chosen to ignore anything. I've actually read through a lot of it. What I have chosen to do, is not to believe the stories just for the sake of it.
I chose to question it all and try to decipher what really happened.
I came to the conclusion that most of the stories are just that. Stories of fiction, or stories of mostly fiction with a hint of truth here and there. None of that truth having anything to do with nukes, which are fictional.
Then attack me personally because you fear my knowledge of the subject. And yes I KNOW the subject. I had to do the research, go on Amazon and look up White Hot Skies, Survival and Redemption.
The only knowledge you have is book reading. I can recite stories from books of any nature that is supposed fact or fiction. That only makes me knowledgeable about the content of the book...not the purported physical reality of a supposed fact based book. As for fiction - we can all use our imagination to manifest pictures from that fiction and see it as real. The same could be said of a supposed fact based book. It's easy to pretend you know what you're talking about when you're given the script.
One more thing you have chosen to ignore is the fall of the Soviet Union was Pres. Reagan's SDI. If nukes are not real, then why did Gorbachov fold over SDI? Under "Nukes are Fake" all Gorbachov had to do was build more fake nukes to overwhelm SDI which of course could not have been real and both leaders would have known it.
'splane that one Lucy
Easy to explain to anyone willing to use their common sense. There is no rise and fall of anything. There is no cold wars and what not. No big country threats. That's just for our benefit. To scare us all into submission and a belief that all the mass murdering weapons they tell us they have, are aimed at us and vice versa. It's one hell of a way to control people and make them shed dollars for whatever bullshit comes next.
Never mind. Your mind is made up sans facts. You are the only one that knows the truth about anything right.
7 years working around nukes is just discounted, because it doesn't fit your personal agenda. Decades of research on the subject is just so much propaganda because YOU declare it so.
An entire empire falls apart over fake protection against fake nukes when all they had to do was "build" more fakes, and this make sense to you? Seriously? What exactly did the USSR control when the cost of over coming a fake SDI bankrupted the entire nation? They LOST Eastern Europe along with others. So how is the lie creating power and control for them?
Wake the !@#k up dude!
-
Nevermind Sceptimatic, he is a broken record. He has somehow learned to discern fact from fiction without ever leaving his basement. If you present something he deems to be "mainstream", it is rejected out of hand because he is a "free-thinker".
Waste of time.
-
Nevermind Sceptimatic, he is a broken record. He has somehow learned to discern fact from fiction without ever leaving his basement. If you present something he deems to be "mainstream", it is rejected out of hand because he is a "free-thinker".
Waste of time.
It is clear it never occurs to him the number of people it would take to propagate the lie of nuclear bombs and generating nuclear power. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, that doesn't count the generation before this one.
Logic and common sense are not his wheelhouse.
-
You people can harp on for as long as you want and stay gullible. When the scare tactics start with another pretend cold war or something, then you can all run like hell to your hideout. Me? I'll be making a cup of tea and smiling at the thought of the panic created by the story books and the TV.
-
You people can harp on for as long as you want and stay gullible. When the scare tactics start with another pretend cold war or something, then you can all run like hell to your hideout. Me? I'll be making a cup of tea and smiling at the thought of the panic created by the story books and the TV.
Cool story bro.
-
If you don't think nukes don't exist then prove it. I know that's a negative but you guys are the ones making the claim so you provide the evidence.
-
If you don't think nukes don't exist then prove it. I know that's a negative but you guys are the ones making the claim so you provide the evidence.
Providing evidence would be easy if evidence was allowed to be got. As you know; it's all guarded in secrecy for any prying eyes.
Like a unicorn inside a horse box. You can hear it neighing and clip clopping and kicking but you just can't observe it.
Anyone calling it a horse will be ridiculed. Those calling it a unicorn, will be back patted and called a potential science student/expert or words to that effect.
-
Like a unicorn inside a horse box.
Wait, what is a horse box?
-
Like a unicorn inside a horse box.
Wait, what is a horse box?
The thingy city people think fake nukes are hidden in.
Or... Well maybe he thinks that is what the B-29 bombers dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Who the hell knows what he thinks? If everything is fake, then what is real? Maybe he thinks Unicorns are real. It is as likely as anything else he claims.
-
Hard to tell which is which when you actually pore through it all. A lot like your books.
You have a real problem with reading comprehension. First I referenced ONE of my books by name. Had you bothered to read or understand the book's description, it is a post apocalyptic story involving nukes. I had to research a lot about the effects and what would happen in such an attack or the readers would balk at the premise.
But you said books as in more than one book. Yep there are two, and more are on the way. But I am wondering how Time's Crossroads has anything to do with the subject matter of this thread, as it is clearly pure Science FICTION story. Or do you actually believe time travel is real?
-
Oops, I killed the thread. Sorry
-
Does Kim Jong-un know that Nuclear weapons do not exist?
-
He's building them so... No, he knows they are real
-
If you don't think nukes don't exist then prove it. I know that's a negative but you guys are the ones making the claim so you provide the evidence.
Providing evidence would be easy if evidence was allowed to be got. As you know; it's all guarded in secrecy for any prying eyes.
Like a unicorn inside a horse box. You can hear it neighing and clip clopping and kicking but you just can't observe it.
Anyone calling it a horse will be ridiculed. Those calling it a unicorn, will be back patted and called a potential science student/expert or words to that effect.
Papa ben Yaakoff Legbatard confirmed.
Sceptimatic=Papa Legba=Yaakov ben Avraham. No doubt.
-
Thank you for your psychopathic mirroring & gaslighting.
Sadly for you, none of this will make 'nuclear fission', i.e. transmutation of elements, become real.
Sorry, Harry Potter; now hop on your broomstick & go play quidditch or something...
-
Thank you for your psychopathic mirroring & gaslighting.
Sadly for you, none of this will make 'nuclear fission', i.e. transmutation of elements, become real.
Sorry, Harry Potter; now hop on your broomstick & go play quidditch or something...
Have a think.
-
A cloud chamber is nuclear power is it? ::)
-
A cloud chamber is nuclear power is it? ::)
I didn't mention nuclear power. Don't just to stupid conclusions.
-
A cloud chamber is nuclear power is it? ::)
I didn't mention nuclear power. Don't just to stupid conclusions.
Your answer makes no sense.
-
Your inability to understand is none of my caring.
-
Your inability to understand is none of my caring.
You're still making no sense at all.
-
Cool
-
Nuclear Fission=Transmutation of Elements=Alchemy=Magic.
Total nonsense.
There you go; you're all free from the threat of Armageddon & can get on with your lives without fear...
LOL!!!
Watch you dumb fucks all come swarming in actually DEFENDING your right to be Oppressed by Nonsense!
Perfect Slaves, the lot of you...
-
Nuclear Fission=Transmutation of Elements=Alchemy=Magic.
Why can't an element lose an alpha particle? Why can we detect alpha particles? WHy are you useing yor ignorance as evidence for your argument?
Total nonsense.
There you go; you're all free from the threat of Armageddon & can get on with your lives without fear...
LOL!!!
Watch you dumb fucks all come swarming in actually DEFENDING your right to be Oppressed by Nonsense!
Perfect Slaves, the lot of you...
lol
-
Thank you for your psychopathic mirroring & gaslighting.
Sadly for you, none of this will make 'nuclear fission', i.e. transmutation of elements, become real.
Sorry, Harry Potter; now hop on your broomstick & go play quidditch or something...
Papa ben Sceptimatic Yaakoff hath spoketh.
Funny how your multiple alts prove you have no social life at all.
-
I've heard stories of the nagasaki and hiroshima bombings where people only survived because of the lucky structure of buildings, and possible lighter-colored buildings surrounding others, allowing less heat, upon many other reasons. I can see several reasons why those buildings would not be effected as badly. Now my guess is, you will bring up the fact that the bombs were ignited in the air for larger radius effects which was excellent strategy, which is why you'll notice in several photos the tops of buildings are heavily scorched and damaged, and why the stumps and few lower limbs of trees happen to remain after the explosions, though they are still scorched, and the visible buildings appear to have light colored bricks.
-
Nuclear Fission=Transmutation of Elements=Alchemy=Magic.
Why can't an element lose an alpha particle? Why can we detect alpha particles? WHy are you useing yor ignorance as evidence for your argument?
Total nonsense.
There you go; you're all free from the threat of Armageddon & can get on with your lives without fear...
LOL!!!
Watch you dumb fucks all come swarming in actually DEFENDING your right to be Oppressed by Nonsense!
Perfect Slaves, the lot of you...
lol
Perhaps Papa can explain how Doctors take X-Rays
-
Nuclear Fission=Transmutation of Elements=Alchemy=Magic.
Why can't an element lose an alpha particle? Why can we detect alpha particles? WHy are you useing yor ignorance as evidence for your argument?
Total nonsense.
There you go; you're all free from the threat of Armageddon & can get on with your lives without fear...
LOL!!!
Watch you dumb fucks all come swarming in actually DEFENDING your right to be Oppressed by Nonsense!
Perfect Slaves, the lot of you...
lol
Perhaps Papa can explain how Doctors take X-Rays
Maybe you should find out why they're called X-Rays.
-
Maybe you should find out why x rays originate from electrons whereas gamma rays originate from the nucleus.
-
I've heard stories of...
*Yawn!*
We've all heard lots of stories.
Here's one:
x rays originate from electrons whereas gamma rays originate from the nucleus.
And Harry Potter's spells originate from his wand...
How's Quidditch practice going, socky-boy?
-
Nice rebuttal. Did a two year old write it for you?
-
Nice rebuttal. Did a two year old write it for you?
Nah, you probably did not write it for him.
-
Golf clap
-
I mean, I could always prove it to you with a little bit of U-235, Deuterium, Tritium, and H2. But, to be brutally honest, I don't want to be arrested by the FBI for trying to prove you wrong.
-
I mean, I could always prove it to you with a little bit of U-235, Deuterium, Tritium, and H2. But, to be brutally honest, I don't want to be arrested by the FBI for trying to prove you wrong.
Or you could prove it with your spell-book & wand?
Btw, nice avatar; no-one's ever thought of having Picard before...
Lol yes they have you Clown Derf Trek-Tard!
-
So you're saying that all this damage was caused by a fire?
Or are these photos fake?
(http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg)
(http://aerostories.free.fr/hiroshima/ruehiro.jpg)
(http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY106/GIF/Still/Physics/Damage13-hiroshima-c.jpg)
(http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/GIF/Stage1/1-5-7.jpg)
And how do you explain images such as these? Some guy just came along and painted them?
(http://history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/h02.jpg)
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Hiroshima/images/HR43.jpg)
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Effects/Shadow1.jpg)
It is ridiculous and false to claim that nuclear bombs do not exist.
-raises hand-
Yeah out of curiosity, those buildings standing in the middle of the wasteland? Why didn't THEY get leveled too?
And yeah I believe America did cause serious fire damage. We did what is called a fire storm on a few Japanese cities. We dropped a few lines worth of fire bombs in a specific pattern which drew an X or a * on the city. After that mother nature took over by whipping the flames into a massive inferno of fire and high speed winds.
This discussion started with a quote talking about 20 megaton bombs. The ones that dropped on Japan were 12 - 15 Kiloton. So less than 10% the force that is being discussed here. That's why you see buildings still standing.
-
12 kilotons is less than 1% of 20 megatons. Your point still stands, but it is an amazing difference. In a way, it is almost better that we developed the hydrogen bomb. If we were still dealing with low yields like Fat Boy, then I bet we would have dropped more.
-
So you're saying that all this damage was caused by a fire?
Or are these photos fake?
(http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg)
(http://aerostories.free.fr/hiroshima/ruehiro.jpg)
(http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY106/GIF/Still/Physics/Damage13-hiroshima-c.jpg)
(http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/GIF/Stage1/1-5-7.jpg)
And how do you explain images such as these? Some guy just came along and painted them?
(http://history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/h02.jpg)
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Photos/Hiroshima/images/HR43.jpg)
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Effects/Shadow1.jpg)
It is ridiculous and false to claim that nuclear bombs do not exist.
-raises hand-
Yeah out of curiosity, those buildings standing in the middle of the wasteland? Why didn't THEY get leveled too?
And yeah I believe America did cause serious fire damage. We did what is called a fire storm on a few Japanese cities. We dropped a few lines worth of fire bombs in a specific pattern which drew an X or a * on the city. After that mother nature took over by whipping the flames into a massive inferno of fire and high speed winds.
This discussion started with a quote talking about 20 megaton bombs. The ones that dropped on Japan were 12 - 15 Kiloton. So less than 10% the force that is being discussed here. That's why you see buildings still standing.
Like Rama said, 15 kilotons is nowhere near 10% of 20 megatons. It is closer to .01%.
-
I have asked this question a couple times and received no answer. Though it was kind of mixed into a rant.
The last couple years of college, recruiters from Comanche nuclear power plant came to unt. I shadowed for a couple weeks as they were offering a nice package for finishing up the needed credits in nuclear engineering, and a 3 year stay there afterwards.
Obviously I decided to go the route I have, though what is the explanation for my experience there?? Sure I am not a nuclear engineer but I spent I would say a combined time of 20-30 hours there.
This is a private sect company, not government owned, and there was truly power coming from there. Plus all the other things I saw there that no one would care to listen to.
-
I have asked this question a couple times and received no answer. Though it was kind of mixed into a rant.
The last couple years of college, recruiters from Comanche nuclear power plant came to unt. I shadowed for a couple weeks as they were offering a nice package for finishing up the needed credits in nuclear engineering, and a 3 year stay there afterwards.
Obviously I decided to go the route I have, though what is the explanation for my experience there?? Sure I am not a nuclear engineer but I spent I would say a combined time of 20-30 hours there.
This is a private sect company, not government owned, and there was truly power coming from there. Plus all the other things I saw there that no one would care to listen to.
If you're trying to make a case for nuclear power/weapons being real then you're not doing a very good job.
Someone can come to your college and tell you all about mars and the rover and that the rover. They can show you pictures and video and all kinds of stuff, just the same as they can show you nuclear power plants or nuke weapons or the aftermath of supposed nukes. It doesn't make them reality. It just makes you believe they're real, because your perception of them being real has just been aided by certain people with scientific letters after their names, telling you it's all legitimate.
-
12 kilotons is less than 1% of 20 megatons. Your point still stands, but it is an amazing difference. In a way, it is almost better that we developed the hydrogen bomb. If we were still dealing with low yields like Fat Boy, then I bet we would have dropped more.
You're right of course, my bad. But it actually furthers my point.
-
Doing math wrong furthers your point? ???
-
I have asked this question a couple times and received no answer. Though it was kind of mixed into a rant.
The last couple years of college, recruiters from Comanche nuclear power plant came to unt. I shadowed for a couple weeks as they were offering a nice package for finishing up the needed credits in nuclear engineering, and a 3 year stay there afterwards.
Obviously I decided to go the route I have, though what is the explanation for my experience there?? Sure I am not a nuclear engineer but I spent I would say a combined time of 20-30 hours there.
This is a private sect company, not government owned, and there was truly power coming from there. Plus all the other things I saw there that no one would care to listen to.
If you're trying to make a case for nuclear power/weapons being real then you're not doing a very good job.
Someone can come to your college and tell you all about mars and the rover and that the rover. They can show you pictures and video and all kinds of stuff, just the same as they can show you nuclear power plants or nuke weapons or the aftermath of supposed nukes. It doesn't make them reality. It just makes you believe they're real, because your perception of them being real has just been aided by certain people with scientific letters after their names, telling you it's all legitimate.
I was speaking about nuclear power.
It is a very complex ruse don't you think????
I mean everything that was suppose to be in the design of the plant was there. I looked at everything I could, experienced a lot, even the down time, I spent just checking everything out walking around, meeting people ect. I witnessed the standard maintenance ect ect. Didn't actually do it myself obviously however watched everything like a hawk, it was my possible career path, so I took it very seriously.
Also, there was actual power coming from there...they supply for a lot of customers. I have seen and done work for a few fossil fuel providers and those were not even remotely close to design ect.
I am listening that is was some sort of a ruse, however, no one has answered any of the questions about details. Not to mention, if nuclear power was not possible, why even fake plants ect. Just keep it to a fake atomic bomb and leave it there. Adds too much complexity and cost to witness the ruse I have witnessed if it is one.
-
I was speaking about nuclear power.
It is a very complex ruse don't you think????
I mean everything that was suppose to be in the design of the plant was there. I looked at everything I could, experienced a lot, even the down time, I spent just checking everything out walking around, meeting people ect. I witnessed the standard maintenance ect ect. Didn't actually do it myself obviously however watched everything like a hawk, it was my possible career path, so I took it very seriously.
Also, there was actual power coming from there...they supply for a lot of customers. I have seen and done work for a few fossil fuel providers and those were not even remotely close to design ect.
I am listening that is was some sort of a ruse, however, no one has answered any of the questions about details. Not to mention, if nuclear power was not possible, why even fake plants ect. Just keep it to a fake atomic bomb and leave it there. Adds too much complexity and cost to witness the ruse I have witnessed if it is one.
France apparently gains 75% of its energy from nuclear power and actually has around 50 odd power plants, apparently.
They also sell on excess energy to other countries around them.
Why don't they just power their entire country?
You mention a complex ruse. How is it complex?
Most people working at those plants do not have to be in the know, physically. They can be sold the fantasy of it in study and pictures and believe they're dealing with exactly that because, as has been said, they simply boil water into steam to drive turbines.
How that water is boiled is hidden from the average Joe. It's shrouded.
It's ok saying that rods are seen being removed and inserted but they could very easily be heating elements that actually heat up the water inside those boilers. Lifting them up and dropping them down would increase heat or lower it, so those in the control room would simply be thinking they're lifting up fissioning rods. It's simple when you think about it.
Could be a hell of a con job.
-
How do those heating elements ... produce heat?
Somehow 75% of france's energy budged needs to be created secretly.. where? how?
-
I have asked this question a couple times and received no answer. Though it was kind of mixed into a rant.
The last couple years of college, recruiters from Comanche nuclear power plant came to unt. I shadowed for a couple weeks as they were offering a nice package for finishing up the needed credits in nuclear engineering, and a 3 year stay there afterwards.
Obviously I decided to go the route I have, though what is the explanation for my experience there?? Sure I am not a nuclear engineer but I spent I would say a combined time of 20-30 hours there.
This is a private sect company, not government owned, and there was truly power coming from there. Plus all the other things I saw there that no one would care to listen to.
If you're trying to make a case for nuclear power/weapons being real then you're not doing a very good job.
Someone can come to your college and tell you all about mars and the rover and that the rover. They can show you pictures and video and all kinds of stuff, just the same as they can show you nuclear power plants or nuke weapons or the aftermath of supposed nukes. It doesn't make them reality. It just makes you believe they're real, because your perception of them being real has just been aided by certain people with scientific letters after their names, telling you it's all legitimate.
Except there is math to back up it all up, hundreds of millions of man years of math to prove it works, and 0 seconds of math use that prove it wrong.
-
hundreds of millions of man years of math
lol
-
hundreds of millions of man years of math
lol
Oops. I used a concept Papa is unable grasp. I forgot he failed 5th grade. My bad
-
No, you just said a load of mad shit & I laughed at you for it.
I'll do so again if you're a bit slow:
'Hundreds of millions of man years of math'...
LMFAO!!!
-
No, you just said a load of mad shit & I laughed at you for it.
I'll do so again if you're a bit slow:
'Hundreds of millions of man years of math'...
LMFAO!!!
Morons laugh as many things they cannot grasp, so I will attempt to break this down to very small words. IF you get stuck, go ask you mommy.
A person works with mathematical physics. He does so for one whole year. Assuming he works a 40 hour week. Now he works with 3 other people under the exact same 40 hours per week. Assuming no vacation time those 4 people's hours total a man year. In 2014 there were 20,000 jobs in the US in this field of study. So that comes to 5,000 man years. Since 2000 that is 1.28 million man years. This number counts ONLY Ph.D level jobs.
Extrapolating the above out.... Ask you mommy what extrapolating means. I wish her luck. But.. expanding, (is that easier for you?) that out to include the entire world, students, teachers interns and undergrads, going back the the middle of WWII when the US, Russia and Germans where working on the first Atom bomb, the number make sense. Well, to those of us with a brain it does. To you... and the rest of your Short Bus friends? God alone knows.
-
I have asked this question a couple times and received no answer. Though it was kind of mixed into a rant.
The last couple years of college, recruiters from Comanche nuclear power plant came to unt. I shadowed for a couple weeks as they were offering a nice package for finishing up the needed credits in nuclear engineering, and a 3 year stay there afterwards.
Obviously I decided to go the route I have, though what is the explanation for my experience there?? Sure I am not a nuclear engineer but I spent I would say a combined time of 20-30 hours there.
This is a private sect company, not government owned, and there was truly power coming from there. Plus all the other things I saw there that no one would care to listen to.
If you're trying to make a case for nuclear power/weapons being real then you're not doing a very good job.
Someone can come to your college and tell you all about mars and the rover and that the rover. They can show you pictures and video and all kinds of stuff, just the same as they can show you nuclear power plants or nuke weapons or the aftermath of supposed nukes. It doesn't make them reality. It just makes you believe they're real, because your perception of them being real has just been aided by certain people with scientific letters after their names, telling you it's all legitimate.
Except there is math to back up it all up, hundreds of millions of man years of math to prove it works, and 0 seconds of math use that prove it wrong.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And to think you are desperately trying to wriggle out of it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
I have asked this question a couple times and received no answer. Though it was kind of mixed into a rant.
The last couple years of college, recruiters from Comanche nuclear power plant came to unt. I shadowed for a couple weeks as they were offering a nice package for finishing up the needed credits in nuclear engineering, and a 3 year stay there afterwards.
Obviously I decided to go the route I have, though what is the explanation for my experience there?? Sure I am not a nuclear engineer but I spent I would say a combined time of 20-30 hours there.
This is a private sect company, not government owned, and there was truly power coming from there. Plus all the other things I saw there that no one would care to listen to.
If you're trying to make a case for nuclear power/weapons being real then you're not doing a very good job.
Someone can come to your college and tell you all about mars and the rover and that the rover. They can show you pictures and video and all kinds of stuff, just the same as they can show you nuclear power plants or nuke weapons or the aftermath of supposed nukes. It doesn't make them reality. It just makes you believe they're real, because your perception of them being real has just been aided by certain people with scientific letters after their names, telling you it's all legitimate.
Except there is math to back up it all up, hundreds of millions of man years of math to prove it works, and 0 seconds of math use that prove it wrong.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And to think you are desperately trying to wriggle out of it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You don't understand the concept and math either. What a shocker that is.
I was going to post a link explaining it, but any number larger than the total number of your fingers and toes, is far to complicated for you, so why waste the band width?
-
I have asked this question a couple times and received no answer. Though it was kind of mixed into a rant.
The last couple years of college, recruiters from Comanche nuclear power plant came to unt. I shadowed for a couple weeks as they were offering a nice package for finishing up the needed credits in nuclear engineering, and a 3 year stay there afterwards.
Obviously I decided to go the route I have, though what is the explanation for my experience there?? Sure I am not a nuclear engineer but I spent I would say a combined time of 20-30 hours there.
This is a private sect company, not government owned, and there was truly power coming from there. Plus all the other things I saw there that no one would care to listen to.
If you're trying to make a case for nuclear power/weapons being real then you're not doing a very good job.
Someone can come to your college and tell you all about mars and the rover and that the rover. They can show you pictures and video and all kinds of stuff, just the same as they can show you nuclear power plants or nuke weapons or the aftermath of supposed nukes. It doesn't make them reality. It just makes you believe they're real, because your perception of them being real has just been aided by certain people with scientific letters after their names, telling you it's all legitimate.
Except there is math to back up it all up, hundreds of millions of man years of math to prove it works, and 0 seconds of math use that prove it wrong.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
And to think you are desperately trying to wriggle out of it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
You don't understand the concept and math either. What a shocker that is.
I was going to post a link explaining it, but any number larger than the total number of your fingers and toes, is far to complicated for you, so why waste the band width?
And to think you are desperately trying to wriggle out of it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Wow sceptimatic. Your answer on my post about telescopes was quite surprising. But what you write here is even more.
I worked for 7 years in the French nuclear industry.
I wish you were one of these unfortunate operators. Or not. You might be a bit weird, you do not deserve to receive these nasty Sieverts..
Wake up man, do not be paranoid about everything. You know what? Apples do not exist. They are holograms. And their taste and texture is produced by microchips hidden in your mouth.
-
I worked for 7 years in the French nuclear industry. You know what? Apples do not exist. They are holograms. And their taste and texture is produced by microchips hidden in your mouth.
Did your post require hundreds of millions of man-years of mad bullshitting to write?
Or did you just make it up on the fly like sci-fi hack Clown-Pounder did?
'Nuclear power' is the equivalent of alchemy; pure Harry Potter nonsense...
Are you a Wizard, curiousGuy?
-
I worked for 7 years in the French nuclear industry. You know what? Apples do not exist. They are holograms. And their taste and texture is produced by microchips hidden in your mouth.
Did your post require hundreds of millions of man-years of mad bullshitting to write?
Or did you just make it up on the fly like sci-fi hack Clown-Pounder did?
'Nuclear power' is the equivalent of alchemy; pure Harry Potter nonsense...
Are you a Wizard, curiousGuy?
So, you mommy was unable to explain it to you. I'm sorry, your IQ is much lower that I thought it was. Which means, no matter how far I dumb it down, my cat has a better chance of understanding it, than you do.
-
You seem very upset, Harry Clown-Pounder...
Don't forget, you'll get a wand and an owl to carry your shitey mail once you get to Hogwarts!
-
You seem very upset, Harry Clown-Pounder...
Don't forget, you'll get a wand and an owl to carry your shitey mail once you get to Hogwarts!
Upset? No. Deep pity for you mental illness and wonton stupidity? Loads
-
wonton stupidity?
Wonton soup-idity:
-
Wow sceptimatic. Your answer on my post about telescopes was quite surprising. But what you write here is even more.
I worked for 7 years in the French nuclear industry.
I wish you were one of these unfortunate operators. Or not. You might be a bit weird, you do not deserve to receive these nasty Sieverts..
Wake up man, do not be paranoid about everything. You know what? Apples do not exist. They are holograms. And their taste and texture is produced by microchips hidden in your mouth.
The words given to edible fruits grown on certain trees were named, apples. I saw apples grow and picked apples. They are physically provable and physically handled, as well as obviously seen and tasted.
Nuclear power and weapons are not physically proven to the average Joe and that includes those people working at the so called nuclear plants.
Uranium pellets under so called fission for decades just boiling water and yet when spent, apparently only use 20% of the fuel and never change in size.
It's the stuff of fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway Mr plant worker. Explain to me how France somehow has enough nuclear power plants to supply 2 countries and yet can only supply 70% of their own energy needs and yet what do the people gain in terms of reduced payments for this so called super energy?
Nuclear submarines can stay at sea for around 20 years on the fuel in their reactors. ::)
This is what we get told.
Imagine that apparent dangerous stuff inside a submarine? ::) :P
-
wonton stupidity?
Wonton soup-idity:
;D ;D ;D ;D First thing I thought of when I saw the wonton.
-
Funny how the spelling Nazis come out in order to deflect the point. Hillary needs to hire you both.
-
Funny how the spelling Nazis come out in order to deflect the point. Hillary needs to hire you both.
Deflect what point? The point that you were going on the attack all the time and are now crying because it's weak?
-
He's just jealous of our hundreds of millions of man-years of spelling experience...
Or the Hogwarts Express is delayed?
Nobody cares...
-
Funny how the spelling Nazis come out in order to deflect the point. Hillary needs to hire you both.
Deflect what point? The point that you were going on the attack all the time and are now crying because it's weak?
What point is weak? That generations of physicist totaling hundreds of millions of man years of study with experimentation and math have yet to be proven wrong on the subject of nuclear weapons?
The fact that you are unable to grasp the simple math that proves it is hundred of millions of man hours, even when it was worked out for you on this thread, is a sad testament your lack of education. What is worse is you revel in your stupidity, to the point of posting it on a public message board.
Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough For Love
-
hundreds of millions of man years of math
-
hundreds of millions of man hours of study with experimentation and math
-
hundreds of millions of man hours of study with experimentation and math
Corrected to show the more accurate total as years and not hours.
-
So you admit you were lying?
Yet you still defended your lie with several tiresome ranting posts full of pompous humourless blather before finally caving in?
My friends in law enforcement & social work tell me busted paedos are always like that...
Easily blackmailed though; which explains why so many of them are here 24/7/365 telling lies for what passes for a living.
-
So you admit you were lying?
Yet you still defended your lie with several tiresome ranting posts full of pompous humourless blather before finally caving in?
My friends in law enforcement & social work tell me busted paedos are always like that...
Easily blackmailed though; which explains why so many of them are here 24/7/365 telling lies for what passes for a living.
You sure see a lot of things that are not there for someone who responds TL;DR.
A CORRECTION of a misused word is not a lie, particularly when the correction is in line with original factual statement. Oh wait that is grammatical, logical and truthful, which means you will ignore it in its entirety.
You HAVE so far, and bet the farm will continue, to ignore the math presented that proves, hundreds of man years. You have very good at ignoring any fact that will not support you fantasy.
-
Like I said, my police & social worker friends all say that a cornered paedo is the most repulsive, squirming, filthy lying thing they ever have to deal with...
As you are proving.
-
Like I said, my police & social worker friends all say that a cornered paedo is the most repulsive, squirming, filthy lying thing they ever have to deal with...
As you are proving.
Please get back on your meds. You're making less sense than usual.
Well, either that or you are working harder at avoiding the math. At this point its a toss up.
-
Please get back on your meds.
Hundreds of millions of man-years of meds perhaps?
And how can I be 'avoiding the math' when you haven't posted any?
Besides, if there really are 'hundreds of millions of man-years' of your imaginary math, it'd take me tens of millions of lifetimes to go through it, would it not?
Nothing you write makes one single lick of sense.
Paedos pull this shit all the time; they have to if they're to survive amongst normal people....
Rather than be burned at the stake like they deserve.
-
Please get back on your meds.
Hundreds of millions of man-years of meds perhaps?
And how can I be 'avoiding the math' when you haven't posted any?
Besides, if there really are 'hundreds of millions of man-years' of your imaginary math, it'd take me tens of millions of lifetimes to go through it, would it not?
Nothing you write makes one single lick of sense.
Paedos pull this shit all the time; they have to if they're to survive amongst normal people....
Rather than be burned at the stake like they deserve.
I never expected you to do even one second worth of math. It would be more believe ale to get a a dead gold fish do it and get it right that for you to.
-
I never expected you to do even one second worth of math. It would be more believe ale to get a a dead gold fish do it and get it right that for you to.
Paedo confirmed.
-
Oh, this, by sceptimatic:
I was speaking about nuclear power.
It is a very complex ruse don't you think????
I mean everything that was suppose to be in the design of the plant was there. I looked at everything I could, experienced a lot, even the down time, I spent just checking everything out walking around, meeting people ect. I witnessed the standard maintenance ect ect. Didn't actually do it myself obviously however watched everything like a hawk, it was my possible career path, so I took it very seriously.
Also, there was actual power coming from there...they supply for a lot of customers. I have seen and done work for a few fossil fuel providers and those were not even remotely close to design ect.
I am listening that is was some sort of a ruse, however, no one has answered any of the questions about details. Not to mention, if nuclear power was not possible, why even fake plants ect. Just keep it to a fake atomic bomb and leave it there. Adds too much complexity and cost to witness the ruse I have witnessed if it is one.
France apparently gains 75% of its energy from nuclear power and actually has around 50 odd power plants, apparently.
They also sell on excess energy to other countries around them.
Why don't they just power their entire country?
You mention a complex ruse. How is it complex?
Most people working at those plants do not have to be in the know, physically. They can be sold the fantasy of it in study and pictures and believe they're dealing with exactly that because, as has been said, they simply boil water into steam to drive turbines.
How that water is boiled is hidden from the average Joe. It's shrouded.
It's ok saying that rods are seen being removed and inserted but they could very easily be heating elements that actually heat up the water inside those boilers. Lifting them up and dropping them down would increase heat or lower it, so those in the control room would simply be thinking they're lifting up fissioning rods. It's simple when you think about it.
Could be a hell of a con job.
-
Wow sceptimatic. Your answer on my post about telescopes was quite surprising. But what you write here is even more.
I worked for 7 years in the French nuclear industry.
I wish you were one of these unfortunate operators. Or not. You might be a bit weird, you do not deserve to receive these nasty Sieverts..
Wake up man, do not be paranoid about everything. You know what? Apples do not exist. They are holograms. And their taste and texture is produced by microchips hidden in your mouth.
The words given to edible fruits grown on certain trees were named, apples. I saw apples grow and picked apples. They are physically provable and physically handled, as well as obviously seen and tasted.
Nuclear power and weapons are not physically proven to the average Joe and that includes those people working at the so called nuclear plants.
Uranium pellets under so called fission for decades just boiling water and yet when spent, apparently only use 20% of the fuel and never change in size.
It's the stuff of fantasy as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway Mr plant worker. Explain to me how France somehow has enough nuclear power plants to supply 2 countries and yet can only supply 70% of their own energy needs and yet what do the people gain in terms of reduced payments for this so called super energy?
Nuclear submarines can stay at sea for around 20 years on the fuel in their reactors. ::)
This is what we get told.
Imagine that apparent dangerous stuff inside a submarine? ::) :P
Oh My God...
You know nothing my friend...
You've not been to school, you've never seen a power plant.
You have no idea how power generation works and why it is impossible to have a 100% nuclear generation, just like you cannot have a 100% solar..
You think Russians and Americans just faked the cold war, but you don't know why they did that.
You live in a world where Nuclear Bomb Trials never happened.
Seriously, go see a doctor my friend. It is an advanced stage of Fanatism, and a very advanced stage of Paranoia you have.
Good luck
PS: A friend just told me they put nanorobots in our food and in the Chemtrails so that they can control us more.. We have to stop eating and breathing!!!
I'm done here.
You guys are all sick fanatics just like the Islamic State. You would do anything for "God".
-
[/quote] France apparently gains 75% of its energy from nuclear power and actually has around 50 odd power plants, apparently.
They also sell on excess energy to other countries around them.
Why don't they just power their entire country?
[/quote]
https://www.google.com/search?q=load+curve+management&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG797ciurNAhUMI5QKHctsAjkQ_AUICCgB&biw=1080&bih=1849#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=load+curve+management+nuclear
This is called load curve management. Power demand changes during the day. You can start and stop hydro or Coal / Oil or Gaz in a short time to meet the needs, but you cannot do this with nuclear power plants. So Nuclear power provides the base and it is sold at night and off peak in general, while costly production units are started for peak times only.
Oh, and I forgot, sceptimatic:
Tchernobyl, Three Miles Islands, AND Fukushima are all fake! Just like the apples they give us, full of nanorobots and stuff.
ALLAHU AKBAR
-
France apparently gains 75% of its energy from nuclear power and actually has around 50 odd power plants, apparently.
They also sell on excess energy to other countries around them.
Why don't they just power their entire country?
[/quote]
https://www.google.com/search?q=load+curve+management&safe=off&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiG797ciurNAhUMI5QKHctsAjkQ_AUICCgB&biw=1080&bih=1849#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=load+curve+management+nuclear
This is called load curve management. Power demand changes during the day. You can start and stop hydro or Coal / Oil or Gaz in a short time to meet the needs, but you cannot do this with nuclear power plants. So Nuclear power provides the base and it is sold at night and off peak in general, while costly production units are started for peak times only.
Oh, and I forgot, sceptimatic:
Tchernobyl, Three Miles Islands, AND Fukushima are all fake! Just like the apples they give us, full of nanorobots and stuff.
ALLAHU AKBAR
[/quote]You're in too much of a bad mood for me to deal with you.
You have it all your way and we'll call it quits.
-
What, are you saying TMI / Tcheronyl and Fukushima are not fake? Or maybe you mean the cold war actually happened?
You spit/vomit on thousands of dead people since the humankind invented this evil atomic power.
You spit on all those affected by nuclear disasters, and now you are being sarcastic or something?
At some point all your "alternative beliefs" have to deal with respect too.
Your love for the "creator" does not excuse everything.
I wish I could take you to the dirty corridors hidden in the plants. The kind of corridors you should not stay in for more than 15 minutes... But I can't. So I suggest you just go see a doctor and tell him about the advanced paranoia and the world you live in
-
Have any evidence they are all fake?
-
curiousGuy=babyHighspeed.
lol
-
Doing math wrong furthers your point? ???
Interesting things one finds when reviewing old posts!
I do believe you posted this a little earlier.
This discussion started with a quote talking about 20 megaton bombs. The ones that dropped on Japan were 12 - 15 Kiloton. So less than 10% the force that is being discussed here. That's why you see buildings still standing.
Like Rama said, 15 kilotons is nowhere near 10% of 20 megatons. It is closer to .01%.
As you seem to claim that you are our resident maths expert, it would be wise to brush up on simple arithmetic!
When I went to school, which was quite a while ago, 15 kilotons was 0.075% of 20 megatons, or "closer to 0.1% not 0.01%".
Of course maybe arithmetic has changed since I went to school, but somehow I do not think so!
Or is it that "Doing math wrong furthers your point" too?
More like it's a case of "People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
Or as they say in Russia "People living in stone houses shouldn't throw glasses."
Or maybe not! Though pot, kettle, black also comes to mind.
;D Of course my foot is poised ready, in case I end up suffering from foot-in-mouth disease. ;D
-
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
"Nuclear"
"Explosions"
-
Incorrect.
-
Papa Legba you're one of the best trolls here!
-
Incorrect, BabyHighspeed.
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
^Is'nt smart enough to understand how they work.
^65 years old.
^Can't program the VCR clock.
-
Incorrect, Empirical.
Nobody understands how teh nookulur bommz work; because they do not exist.
Same as no-one uses a VCR any more.
lol
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
lol
Your ignorance is not evidence for your argument.
-
Nobody cares what you think you fucking retard.
The only purpose you serve here is to prove to intelligent people that this is a shill-run forum.
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
I am writing this so that Papa will write virtually the same post again.
-
I am posting this because none of you have any answer to it.
Because nooks are fake.
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
Lol
No evidence.
Lol
To be expected from a downy ball.
Lol
-
Here's some evidence:
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
Lol
No evidence.
Lol
To be expected from a downy ball.
Lol
-
Here's some evidence:
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
What is a "nookookular ecksplowzhuns"?
-
This supposed to be one.
It is not.
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
What is a "nookookular ecksplowzhuns"?
-
This is supposed to be one.
It is not.
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
I am writing this so that Papa will write virtually the same post again.
It worked!
-
Electric lights do not work because they can be measured in candlepower. QED
-
Took you days to come up with that 'rebuttal' didn't it markjo?
Didn't think that nuclear explosions would be as well measured in candlepower as in megatons, did it?
Seeing as they're allegedly so very very bright...
Like this one isn't:
The fact that they measure 'nookulur ecksplowzhuns' in tons of TNT shows exactly what the videos of the silly fake things in fact are...
Cos there was plenty of high-ex to be disposed of after WW2 & Korea.
Here's what it looked like when set off underwater:
'Brighter than a thousand suns'?
Lol no fuck off liars.
-
You think an underwater explosion should be bright?
Lol. Downy.
-
Where do you get brighter than 1,000 suns anyway?
-
You think an underwater explosion should be bright?
Why, does water effect the supposed fission process?
Or can light not be seen through water somehow?
Such a fucking retard...
Where do you get brighter than 1,000 suns anyway?
Google ALWAYS breaks for shills:
http://trivia.serendip.in/trivia/gita-and-bomb
And of course you did not address my point about using TNT as a measure of teh pretend powah of teh fake nooks...
Joules or Watts would be a far more efficient way to measure them.
But no, they chose a new & stupid scale, for to reinforce teh fake fear-porn factor.
Anyhoo; I predicted earlier in this thread that all you shills would rush to protect the right of everyone on Earth to be oppressed by pseudo-scientific Nonsense...
And here you are, doing just that.
If you had any conscience you would drop dead of shame on the spot for what you do.
But you are sub-human meat-calculators so you do not.
lol.
-
... okay. Nuclear Bombs are measured in TNT-equivalent, therefore they are TNT.
Modern H-Bombs explode with a power of 15Megatonnes of TNT. TNT has a density of 1.63*10^3 kg/m^3.
Therefore, an H-Bomb should extend about roughly 10 million m^3. That is a 200m*200m*200m cube. (some rounding happened here, but the scales are correct.)
I think someone would have noticed such a huge cube.
Edit: For your light issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection
Edit2: Error corrected.
-
Yep; fear-porn spamming inhuman shill confirmed.
You have never witnessed a 'Hydrogen bomb explosion', have you?
Nor do you have any idea how much TNT was used in the films of teh silly fake nooks you desire us to grovel fearfully before, or have any way to tell if those films are real.
Anyhoo; care to explain how an 'H-bomb' actually works?
Without resorting to copy-pasta?
Here is some lulzy & senseless Chinese propaganda garbage for inspiration:
P.s. are you named after a Pokemon or something?
-
Do you believe that nuclear fission exists? Are nuclear power plants legit or are they fake as well?
-
I asked this:
Anyhoo; care to explain how an 'H-bomb' actually works?
Without resorting to copy-pasta?
You replied with this:
Do you believe that nuclear fission exists? Are nuclear power plants legit or are they fake as well?
Yeah; knew you couldn't do it.
Just changed the fucking subject like the subhuman meat-calculator pond-scum you are.
*Yawn!*
You are named after a Pokemon aren't you?
-
... okay. Nuclear Bombs are measured in TNT-equivalent, therefore they are TNT.
Modern H-Bombs explode with a power of 15Megatonnes of TNT. TNT has a density of 1.63*10^3 kg/m^3.
Therefore, an H-Bomb should extend about roughly 10 million m^3. That is a 200m*200m*200m cube. (some rounding happened here, but the scales are correct.)
I think someone would have noticed such a huge cube.
Edit: For your light issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection
Edit2: Error corrected.
There really is no hope for people like you, unless your goal is to keep the bullshit alive.
-
Still waiting for an explanation of how H-bombs work...
As far as I can tell they're surrounded by polystyrene that's turned into a plasma by one nuke which then magically crushes another nuke placed next to it which then ignites for increasing of boomz...
Or some Harry Potter bullshit?
-
Man do I regret entering this thread. Alright guys, you can look forward to another 50 pages of the same larger, rinse, repeat
-
You think an underwater explosion should be bright?
Why, does water effect the supposed fission process?
Or can light not be seen through water somehow?
Such a fucking retard...
You think the bottom of the ocean is just as bright as the top?
Yes you are a fucking retard.
Where do you get brighter than 1,000 suns anyway?
Google ALWAYS breaks for shills:
http://trivia.serendip.in/trivia/gita-and-bomb
And of course you did not address my point about using TNT as a measure of teh pretend powah of teh fake nooks...
Joules or Watts would be a far more efficient way to measure them.
But no, they chose a new & stupid scale, for to reinforce teh fake fear-porn factor.
Anyhoo; I predicted earlier in this thread that all you shills would rush to protect the right of everyone on Earth to be oppressed by pseudo-scientific Nonsense...
And here you are, doing just that.
If you had any conscience you would drop dead of shame on the spot for what you do.
But you are sub-human meat-calculators so you do not.
lol.
What unit should they use?
-
Anyhoo; care to explain how an 'H-bomb' actually works?
Without resorting to copy-pasta?
Still waiting...
Of course, the obvious shills will try to make out it's my fault that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about...
Because obvious shills.
-
You are incapable of searching? Im still waiting for you to tell me what the difference is between in and aluminum.
-
what the difference is between in and aluminum.
lol.
Anyhoo; care to explain how an 'H-bomb' actually works?
Without resorting to copy-pasta?
Still waiting...
Of course, the obvious shills will try to make out it's my fault that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about...
Because obvious shills.
-
what the difference is between in and aluminum.
lol.
Anyhoo; care to explain how an 'H-bomb' actually works?
Without resorting to copy-pasta?
Still waiting...
Of course, the obvious shills will try to make out it's my fault that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about...
Because obvious shills.
Lol
Searching is tough isn't it, especially when you are a downy ball.
Lol
But no, keep claiming they don't exist while providing no evidence.
Lol
And then tell us you don't even know how they work but you know they are fake.
Lol
-
^Unbannable shill proves beyond doubt this is a shill forum & just don't give a fuck.
Because autism.
-
For the people with an extra chromosome:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon
Please note atoms have to exist for them to work.
-
Your 12,000 posts of gaslighting & bullshit proves this is a shill-run forum for a shill-run 'movement'.
That is all.
-
Your 12,000 posts of gaslighting & bullshit proves this is a shill-run forum for a shill-run 'movement'.
That is all.
Did you read the article or not?
-
Why should I when you didn't you smarmy little fuck?
Fuck off.
-
... okay. Nuclear Bombs are measured in TNT-equivalent, therefore they are TNT.
Modern H-Bombs explode with a power of 15Megatonnes of TNT. TNT has a density of 1.63*10^3 kg/m^3.
Therefore, an H-Bomb should extend about roughly 10 million m^3. That is a 200m*200m*200m cube. (some rounding happened here, but the scales are correct.)
I think someone would have noticed such a huge cube.
Edit: For your light issue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_internal_reflection
Edit2: Error corrected.
Wait. My truck's engine is measured in horse power. Why am I "feeding" it gas and not hay?
As for Papa. We have thought of him as human. We are wrong. He's actually a Parrot with a voice recognition program on a computer.
-
Another sci-fi obsessed prick attempts to derail...
Fuck off, paedo.
Anyhoo; care to explain how an 'H-bomb' actually works?
Without resorting to copy-pasta?
Still waiting...
Of course, the obvious shills will try to make out it's my fault that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about...
Because obvious shills.
-
Another sci-fi obsessed prick attempts to derail...
Fuck off, paedo.
Anyhoo; care to explain how an 'H-bomb' actually works?
Without resorting to copy-pasta?
Still waiting...
Of course, the obvious shills will try to make out it's my fault that they don't know what the fuck they're talking about...
Because obvious shills.
I am making money writing Sci-Fi. What are you making here? A fool of yourself.
-
Why should I when you didn't you smarmy little fuck?
Fuck off.
Don't ask questions when you don't want answers.
-
I am making money writing Sci-Fi.
Oh we all know THAT!
Don't ask questions when you don't want answers.
Learn to read you fucking shitehawk:
Anyhoo; care to explain how an 'H-bomb' actually works?
Without resorting to copy-pasta?
Yeah; what a fucking time-wasting Liar you are...
Can't be banned though; because shill-forum.
-
I am making money writing Sci-Fi.
Oh we all know THAT!
Whats the matter, your mommy didn't show you how to check the link in my profile?
-
Before bombed Nagazaki and after Nagazaki.
(http://3.1m.yt/zR1JrvL.jpg)
The circle shows the center of the bomb. Where is the crater? do not exist. It was just an intensive bombing.
This is same war and bombing to kobe.
(http://3.1m.yt/EOv-8Oc.jpg)
650.000 people dead in Kobe bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kobe_in_World_War_II
90,000–146,000 dead in Hirohsima. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
39,000–80,000 dead in Nagasaki.
Compare them!
US used a different bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the bombing on the Kobe were more and more deadly !!
-
Before bombed Nagazaki and after Nagazaki.
(http://3.1m.yt/zR1JrvL.jpg)
The circle shows the center of the bomb. Where is the crater? do not exist. It was just an intensive bombing.
This is same war and bombing to kobe.
(http://3.1m.yt/EOv-8Oc.jpg)
650.000 people dead in Kobe bombing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Kobe_in_World_War_II
90,000–146,000 dead in Hirohsima. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki
39,000–80,000 dead in Nagasaki.
Compare them!
US used a different bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but the bombing on the Kobe were more and more deadly !!
Atomic bombs go off in the air, you dimwit. They don't leave a crater in the ground because the explode above it.
Also see: https://www.quora.com/Does-an-atomic-bomb-leave-a-crater
-
Just came across Mao Tae Tung's historic reference to atom bombs as paper tigers which was during an interview in the late 1950's with American writer Anna Louise Strong. I've actually got several books by her which are quite informative and against the grain.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_70.htm
-
Fleet Admiral Gorshkov built the Soviet Navy into a world power during the Brezhnev era. He had a book published during the late 1970's entitled 'The Sea Power of the State' which has a section discussing weapons of mass destruction. He does not deny that they exist, but he asserts that the Americans have used a propaganda about these weapons which magnifies their power well beyond reality. He says this is done for political reasons to scare their enemies and numb their minds with regard to critical thinking about military matters.
-
Fleet Admiral Gorshkov built the Soviet Navy into a world power during the Brezhnev era. He had a book published during the late 1970's entitled 'The Sea Power of the State' which has a section discussing weapons of mass destruction. He does not deny that they exist, but he asserts that the Americans have used a propaganda about these weapons which magnifies their power well beyond reality. He says this is done for political reasons to scare their enemies and numb their minds with regard to critical thinking about military matters.
So, Fleet Admiral Gorshkov wrote a propaganda filled tome calling out American propaganda?
-
Just came across Mao Tae Tung's historic reference to atom bombs as paper tigers which was during an interview in the late 1950's with American writer Anna Louise Strong. I've actually got several books by her which are quite informative and against the grain.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_70.htm
If you see the link he cited you will find that he was not referring to the atom bombs as paper tigers but the governments of the time.
I said all allegedly powerful reactionaries are merely paper tigers. The reason is that they are divorced from the people. Look! Wasn't Hitler a paper tiger? Wasn't he overthrown? I also said that the tsar of Russia was a paper tiger, as were the emperor of China and Japanese imperialism, and see, they were all overthrown. U.S. imperialism has not yet been overthrown and it has the atom bomb, but I believe it too is a paper tiger and will be overthrown.
You can see with a bit of reading comprehension that the author considers US imperialism a paper tiger and the atom bomb as a very real threat.
We have developed a concept over a long period for the struggle against the enemy, namely, strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously. In other words, with regard to the whole we must despise the enemy, but with regard to each specific problem we must take him seriously. If we do not despise him with regard to the whole, we shall commit opportunist errors.
Was that lazyness or dishonesty?
-
17 November is one of the few actual flat earthers. He is affraid of reality, that is why he lives in the pretend flat earth world. Nothing more. Ask him what the difference between gold and silver is and he will run away crying.
-
I wish they were not real.
I wish they were not real.
Please do not exist...
Please do not exist...
But I am afraid... they do.
Each drop
Each launch
Each display of power...
Beings unimaginable horror to multiply generations.
Why do nuclear weapons exist?
-
They don't exist and are just a fantasy war tool to scare the gullible public into compliance by any means required, including massive monetary gain.
-
I wish scepti would for one time include any evidence in his outlandish claims that the cold war and nuclear weapons are just hoaxes.
-
I wish scepti would for one time include any evidence in his outlandish claims that the cold war and nuclear weapons are just hoaxes.
I can provide you with no more evidence that it's all a hoax anymore than you can provide one scrap of evidence that any of it is real.
-
I wish scepti would for one time include any evidence in his outlandish claims that the cold war and nuclear weapons are just hoaxes.
I can provide you with no more evidence that it's all a hoax anymore than you can provide one scrap of evidence that any of it is real.
If nuclear weapons aren't real, then what were all of those big mushroom clouds that the residents of Las Vegas used to see in the 1950s?
-
The circle shows the center of the bomb. Where is the crater? do not exist. It was just an intensive bombing.
In which case where are the craters?
-
I wish scepti would for one time include any evidence in his outlandish claims that the cold war and nuclear weapons are just hoaxes.
I can provide you with no more evidence that it's all a hoax anymore than you can provide one scrap of evidence that any of it is real.
If nuclear weapons aren't real, then what were all of those big mushroom clouds that the residents of Las Vegas used to see in the 1950s?
Sorry, that was me, they say marijuana has gotten more potent but it's nothing like the 50's ;-).
-
I wish scepti would for one time include any evidence in his outlandish claims that the cold war and nuclear weapons are just hoaxes.
I can provide you with no more evidence that it's all a hoax anymore than you can provide one scrap of evidence that any of it is real.
If nuclear weapons aren't real, then what were all of those big mushroom clouds that the residents of Las Vegas used to see in the 1950s?
TNT detonations or something like that.
A nuclear bomb, in how they tell us it works, should not leave any dirty mushroom cloud. We're talking smashing a few bits of metal together, as we are bullshitted.
-
Tell me more.
-
I wish scepti would for one time include any evidence in his outlandish claims that the cold war and nuclear weapons are just hoaxes.
I can provide you with no more evidence that it's all a hoax anymore than you can provide one scrap of evidence that any of it is real.
If nuclear weapons aren't real, then what were all of those big mushroom clouds that the residents of Las Vegas used to see in the 1950s?
TNT detonations or something like that.
A nuclear bomb, in how they tell us it works, should not leave any dirty mushroom cloud. We're talking smashing a few bits of metal together, as we are bullshitted.
You claim "A nuclear bomb . . . . . . . should not leave any dirty mushroom cloud." Why not?
Sure they were just "smashing a few bits of" near unstable fissile "metal together"!
And BANG - but take a look at Demon core, Tickling the Dragon's Tail. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core)
Some people a too foolhardy, and pay for it with a terrible death.
??? ??? Tell that to the radiation victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ??? ???
HOW RADIOACTIVITY CAN AFFECT YOU
Acute doses can cause a pattern of clearly identifiable symptoms (syndromes). These conditions are referred to in general as Acute Radiation Syndrome. Radiation sickness symptoms are apparent following acute doses > 100 rad. Acute whole body doses of > 450 rad may result in a statistical expectation that 50% of the population exposed will die within 60 days without medical attention. It is generally admitted that an exposure to 300 R during a short period of time (24hr) will be lethal.
A few numbers:
600R -- means 100% chance of fatality is expected. Some much earlier - but last within two weeks.
400R -- means 50% will die within one to three weeks. Those that don't die are going to be VERY sick and wish that they would. After a few days some may feel better but will often then turn, sicken and die in a few weeks.
200R -- lots of sickness, and radiation sickness is pretty terrible (Think of cancer treatment without pain killers.) Lots of vomiting - hair falling out - and all that. Not nice
50R -- No fatalities at this level. There is a difference of opinion, as to whether the sickness at this level is physical. Some think, as for example in this very authoritative study, that at this level the sickness is psychosomatic. Whatever its cause it is very general.
30R -- Most everyone will feel some sickness - - maybe just "punky" and it may be "just" psychosomatic but it certainly would not be beneficial for children and pregnant mothers. Even this level is a thousand times higher than the maximum general population exposure permitted under peacetime standards.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 2. How many cancer deaths have occurred among atomic-bomb survivors and how many of these can be attributed to radiation?
Analyses of deaths due to cancer among the Life Span Study cohort of atomic-bomb survivors from 1950 through 1990, published in Radiation Research (146:1-27, 1996), are summarized in Table 2. These results are for survivors who were exposed to significant radiation doses (See Question 11).
Table 2. Summary of cancer deaths in the Life Span
Study cohort of atomic-bomb survivors, 1950-1990
_____________________________________________
Estimated number Percentage of deaths
Cause of Total number of deaths due attributable
death of deaths to radiation to radiation
________________________________________________
Leukemia 176 89 51%
Other types
of cancer* 4,687 339 7%
Total 4,863 428 9%
_______________________________________________
*Solid cancers, such as stomach, lung, breast,
colorectal and liver cancers
The number of cancer deaths among the 36,500 Life Span Study survivors who were exposed beyond 2.5 km is 3,177, including 73 leukemia deaths and 3,104 deaths from cancers other than leukemia.
The proportion of cancer deaths attributable to radiation exposure is higher among those who were exposed closer to the hypocenter, as in the case of deaths due to injuries from the blast, heat, or radiation. Table 3 presents data on the size of the studied population and the number of cancer deaths in relation to distance from the hypocenter for the approximately 50,000 survivors with significant exposures (See Question 10).
From This is a summary of a study of long-term health effects in the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~dinov/courses_students.dir/data.dir/AtomicBombSurvivorsData.htm#faq2)
You do not get casualties like this "beyond 2.5 km" from a single TNT explosion!
You really should read all of that reference and
The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Total Casualties (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml) and
WW2 People's War Homepage, Timeline - 1939-1945, Fact File : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml)
??? ??? Sceptimatic, you are not only a sceptic, but a total ignoramus! ??? ???
You won't. You think that you know everything and can work out the workings of this whole universe in that ::) ::) massive brain of yours ::) ::)!
In your own way, you are every bit as bad as İntikam!
| | William Shakespeare
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio |
Yes, many of us might wish they were not real, but nuclear weapons, even Russia's 50 Mega Ton Tsar Bomba are vert real! See //// The Largest Nuclear Bomb //// Tsar Bomba. (http://)
-
Here's a question that been in the back of my mind:
Why would you question the existence of nuclear weapons? What relevance does this have with the flat earth? If all they are doing is detonating TNT then what difference (aside from the fallout) would that make?
-
I hope you all realize that conventional weapons can make a mushroom cloud. It is not unique to nuclear weapons.
-
I hope you all realize that conventional weapons can make a mushroom cloud. It is not unique to nuclear weapons.
No but nuclear fallout is.
-
I wish scepti would for one time include any evidence in his outlandish claims that the cold war and nuclear weapons are just hoaxes.
I can provide you with no more evidence that it's all a hoax anymore than you can provide one scrap of evidence that any of it is real.
If nuclear weapons aren't real, then what were all of those big mushroom clouds that the residents of Las Vegas used to see in the 1950s?
TNT detonations or something like that.
A nuclear bomb, in how they tell us it works, should not leave any dirty mushroom cloud. We're talking smashing a few bits of metal together, as we are bullshitted.
You claim "A nuclear bomb . . . . . . . should not leave any dirty mushroom cloud." Why not?
Sure they were just "smashing a few bits of" near unstable fissile "metal together"!
And BANG - but take a look at Demon core, Tickling the Dragon's Tail. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core)
Some people a too foolhardy, and pay for it with a terrible death.
??? ??? Tell that to the radiation victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ??? ???
HOW RADIOACTIVITY CAN AFFECT YOU
Acute doses can cause a pattern of clearly identifiable symptoms (syndromes). These conditions are referred to in general as Acute Radiation Syndrome. Radiation sickness symptoms are apparent following acute doses > 100 rad. Acute whole body doses of > 450 rad may result in a statistical expectation that 50% of the population exposed will die within 60 days without medical attention. It is generally admitted that an exposure to 300 R during a short period of time (24hr) will be lethal.
A few numbers:
600R -- means 100% chance of fatality is expected. Some much earlier - but last within two weeks.
400R -- means 50% will die within one to three weeks. Those that don't die are going to be VERY sick and wish that they would. After a few days some may feel better but will often then turn, sicken and die in a few weeks.
200R -- lots of sickness, and radiation sickness is pretty terrible (Think of cancer treatment without pain killers.) Lots of vomiting - hair falling out - and all that. Not nice
50R -- No fatalities at this level. There is a difference of opinion, as to whether the sickness at this level is physical. Some think, as for example in this very authoritative study, that at this level the sickness is psychosomatic. Whatever its cause it is very general.
30R -- Most everyone will feel some sickness - - maybe just "punky" and it may be "just" psychosomatic but it certainly would not be beneficial for children and pregnant mothers. Even this level is a thousand times higher than the maximum general population exposure permitted under peacetime standards.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Question 2. How many cancer deaths have occurred among atomic-bomb survivors and how many of these can be attributed to radiation?
Analyses of deaths due to cancer among the Life Span Study cohort of atomic-bomb survivors from 1950 through 1990, published in Radiation Research (146:1-27, 1996), are summarized in Table 2. These results are for survivors who were exposed to significant radiation doses (See Question 11).
Table 2. Summary of cancer deaths in the Life Span
Study cohort of atomic-bomb survivors, 1950-1990
_____________________________________________
Estimated number Percentage of deaths
Cause of Total number of deaths due attributable
death of deaths to radiation to radiation
________________________________________________
Leukemia 176 89 51%
Other types
of cancer* 4,687 339 7%
Total 4,863 428 9%
_______________________________________________
*Solid cancers, such as stomach, lung, breast,
colorectal and liver cancers
The number of cancer deaths among the 36,500 Life Span Study survivors who were exposed beyond 2.5 km is 3,177, including 73 leukemia deaths and 3,104 deaths from cancers other than leukemia.
The proportion of cancer deaths attributable to radiation exposure is higher among those who were exposed closer to the hypocenter, as in the case of deaths due to injuries from the blast, heat, or radiation. Table 3 presents data on the size of the studied population and the number of cancer deaths in relation to distance from the hypocenter for the approximately 50,000 survivors with significant exposures (See Question 10).
From This is a summary of a study of long-term health effects in the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~dinov/courses_students.dir/data.dir/AtomicBombSurvivorsData.htm#faq2)
You do not get casualties like this "beyond 2.5 km" from a single TNT explosion!
You really should read all of that reference and
The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Total Casualties (http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml) and
WW2 People's War Homepage, Timeline - 1939-1945, Fact File : Hiroshima and Nagasaki (http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/timeline/factfiles/nonflash/a6652262.shtml)
??? ??? Sceptimatic, you are not only a sceptic, but a total ignoramus! ??? ???
You won't. You think that you know everything and can work out the workings of this whole universe in that ::) ::) massive brain of yours ::) ::)!
In your own way, you are every bit as bad as İntikam!
| | William Shakespeare
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio |
Yes, many of us might wish they were not real, but nuclear weapons, even Russia's 50 Mega Ton Tsar Bomba are vert real! See //// The Largest Nuclear Bomb //// Tsar Bomba. (http://)
If you believe in all that crap then go right ahead. I'm not going down that road again. I woke up. I saw through the utter bullshit by simple logic and common sense. You people somehow think that physical proof is needed not to believe something.
Not true.
All it takes is to sort the wheat from the chaff, or to basically decipher the truth from the stories.
-
Here's a question that been in the back of my mind:
Why would you question the existence of nuclear weapons? What relevance does this have with the flat earth? If all they are doing is detonating TNT then what difference (aside from the fallout) would that make?
It has no significance to a flat Earth but then again I'm sure you can see that not all topics are specifically about a flat Earth and do vary depending on what is deemed a conspiracy.
Why even come out with something like this?
-
I hope you all realize that conventional weapons can make a mushroom cloud. It is not unique to nuclear weapons.
No but nuclear fallout is.
You only know what you've been told and shown in Hollywood B type movie making.
Of course, this is more than enough to make you an expert on it or at least an expert on the reading up/viewing of it all. And you're happy with that. You do not feel any need to question it because you trust in what the official says, no matter what.
-
Watch this video and have a think.
-
There's actually a kind of rock that formed due to the atomic bomb tests called Trinitite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitite
-
My grandfather used to work at the nuclear test site in Nevada. If you're not familiar with Nevada it was pretty much already a wasteland. Before above ground testing was banned people used to gather to watch these monsters explode. Sadly it was before my time, I would have liked to see such a thing.
Denying nuclear weapons is kind of a tough conspiracy theory to accept. There's lots of eye witnesses who have actually seen a nuclear explosion in Las Vegas. You can even see the craters on Google Earth. If nuclear bombs are a hoax then the government sure has done a great job creating a weapon that acts exactly like a nuclear bomb.
-
My grandfather used to work at the nuclear test site in Nevada. If you're not familiar with Nevada it was pretty much already a wasteland. Before above ground testing was banned people used to gather to watch these monsters explode. Sadly it was before my time, I would have liked to see such a thing.
Denying nuclear weapons is kind of a tough conspiracy theory to accept. There's lots of eye witnesses who have actually seen a nuclear explosion in Las Vegas. You can even see the craters on Google Earth. If nuclear bombs are a hoax then the government sure has done a great job creating a weapon that acts exactly like a nuclear bomb.
How in the hell do you know what a nuclear bomb acts like?
You're only going on what was fed to you about what a nuclear bomb was/is supposed to do.
Your grandfather (assuming he really told you a story) could have seen anything from a distance and told that it was a nuke, or anything for that matter.
Too many people place a reliance on the story tellers of old and automatically accept whatever was said.
We live in a world of guinea-pigs - us actually being THE guinea-pigs among guinea-pigs.
Gossip spreads far and wide and fiction can become non-fiction because of simple gossip, all started by the puppet masters; the magicians of the world.
Believing in nuclear bombs is akin to believing in real magic.
Atomic bombs. Hydrogen bombs. It's so pathetic as to what they're supposed to do that no right minded person should give them the time of day as anything remotely near reality.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
-
My grandfather used to work at the nuclear test site in Nevada. If you're not familiar with Nevada it was pretty much already a wasteland. Before above ground testing was banned people used to gather to watch these monsters explode. Sadly it was before my time, I would have liked to see such a thing.
Denying nuclear weapons is kind of a tough conspiracy theory to accept. There's lots of eye witnesses who have actually seen a nuclear explosion in Las Vegas. You can even see the craters on Google Earth. If nuclear bombs are a hoax then the government sure has done a great job creating a weapon that acts exactly like a nuclear bomb.
How in the hell do you know what a nuclear bomb acts like?
You're only going on what was fed to you about what a nuclear bomb was/is supposed to do.
Your grandfather (assuming he really told you a story) could have seen anything from a distance and told that it was a nuke, or anything for that matter.
Too many people place a reliance on the story tellers of old and automatically accept whatever was said.
We live in a world of guinea-pigs - us actually being THE guinea-pigs among guinea-pigs.
Gossip spreads far and wide and fiction can become non-fiction because of simple gossip, all started by the puppet masters; the magicians of the world.
Believing in nuclear bombs is akin to believing in real magic.
Atomic bombs. Hydrogen bombs. It's so pathetic as to what they're supposed to do that no right minded person should give them the time of day as anything remotely near reality.
Do you always fly into a hysteric rage when somebody shares an anecdote about their past?
-
Here's a question that been in the back of my mind:
Why would you question the existence of nuclear weapons? What relevance does this have with the flat earth? If all they are doing is detonating TNT then what difference (aside from the fallout) would that make?
It has no significance to a flat Earth but then again I'm sure you can see that not all topics are specifically about a flat Earth and do vary depending on what is deemed a conspiracy.
Why even come out with something like this?
You haven't answered the other two questions. Why do you question nuclear weapons and what difference does it make even if you're right?
-
I hope you all realize that conventional weapons can make a mushroom cloud. It is not unique to nuclear weapons.
No but nuclear fallout is.
You only know what you've been told and shown in Hollywood B type movie making.
And eye witness accounts. Granted, I never seen a nuclear explosion but there are many people who have. And we still have the results from them today.
Of course, this is more than enough to make you an expert on it or at least an expert on the reading up/viewing of it all. And you're happy with that. You do not feel any need to question it because you trust in what the official says, no matter what.
There are many things I distrust the official story on. However its through evidence that I distrust things like 9/11, JFK, OKC bombing, etc. I've yet to see any evidence or reason to deny the existence of nuclear weapons. What evidence do you have that they don't exist?
-
My grandfather used to work at the nuclear test site in Nevada. If you're not familiar with Nevada it was pretty much already a wasteland. Before above ground testing was banned people used to gather to watch these monsters explode. Sadly it was before my time, I would have liked to see such a thing.
Denying nuclear weapons is kind of a tough conspiracy theory to accept. There's lots of eye witnesses who have actually seen a nuclear explosion in Las Vegas. You can even see the craters on Google Earth. If nuclear bombs are a hoax then the government sure has done a great job creating a weapon that acts exactly like a nuclear bomb.
How in the hell do you know what a nuclear bomb acts like?
You're only going on what was fed to you about what a nuclear bomb was/is supposed to do.
Your grandfather (assuming he really told you a story) could have seen anything from a distance and told that it was a nuke, or anything for that matter.
Too many people place a reliance on the story tellers of old and automatically accept whatever was said.
We live in a world of guinea-pigs - us actually being THE guinea-pigs among guinea-pigs.
Gossip spreads far and wide and fiction can become non-fiction because of simple gossip, all started by the puppet masters; the magicians of the world.
Believing in nuclear bombs is akin to believing in real magic.
Atomic bombs. Hydrogen bombs. It's so pathetic as to what they're supposed to do that no right minded person should give them the time of day as anything remotely near reality.
Feel free to enter evidence into the argument.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up bullshit in my opinion.
-
Here's a question that been in the back of my mind:
Why would you question the existence of nuclear weapons? What relevance does this have with the flat earth? If all they are doing is detonating TNT then what difference (aside from the fallout) would that make?
It has no significance to a flat Earth but then again I'm sure you can see that not all topics are specifically about a flat Earth and do vary depending on what is deemed a conspiracy.
Why even come out with something like this?
You haven't answered the other two questions. Why do you question nuclear weapons and what difference does it make even if you're right?
It makes no difference to any of us if I'm right. You'll never find out whether I'm right or wrong and I will never prove it. It's all a case of using common sense and logic and reading between the lines of the magicians that spin the clap trap.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up bullshit in my opinion.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you have told me you do not think that radiation exists as well?
-
And eye witness accounts.
Eye witness accounts are stories told which can easily be fictional accounts...right?
Granted, I never seen a nuclear explosion but there are many people who have.
Many people who think they have.
And we still have the results from them today.
What results are we talking about?
There are many things I distrust the official story on. However its through evidence that I distrust things like 9/11, JFK, OKC bombing, etc.
What evidence about those 3.? Just a snippet for each will suffice.
I've yet to see any evidence or reason to deny the existence of nuclear weapons. What evidence do you have that they don't exist?
I don't expect you to see any evidence that they don't exist. I used to think they existed until I started to sit back and really take an interest in the things we're told. It's only then that it hits home that we are most likely bullshitted to all hell on many aspects of so called science and life in general.
Nobody says you have to think like me. We are all individual thinkers and will follow whatever path our minds take.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up bullshit in my opinion.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you have told me you do not think that radiation exists as well?
Nuclear radiation, yes, as in nuclear fissioning so called power station uranium clap trap or the nuclear/atomic/hydrogen, etc, type of bombs we're bullshitted with.
Radiation in many other terms I have no problem with. Radiators in your home radiate heat. Lots of chemicals react and radiate heat for small amounts of time.
Let's not try to blur the lines.
-
Ignore me all you want but it still won't make your "arguments" correct. Still no evidence from you.
It's kind of like you are trying to bullshit us.
Did you watch the cloud chamber video? There are plenty more.
-
Nuclear radiation, yes, as in nuclear fissioning so called power station uranium clap trap or the nuclear/atomic/hydrogen, etc, type of bombs we're bullshitted with.
Radiation in many other terms I have no problem with. Radiators in your home radiate heat. Lots of chemicals react and radiate heat for small amounts of time.
Let's not try to blur the lines.
In that case, how do you explain alpha and beta emitters? You can buy zinc sulfide and a smoke detector, coat a sheet in the zinc sulfide, then take out the radioactive isotope from the smoke detector, place the sheet near the isotope and use a magnification device to observe when the radiation hits the sheet. Obviously, wear clothing that covers your whole body and a mask, and don't let any of the isotope spill.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up bullshit in my opinion.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you have told me you do not think that radiation exists as well?
Nuclear radiation, yes, as in nuclear fissioning so called power station uranium clap trap or the nuclear/atomic/hydrogen, etc, type of bombs we're bullshitted with.
Radiation in many other terms I have no problem with. Radiators in your home radiate heat. Lots of chemicals react and radiate heat for small amounts of time.
Let's not try to blur the lines.
You might not be able to see or feel "ionising radiation" (or nuclear radiation), but they can still do terrible damage to the human body.
After Glow - 90 Years Ago Workers At The Waterbury Clock Company Began Dying After Painting Radium On Clock Dials, Sun, 10/30/2011 - 14:19.
(http://www.waterburyobserver.org/sites/default/files/radium-girls-3.jpg)
A dial painter suffered from radium-induced sarcoma of the chin. The workers, mostly young women, used their mouthes to form sharp points on the brush that they would dip in and out of radium paint. Image from the book "Deadly Glow - The Radium Dial Worker Tragedy."
From Deadly Glow - The Radium Dial Worker Tragedy (http://www.waterburyobserver.org/node/586)
There are numerous other "examples" of silly exposure to radiation from that period, simply due to ignorance.
Don't worry Sceppy, you are not the only sceptic of this matter! "On 29 December 1934, Albert Einstein was quoted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as saying, “There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” This followed the discovery that year by Enrico Fermi that if you bombard uranium with neutrons, the uranium atoms split up into lighter elements, releasing energy."
Of course Einstein changed his mind when Enrico Fermi provided the evidence.
-
Nuclear radiation, yes, as in nuclear fissioning so called power station uranium clap trap or the nuclear/atomic/hydrogen, etc, type of bombs we're bullshitted with.
Radiation in many other terms I have no problem with. Radiators in your home radiate heat. Lots of chemicals react and radiate heat for small amounts of time.
Let's not try to blur the lines.
In that case, how do you explain alpha and beta emitters? You can buy zinc sulfide and a smoke detector, coat a sheet in the zinc sulfide, then take out the radioactive isotope from the smoke detector, place the sheet near the isotope and use a magnification device to observe when the radiation hits the sheet. Obviously, wear clothing that covers your whole body and a mask, and don't let any of the isotope spill.
You do realise what I'm arguing against, right?
You can talk about isotopes and zinc sulphides and alpha and beta emitters all you want. I'm telling you that I do not believe in nuclear bombs and nor do I believe in nuclear fission for decade long water boiling for power plants.
This is what I'm saying, so don't waste your time telling me about smoke detectors and what not. I've already said radiation is a real thing. It's in many things that radiate. They just don't do it on their own for decades. Nor do they smash together and vapourise cities.
Seriously don't come back with this crap, trying to pass it off as a nuclear reality.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up bullshit in my opinion.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you have told me you do not think that radiation exists as well?
Nuclear radiation, yes, as in nuclear fissioning so called power station uranium clap trap or the nuclear/atomic/hydrogen, etc, type of bombs we're bullshitted with.
Radiation in many other terms I have no problem with. Radiators in your home radiate heat. Lots of chemicals react and radiate heat for small amounts of time.
Let's not try to blur the lines.
You might not be able to see or feel "ionising radiation" (or nuclear radiation), but they can still do terrible damage to the human body.
After Glow - 90 Years Ago Workers At The Waterbury Clock Company Began Dying After Painting Radium On Clock Dials, Sun, 10/30/2011 - 14:19.
(http://www.waterburyobserver.org/sites/default/files/radium-girls-3.jpg)
A dial painter suffered from radium-induced sarcoma of the chin. The workers, mostly young women, used their mouthes to form sharp points on the brush that they would dip in and out of radium paint. Image from the book "Deadly Glow - The Radium Dial Worker Tragedy."
From Deadly Glow - The Radium Dial Worker Tragedy (http://www.waterburyobserver.org/node/586)
There are numerous other "examples" of silly exposure to radiation from that period, simply due to ignorance.
Don't worry Sceppy, you are not the only sceptic of this matter! "On 29 December 1934, Albert Einstein was quoted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette as saying, “There is not the slightest indication that [nuclear energy] will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will.” This followed the discovery that year by Enrico Fermi that if you bombard uranium with neutrons, the uranium atoms split up into lighter elements, releasing energy."
Of course Einstein changed his mind when Enrico Fermi provided the evidence.
Of course he did. Einstein was only a puppet for the establishment. A mouthpiece to cast out bullshit at every turn. Like the Hawking character, etc.
Today they have rock stars and what not to spread whatever bullshit is required.
Just remember, you don't have to physically meet the famous five to be an expert on their adventures. Think about that.
-
You do realise what I'm arguing against, right?
You can talk about isotopes and zinc sulphides and alpha and beta emitters all you want. I'm telling you that I do not believe in nuclear bombs and nor do I believe in nuclear fission for decade long water boiling for power plants.
This is what I'm saying, so don't waste your time telling me about smoke detectors and what not. I've already said radiation is a real thing. It's in many things that radiate. They just don't do it on their own for decades. Nor do they smash together and vapourise cities.
Seriously don't come back with this crap, trying to pass it off as a nuclear reality.
So you are telling me that when you, I, or anyone else does this experiment, the light that we clearly see, you don't believe exist? So even if you can directly look at it, you don't believe it?
-
You do realise what I'm arguing against, right?
You can talk about isotopes and zinc sulphides and alpha and beta emitters all you want. I'm telling you that I do not believe in nuclear bombs and nor do I believe in nuclear fission for decade long water boiling for power plants.
This is what I'm saying, so don't waste your time telling me about smoke detectors and what not. I've already said radiation is a real thing. It's in many things that radiate. They just don't do it on their own for decades. Nor do they smash together and vapourise cities.
Seriously don't come back with this crap, trying to pass it off as a nuclear reality.
So you are telling me that when you, I, or anyone else does this experiment, the light that we clearly see, you don't believe exist? So even if you can directly look at it, you don't believe it?
I don't believe I'm telling you anything like that. Are you not getting what I've just said?
-
You do realise what I'm arguing against, right?
You can talk about isotopes and zinc sulphides and alpha and beta emitters all you want. I'm telling you that I do not believe in nuclear bombs and nor do I believe in nuclear fission for decade long water boiling for power plants.
This is what I'm saying, so don't waste your time telling me about smoke detectors and what not. I've already said radiation is a real thing. It's in many things that radiate. They just don't do it on their own for decades. Nor do they smash together and vapourise cities.
Seriously don't come back with this crap, trying to pass it off as a nuclear reality.
So you are telling me that when you, I, or anyone else does this experiment, the light that we clearly see, you don't believe exist? So even if you can directly look at it, you don't believe it?
I don't believe I'm telling you anything like that. Are you not getting what I've just said?
I clearly get what you said: "I'm telling you that I do not believe in nuclear bombs and nor do I believe in nuclear fission for decade long water boiling for power plants." "They just don't do it on their own for decades."
This is exactly what the material in smoke detectors do. If, as you say, they did not do that, then the zinc sulfide would not spark. But we can clearly see that it sparks when you have a radioactive isotope near it. Since you don't believe that the isotope is actually radiating, then logically it follows that you don't believe the radioactive isotope is causing the zinc sulfide to spark, which means that the sparking that we clearly see must not exist according to you.
-
Awesome. Not only is the Earth flat but the sun is fake and the radium dial on my glow in the dark watch wasn't real either. I'm guessing we'll veer soon into cancer being a fungus that isn't cured by radiation therapy.
-
Awesome. Not only is the Earth flat but the sun is fake and the radium dial on my glow in the dark watch wasn't real either. I'm guessing we'll veer soon into cancer being a fungus that isn't cured by radiation therapy.
When radium, glow in the dark watches can boil water for a decade then come back to me and show me. Then and only then will I accept nuclear power and nuclear bombs being real.
If radium isn't like that, then clearly we need to move on; right?
-
Awesome. Not only is the Earth flat but the sun is fake and the radium dial on my glow in the dark watch wasn't real either. I'm guessing we'll veer soon into cancer being a fungus that isn't cured by radiation therapy.
When radium, glow in the dark watches can boil water for a decade then come back to me and show me. Then and only then will I accept nuclear power and nuclear bombs being real.
If radium isn't like that, then clearly we need to move on; right?
I just told you a perfect example of how we can see an object radiating ionizing radiation (aka nuclear power). So do you accept nuclear power now?
-
Awesome. Not only is the Earth flat but the sun is fake and the radium dial on my glow in the dark watch wasn't real either. I'm guessing we'll veer soon into cancer being a fungus that isn't cured by radiation therapy.
When radium, glow in the dark watches can boil water for a decade then come back to me and show me. Then and only then will I accept nuclear power and nuclear bombs being real.
If radium isn't like that, then clearly we need to move on; right?
I just told you a perfect example of how we can see an object radiating ionizing radiation (aka nuclear power). So do you accept nuclear power now?
You've shown me nothing at all.
-
Awesome. Not only is the Earth flat but the sun is fake and the radium dial on my glow in the dark watch wasn't real either. I'm guessing we'll veer soon into cancer being a fungus that isn't cured by radiation therapy.
When radium, glow in the dark watches can boil water for a decade then come back to me and show me. Then and only then will I accept nuclear power and nuclear bombs being real.
If radium isn't like that, then clearly we need to move on; right?
I just told you a perfect example of how we can see an object radiating ionizing radiation (aka nuclear power). So do you accept nuclear power now?
You've shown me nothing at all.
So what are all those nuclear power plants doing? Where is the energy coming from?
-
Awesome. Not only is the Earth flat but the sun is fake and the radium dial on my glow in the dark watch wasn't real either. I'm guessing we'll veer soon into cancer being a fungus that isn't cured by radiation therapy.
When radium, glow in the dark watches can boil water for a decade then come back to me and show me. Then and only then will I accept nuclear power and nuclear bombs being real.
If radium isn't like that, then clearly we need to move on; right?
I just told you a perfect example of how we can see an object radiating ionizing radiation (aka nuclear power). So do you accept nuclear power now?
You've shown me nothing at all.
So what are all those nuclear power plants doing? Where is the energy coming from?
Hydrogen.
-
You've shown me nothing at all.
"You can buy zinc sulfide and a smoke detector, coat a sheet in the zinc sulfide, then take out the radioactive isotope from the smoke detector, place the sheet near the isotope and use a magnification device to observe when the radiation hits the sheet. Obviously, wear clothing that covers your whole body and a mask, and don't let any of the isotope spill."
I know you answered to this post, so I don't know why you're denying it.
A video of what it might look like look like (It uses strontium 90 and x-ray fabric, so it's a bit different):
(http://)
-
You've shown me nothing at all.
"You can buy zinc sulfide and a smoke detector, coat a sheet in the zinc sulfide, then take out the radioactive isotope from the smoke detector, place the sheet near the isotope and use a magnification device to observe when the radiation hits the sheet. Obviously, wear clothing that covers your whole body and a mask, and don't let any of the isotope spill."
I know you answered to this post, so I don't know why you're denying it.
A video of what it might look like look like (It uses strontium 90 and x-ray fabric, so it's a bit different):
(http://)
In your own words, tell m e exactly what is happening in that video and tell me why it happens and does it require agitation in an atmosphere or is it in a sealed unit that needs no atmosphere.
I want you to briefly explain it and tell me how you know what's happening.
Also tell me how much water one of these can heat up to boiling point and for how long.
-
You've shown me nothing at all.
"You can buy zinc sulfide and a smoke detector, coat a sheet in the zinc sulfide, then take out the radioactive isotope from the smoke detector, place the sheet near the isotope and use a magnification device to observe when the radiation hits the sheet. Obviously, wear clothing that covers your whole body and a mask, and don't let any of the isotope spill."
I know you answered to this post, so I don't know why you're denying it.
A video of what it might look like look like (It uses strontium 90 and x-ray fabric, so it's a bit different):
(http://)
In your own words, tell m e exactly what is happening in that video and tell me why it happens and does it require agitation in an atmosphere or is it in a sealed unit that needs no atmosphere.
I want you to briefly explain it and tell me how you know what's happening.
Also tell me how much water one of these can heat up to boiling point and for how long.
The strontium-90 is, like all materials, a bunch of atoms. The atoms are made up of protons and neutrons. The 90 stands for how heavy this specific Strontium is, and it is heavy enough that the atom is not stable, but will undergo radioactive decay, specifically beta decay. During beta decay, one of the protons releases an electron. That proton turns into a neutron that stays and the electron is shot away at high speeds. This happens several times per second in that video. Some of the electrons hits the x-ray fabric, and when they do they ionize, or one could say damage, the fabric. This makes the fabric release a flash of light every time it is hit. The process does not require an atmosphere, but you can do it in the atmosphere. The atmosphere will limit how far the beta particles get, if you get up on a high mountain with less air pressure you should see that more electrons reaches the luminiscent (x-ray fabric or other) material.
If you could, somehow, manage to direct ALL the energy of radioactive decay of a fresh lump of 1kg of strontium-90 into a 1kg mass of water, and the water was perfectly isolated so it would not loose any heat, it would take about 14 minutes to heat that water from 20°C to 100°C.
-
Awesome. Not only is the Earth flat but the sun is fake and the radium dial on my glow in the dark watch wasn't real either. I'm guessing we'll veer soon into cancer being a fungus that isn't cured by radiation therapy.
When radium, glow in the dark watches can boil water for a decade then come back to me and show me. Then and only then will I accept nuclear power and nuclear bombs being real.
If radium isn't like that, then clearly we need to move on; right?
I just told you a perfect example of how we can see an object radiating ionizing radiation (aka nuclear power). So do you accept nuclear power now?
You've shown me nothing at all.
So what are all those nuclear power plants doing? Where is the energy coming from?
Hydrogen.
Exactly how does that work?
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up nonsense in my opinion.
Give me an "E"! Give me a "V"! Give me an "I", a "D", an "E", and a "N-C-E"! What does that spell?! "EVIDENCE"! What do we want? EVIDENCE! What do we need? EVIDENCE! What does sceptimatic lacks? EVIDENCE!!!
-
And eye witness accounts.
Eye witness accounts are stories told which can easily be fictional accounts...right?
Not if there are thousands to millions that are telling similar stories and they are from reliable sources (your closest friend or family member who would never lie to you).
Granted, I never seen a nuclear explosion but there are many people who have.
Many people who think they have.
Have evidence that they didn't?
And we still have the results from them today.
What results are we talking about?
Radiation, craters, footage, etc.
There are many things I distrust the official story on. However its through evidence that I distrust things like 9/11, JFK, OKC bombing, etc.
What evidence about those 3.? Just a snippet for each will suffice.
Here are three random picked.
http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/physical.html
https://www.corbettreport.com/okc-a-conspiracy-theory/
I've yet to see any evidence or reason to deny the existence of nuclear weapons. What evidence do you have that they don't exist?
I don't expect you to see any evidence that they don't exist. I used to think they existed until I started to sit back and really take an interest in the things we're told. It's only then that it hits home that we are most likely hoodwinked to all hell on many aspects of so called science and life in general.
Nobody says you have to think like me. We are all individual thinkers and will follow whatever path our minds take.
All I ask is evidence.
-
This is one of the best conspiracies.
1. "Hey guys, I have found a way to cheaply generate energy for a long time using these materials!!"
2. Secretly spend billions of dollars importing coal/oil to generate the promised energy.
3. ?
4. ?
5. profit
-
This is one of the best conspiracies.
1. "Hey guys, I have found a way to cheaply generate energy for a long time using these materials!!"
2. Secretly spend billions of dollars importing coal/oil to generate the promised energy.
3. ?
4. ?
5. profit
With a mind like yours it's blatantly obvious that anything officially said to you, you swallow up like a hungry codfish.
-
This is one of the best conspiracies.
1. "Hey guys, I have found a way to cheaply generate energy for a long time using these materials!!"
2. Secretly spend billions of dollars importing coal/oil to generate the promised energy.
3. ?
4. ?
5. profit
With a mind like yours it's blatantly obvious that anything officially said to you, you swallow up like a hungry codfish.
Do you jerk your own knee or does someone do it for you.
There was me hoping you'd respond to Master_Evar's excellent explanation but somehow you skipped right over it.
Ah well, have a photo of electricity being generated by nuclear power.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2014/07/Solar-cells.jpg)
-
This is one of the best conspiracies.
1. "Hey guys, I have found a way to cheaply generate energy for a long time using these materials!!"
2. Secretly spend billions of dollars importing coal/oil to generate the promised energy.
3. ?
4. ?
5. profit
With a mind like yours it's blatantly obvious that anything officially said to you, you swallow up like a hungry codfish.
Do you jerk your own knee or does someone do it for you.
There was me hoping you'd respond to Master_Evar's excellent explanation but somehow you skipped right over it.
Ah well, have a photo of electricity being generated by nuclear power.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2014/07/Solar-cells.jpg)
I don't see any electricity being generated by nuclear power.
Oh wait....you are one person that believes the sun is a nuclear furnace in space, right?
There's no real hope for you to be blatantly honest.
-
This is one of the best conspiracies.
1. "Hey guys, I have found a way to cheaply generate energy for a long time using these materials!!"
2. Secretly spend billions of dollars importing coal/oil to generate the promised energy.
3. ?
4. ?
5. profit
With a mind like yours it's blatantly obvious that anything officially said to you, you swallow up like a hungry codfish.
Do you jerk your own knee or does someone do it for you.
There was me hoping you'd respond to Master_Evar's excellent explanation but somehow you skipped right over it.
Ah well, have a photo of electricity being generated by nuclear power.
(http://s3.amazonaws.com/digitaltrends-uploads-prod/2014/07/Solar-cells.jpg)
I don't see any electricity being generated by nuclear power.
Oh wait....you are one person that believes the sun is a nuclear furnace in space, right?
There's no real hope for you to be blatantly honest.
I asked how you thought all that power coming from nuclear power plants. You gave a one word response, hydrogen. You never explained how that would work exactly. I mean, firstly what is the actual mechanism for that, but also, where is the infrastructure.
Related to that, I a have a friend who works at nuclear power plants, what about all those people who think that's what they are doing? What is the mechanism for keeping that lie going?
-
I don't see any electricity being generated by nuclear power.
Oh wait....you are one person that believes the sun is a nuclear furnace in space, right?
Until you provide me with a credible alternative I'll go with that. Any time you like.
When I went round this place in April 1986 it was doing a fine job of providing power
http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/nuceng/id/47
-
I asked how you thought all that power coming from nuclear power plants. You gave a one word response, hydrogen. You never explained how that would work exactly. I mean, firstly what is the actual mechanism for that, but also, where is the infrastructure.
The big masses of water they are situated next to. Hydrogen in abundance. It's all there in the plants if you care to look at them in a different way.
Related to that, I a have a friend who works at nuclear power plants, what about all those people who think that's what they are doing? What is the mechanism for keeping that lie going?
How in the hell would anyone know what's inside those so called reactors?
It's all shrouded in mystery and massive security. It's easy to dupe people working there. Very few people need to know what's really going on.
Put it this way, it's possible, right?
If you think it's impossible then we have nothing left to say to each other.
-
I don't see any electricity being generated by nuclear power.
Oh wait....you are one person that believes the sun is a nuclear furnace in space, right?
Until you provide me with a credible alternative I'll go with that. Any time you like.
When I went round this place in April 1986 it was doing a fine job of providing power
http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/nuceng/id/47
You go with what you want to. Like I said, it's entirely your prerogative.
You walk round it and know it's doing a fine job of fissioning uranium?....Yeah, ok.
-
I don't see any electricity being generated by nuclear power.
Oh wait....you are one person that believes the sun is a nuclear furnace in space, right?
Until you provide me with a credible alternative I'll go with that. Any time you like.
When I went round this place in April 1986 it was doing a fine job of providing power
http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/nuceng/id/47
You go with what you want to. Like I said, it's entirely your prerogative.
You walk round it and know it's doing a fine job of fissioning uranium?....Yeah, ok.
The Uranium kind of fissions itself. It's what it does. Do you think maybe the geiger counter I've held over radioactive material had a little tape recording inside? Any alternative explanations you may have for what was going on in that nuclear power station would be welcome.
I'm guessing if I presented you with a big fat lump of uranium, or radium, or pollonium, or any other radioactive material you'd be happy to swallow some to prove your point right?
-
I don't see any electricity being generated by nuclear power.
Oh wait....you are one person that believes the sun is a nuclear furnace in space, right?
Until you provide me with a credible alternative I'll go with that. Any time you like.
When I went round this place in April 1986 it was doing a fine job of providing power
http://econtent.unm.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/nuceng/id/47
You go with what you want to. Like I said, it's entirely your prerogative.
You walk round it and know it's doing a fine job of fissioning uranium?....Yeah, ok.
The Uranium kind of fissions itself. It's what it does. Do you think maybe the geiger counter I've held over radioactive material had a little tape recording inside? Any alternative explanations you may have for what was going on in that nuclear power station would be welcome.
I'm guessing if I presented you with a big fat lump of uranium, or radium, or pollonium, or any other radioactive material you'd be happy to swallow some to prove your point right?
No I wouldn't like to swallow any of it. I wouldn't like to swallow lead.
Thinking a block of metal just fissions and boils water for a decade is not only pathetic, it's ludicrous.
-
sceptimatic, would you care to answer to my post? It's quite common for you to just stop answering to my posts.
-
I asked how you thought all that power coming from nuclear power plants. You gave a one word response, hydrogen. You never explained how that would work exactly. I mean, firstly what is the actual mechanism for that, but also, where is the infrastructure.
The big masses of water they are situated next to. Hydrogen in abundance. It's all there in the plants if you care to look at them in a different way.
Related to that, I a have a friend who works at nuclear power plants, what about all those people who think that's what they are doing? What is the mechanism for keeping that lie going?
How in the hell would anyone know what's inside those so called reactors?
It's all shrouded in mystery and massive security. It's easy to dupe people working there. Very few people need to know what's really going on.
Put it this way, it's possible, right?
If you think it's impossible then we have nothing left to say to each other.
I don't know. You didn't answer the question, you just said there is hydrogen in the water. Agreed. That doesn't address anything I said though. I suppose anything is possible but you have not provided enough information to assess its probability.
-
sceptimatic, would you care to answer to my post? It's quite common for you to just stop answering to my posts.
What is there to answer?
You're telling me nothing about what I'm talking about.
Let's make this easier. Why do you think a solid metal (as we are told) uranium pellet (as we are told) can sit in a tank of water and just shoot off atoms into the water to super heat it, without using any energy source to emit that heat.
You know, like a heating element that takes the force of energy (electricity) made to enable heating of elements.
This stuff just magically heats up water for a decade without any need for any external power source (we are told) and no atmosphere required for it's use and yet when it's spent, it apparently only expends around 20% of it's usable energy.
The silly thing is, it doesn't change its shape. It stays the same. Nothing lost.
If people think this is feasible and want to hang onto this absolute clap trap, then be my guest.
In my honest opinion all you are doing is buying into another piece of magical bullshit.
Gullible is the word for people who believe all this stuff but that's not meant in a bad way, because I spent a lot of my life being just as gullible.
These days I actually try to make sense of reality against fiction before I accept any of it. Call that paranoia or whatever, it matters not, because this is the stage it's at, when we are constantly lied to by all and sundry.
You will argue till you are blue in the face, in favour of nuclear. Not because you know it for sure in terms of actual physical observation of fissioning. It's because you read and also take in any so called scientific view of it as long as it's told by people you have been coaxed into respecting. Namely what you believe are nuclear scientists and what not.
THEORETICAL physicists. Astrophysicists and what not.
You have nothing to prove to me and what I say to you is irrelevant; i know this. What you should be doing, especially with all the questioning you actually do see, is....you should be questioning your severe indoctrination instead of guarding it like a scrap yard dog.
-
I asked how you thought all that power coming from nuclear power plants. You gave a one word response, hydrogen. You never explained how that would work exactly. I mean, firstly what is the actual mechanism for that, but also, where is the infrastructure.
The big masses of water they are situated next to. Hydrogen in abundance. It's all there in the plants if you care to look at them in a different way.
Related to that, I a have a friend who works at nuclear power plants, what about all those people who think that's what they are doing? What is the mechanism for keeping that lie going?
How in the hell would anyone know what's inside those so called reactors?
It's all shrouded in mystery and massive security. It's easy to dupe people working there. Very few people need to know what's really going on.
Put it this way, it's possible, right?
If you think it's impossible then we have nothing left to say to each other.
I don't know. You didn't answer the question, you just said there is hydrogen in the water. Agreed. That doesn't address anything I said though. I suppose anything is possible but you have not provided enough information to assess its probability.
It depends on how you think. You 100% believe nuclear power is real and also nuclear bombs. What can I say to change that mindset?
Nothing.
There's no point in me telling you anything. I'll leave it up to you to go with what you go with. I'm only interested in talking to those that have a mindset to at least think on stuff and not just dismiss everything because they weren't trained to think like that from early age to present.
-
You could show us equations disproving e=mc2.
Nevermind.
-
If you care to look you will see that the amount of hydrogen to fake a nuclear power plant would be massive.
The energy contained in hydrogen just isn't enough.
http://www.exothink.com/Pages/btu.html
https://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/f/fuelcomparison.htm
-
What is there to answer?
You're telling me nothing about what I'm talking about.
In your own words, tell m e exactly what is happening in that video and tell me why it happens and does it require agitation in an atmosphere or is it in a sealed unit that needs no atmosphere.
I want you to briefly explain it and tell me how you know what's happening.
Also tell me how much water one of these can heat up to boiling point and for how long.
The strontium-90 is, like all materials, a bunch of atoms. The atoms are made up of protons and neutrons. The 90 stands for how heavy this specific Strontium is, and it is heavy enough that the atom is not stable, but will undergo radioactive decay, specifically beta decay. During beta decay, one of the protons releases an electron. That proton turns into a neutron that stays and the electron is shot away at high speeds. This happens several times per second in that video. Some of the electrons hits the x-ray fabric, and when they do they ionize, or one could say damage, the fabric. This makes the fabric release a flash of light every time it is hit. The process does not require an atmosphere, but you can do it in the atmosphere. The atmosphere will limit how far the beta particles get, if you get up on a high mountain with less air pressure you should see that more electrons reaches the luminiscent (x-ray fabric or other) material.
If you could, somehow, manage to direct ALL the energy of radioactive decay of a fresh lump of 1kg of strontium-90 into a 1kg mass of water, and the water was perfectly isolated so it would not loose any heat, it would take about 14 minutes to heat that water from 20°C to 100°C.
Either you're lying, you forget everything I say very quickly, or you do not understand what I'm saying at all.
Let's make this easier. Why do you think a solid metal (as we are told) uranium pellet (as we are told) can sit in a tank of water and just shoot off atoms into the water to super heat it, without using any energy source to emit that heat.
It uses it's own mass as energy, just like burning wood. And all the evidence, such as the evidence I just provided to you, and that I don't believe theres a huge conspiracy, is the reason I think this is real.
You know, like a heating element that takes the force of energy (electricity) made to enable heating of elements.
This stuff just magically heats up water for a decade without any need for any external power source (we are told) and no atmosphere required for it's use and yet when it's spent, it apparently only expends around 20% of it's usable energy.
Burning gunpowder doesn't require and atmosphere or external power source either. I guess guns are a conspiracy too.
The silly thing is, it doesn't change its shape. It stays the same. Nothing lost.
If people think this is feasible and want to hang onto this absolute clap trap, then be my guest.
Where did you get this information from? I just, in my post quoted above, explained that the material changes. A proton turns into a neutron which shoots out an electron for each nuclear decay, and this turns it into another material. This new material is slightly lighter than the original material.
In my honest opinion all you are doing is buying into another piece of magical bullshit.
Gullible is the word for people who believe all this stuff but that's not meant in a bad way, because I spent a lot of my life being just as gullible.
These days I actually try to make sense of reality against fiction before I accept any of it. Call that paranoia or whatever, it matters not, because this is the stage it's at, when we are constantly lied to by all and sundry.
You will argue till you are blue in the face, in favour of nuclear. Not because you know it for sure in terms of actual physical observation of fissioning. It's because you read and also take in any so called scientific view of it as long as it's told by people you have been coaxed into respecting. Namely what you believe are nuclear scientists and what not.
THEORETICAL physicists. Astrophysicists and what not.
Wait, so you ARE telling me that the flashes of light that you can clearly see on a luminiscent material are not real, that despite being able to see them and and record them they are totally not there. Seriously.
You have nothing to prove to me and what I say to you is irrelevant; i know this. What you should be doing, especially with all the questioning you actually do see, is....you should be questioning your severe indoctrination instead of guarding it like a scrap yard dog.
Did you know that you can build a nuclear reactor surprisingly easily? Sure, it's not legal (for obvious reasons) but I'm very sure that all the materials needed can be bought (somewhat) legally (someone here in sweden tried to to make one in their kitchen. But they didn't have enough pure material to start the process, and they tried to boil the radioactive material in some sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid probably reacted violently with some material and blew up, which stopped his experiment. Later the police caught him). You'd have to spend some money though.
-
I asked how you thought all that power coming from nuclear power plants. You gave a one word response, hydrogen. You never explained how that would work exactly. I mean, firstly what is the actual mechanism for that, but also, where is the infrastructure.
The big masses of water they are situated next to. Hydrogen in abundance. It's all there in the plants if you care to look at them in a different way.
Related to that, I a have a friend who works at nuclear power plants, what about all those people who think that's what they are doing? What is the mechanism for keeping that lie going?
How in the hell would anyone know what's inside those so called reactors?
It's all shrouded in mystery and massive security. It's easy to dupe people working there. Very few people need to know what's really going on.
Put it this way, it's possible, right?
If you think it's impossible then we have nothing left to say to each other.
I don't know. You didn't answer the question, you just said there is hydrogen in the water. Agreed. That doesn't address anything I said though. I suppose anything is possible but you have not provided enough information to assess its probability.
It depends on how you think. You 100% believe nuclear power is real and also nuclear bombs. What can I say to change that mindset?
Nothing.
There's no point in me telling you anything. I'll leave it up to you to go with what you go with. I'm only interested in talking to those that have a mindset to at least think on stuff and not just dismiss everything because they weren't trained to think like that from early age to present.
I admitted it was possible, but you have yet to put forth any information at all. You literally given me nothing to dismiss. All you said was there is hydrogen in water. Agreed. And?
-
I'm only interested in talking to those that have a mindset to at least think on stuff and not just dismiss everything because they weren't trained to think like that from early age to present.
My irony meter just went off the grid.
Again you make the fairly typical conspiraloon mistake of thinking that because someone doesn't think like you that they haven't thought, with the added bonus of not actually showing any evidence of thinking yourself.
Show us something to support your claims that the sun isn't fueled by nuclear fusion. Show us something that will support your claim that something something hydrogen something is responsible for the energy produced in a nuclear reactor. You'd obviously need to explain where the power station is that produces all energy to manufacture the hydrogen in the first place, but one step at a time and how the efficiency losses are compensated for, but one step at a time eh...
-
I'm only interested in talking to those that have a mindset to at least think on stuff and not just dismiss everything because they weren't trained to think like that from early age to present.
My irony meter just went off the grid.
Again you make the fairly typical conspiraloon mistake of thinking that because someone doesn't think like you that they haven't thought, with the added bonus of not actually showing any evidence of thinking yourself.
Show us something to support your claims that the sun isn't fueled by nuclear fusion. Show us something that will support your claim that something something hydrogen something is responsible for the energy produced in a nuclear reactor. You'd obviously need to explain where the power station is that produces all energy to manufacture the hydrogen in the first place, but one step at a time and how the efficiency losses are compensated for, but one step at a time eh...
When you prove to me that the sun is a nuclear furnace and that nuclear power stations do what we're told they do, then I'll have a go at explaining my thoughts.
You see, all you people do is ask for evidence when you can't provide any yourself, physically.
-
When you prove to me that the sun is a nuclear furnace and that nuclear power stations do what we're told they do, then I'll have a go at explaining my thoughts.
You see, all you people do is ask for evidence when you can't provide any yourself, physically.
My experiment, that I have repeatedly proposed and reminded you of?
-
When you prove to me that the sun is a nuclear furnace and that nuclear power stations do what we're told they do, then I'll have a go at explaining my thoughts.
You see, all you people do is ask for evidence when you can't provide any yourself, physically.
My experiment, that I have repeatedly proposed and reminded you of?
Show me your experiment where it boils water into steam like these power plants are supposed to do with so called uranium pellets.
If you can't do it then stop pretending you know what you're on about.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up bullshit in my opinion.
What about nuclear medicine? You do understand that various forms of radiation and radioactive materials have been commonly used in cancer diagnosis and treatment for many years, don't you? Or is that just another long running scam that's being perpetrated by the health care industry?
-
Show me your experiment where it boils water into steam like these power plants are supposed to do with so called uranium pellets.
If you can't do it then stop pretending you know what you're on about.
You have not even READ my experiment! It has nothing to do with boiling water, and is much safer:
"You can buy zinc sulfide and a smoke detector, coat a sheet in the zinc sulfide, then take out the radioactive isotope from the smoke detector, place the sheet near the isotope and use a magnification device to observe when the radiation hits the sheet. Obviously, wear clothing that covers your whole body and a mask, and don't let any of the isotope spill."
It will produce an effect similar, but probably not quite as intense, as in the video.
If you want to boil water, you can just buy a whole bunch of strontium (although I don't know how legal and expensive it is) and put it in the water:
"If you could, somehow, manage to direct ALL the energy of radioactive decay of a fresh lump of 1kg of strontium-90 into a 1kg mass of water, and the water was perfectly isolated so it would not loose any heat, it would take about 14 minutes to heat that water from 20°C to 100°C."
Of course, you'd need more than 1 kg of strontium-90 per 1 kg of water to make up for heat going into the atmosphere and being absorbed by the strontium itself.
If you specifically want to know if a nuclear reactor works, you can (possibly illegally, I do not recommend doing this) try to build your own mini-reactor. It will not generate enough heat to boil water or make electricity, but it will set off a geiger counter (more than just the radioactive material by itself would) or, as in my experiment, make zinc sulfide spark. Again, you need to buy some smoke detectors and get out the radioactive isotope called americium. Or you could possibly get your hand on either some uranium ore or yellowcake (uranium oxide). Then you need to buy a neutron generator, a device which generates a beam of neutrons. And lastly you should also get a sheet of neutron reflector. You need to set it up so that the fissile material (the radioactive stuff) is bunched together. You need to aim the neutron generators beam right into the fissile material, and you should set up the neutron reflector behind the material so that the neutrons that don't hit the material can bounce back and get another chance at hitting it. This should create a controlled rate of fission in whatever fissile material you are using. It won't make much heat, and it definitely won't explode. However it should be done in the basement and you should wear thick clothing. In fact, it might also be a good idea to surround it all with concrete blocks and only turn on the neutron generator when you are behind the concrete. It's mostly for your own health, there is not nearly enough material to make an explosion. But it will release some highly ionizing radiation, including gammas which you have to stop with thick walls.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up bullshit in my opinion.
What about nuclear medicine? You do understand that various forms of radiation and radioactive materials have been commonly used in cancer diagnosis and treatment for many years, don't you? Or is that just another long running scam that's being perpetrated by the health care industry?
Does your nuclear medicine boil water into steam for a decade without the aid of any external energy applied to it to make it work?
If not, then this is not what we're dealing with.
-
You have not even READ my experiment! It has nothing to do with boiling water, and is much safer:
But we are talking about supposed nuclear power stations. Let's deal with this instead of going off course with silliness.
"You can buy zinc sulfide and a smoke detector, coat a sheet in the zinc sulfide, then take out the radioactive isotope from the smoke detector, place the sheet near the isotope and use a magnification device to observe when the radiation hits the sheet. Obviously, wear clothing that covers your whole body and a mask, and don't let any of the isotope spill."
It will produce an effect similar, but probably not quite as intense, as in the video.
Yeah, ok, I bet you've actually done this, right?
Don't answer that.
Let's deal with these supposed nuclear power stations throwing out mega watts of electricity by using uranium pellets dipped into a large sealed kettle/reactor or whatever the thing is.
If you want to boil water, you can just buy a whole bunch of strontium (although I don't know how legal and expensive it is) and put it in the water:
"If you could, somehow, manage to direct ALL the energy of radioactive decay of a fresh lump of 1kg of strontium-90 into a 1kg mass of water, and the water was perfectly isolated so it would not loose any heat, it would take about 14 minutes to heat that water from 20°C to 100°C."
So tell me how this would work in a magical ideal situation?
Of course, you'd need more than 1 kg of strontium-90 per 1 kg of water to make up for heat going into the atmosphere and being absorbed by the strontium itself.
Add as much of it all as you want and tell me in simple terms how it works.
If you specifically want to know if a nuclear reactor works, you can (possibly illegally, I do not recommend doing this) try to build your own mini-reactor. It will not generate enough heat to boil water or make electricity, but it will set off a geiger counter (more than just the radioactive material by itself would) or, as in my experiment, make zinc sulfide spark.
You could set off those things with a wet fart.
Again, you need to buy some smoke detectors and get out the radioactive isotope called americium. Or you could possibly get your hand on either some uranium ore or yellowcake (uranium oxide). Then you need to buy a neutron generator, a device which generates a beam of neutrons. And lastly you should also get a sheet of neutron reflector. You need to set it up so that the fissile material (the radioactive stuff) is bunched together. You need to aim the neutron generators beam right into the fissile material, and you should set up the neutron reflector behind the material so that the neutrons that don't hit the material can bounce back and get another chance at hitting it. This should create a controlled rate of fission in whatever fissile material you are using. It won't make much heat, and it definitely won't explode. However it should be done in the basement and you should wear thick clothing. In fact, it might also be a good idea to surround it all with concrete blocks and only turn on the neutron generator when you are behind the concrete. It's mostly for your own health, there is not nearly enough material to make an explosion. But it will release some highly ionizing radiation, including gammas which you have to stop with thick walls.
Yeah well, good luck with that.
I'd get more generated electricity out of a shop bought sponge cake.
-
Scepti let me ask you something. This doesn't really have anything to do with this thread, I just can't think of a better place to ask it.
What are all the areas of mainstream science and history do you believe are a hoax?
So far I've seen the round earth(obviously), nuclear power/weaponry, the cold war, gravity, basic physics. What else? I'm just curious.
-
Scepti let me ask you something. This doesn't really have anything to do with this thread, I just can't think of a better place to ask it.
What are all the areas of mainstream science and history do you believe are a hoax?
So far I've seen the round earth(obviously), nuclear power/weaponry, the cold war, gravity, basic physics. What else? I'm just curious.
It all depends on what's put out. At worst, many so called scientific theories or mainstream news absolutely beg questions.
I simply have a massive mistrust of a lot of this stuff.
I have to be totally honest and say that I cannot say for certain, with physical proof that much of this stuff is a hoax. It's down to questions and looking into how much stuff is supposed to work and I seriously think we are being bullshitted on a mammoth scale, mixed in with some obvious truths and other slight/severe bending of the truth.
I think Nuclear power and weapons are bullshit simply by looking through much of it all and seeing how it's all supposed to happen. It reeks of crap.
Atoms that could not be seen (but apparently can now) all those years ago and yet they manage to split them to create fission in the 1940's and supposed bombs were made .
What an utter utter load of absolute crap.
-
Yeah, ok, I bet you've actually done this, right?
Don't answer that.
Let's deal with these supposed nuclear power stations throwing out mega watts of electricity by using uranium pellets dipped into a large sealed kettle/reactor or whatever the thing is.
I have used a geiger counter and small radioactive sample instead, you can try it in a university. The video shows someone doing this with a sample of strontium and some x-ray fabric. The experiment I'm proposing is actually very similar to the Rutherford gold foil experiment, just a different radioactive isotope and no gold foil.
This is just something very simple that has been done in very similar ways hundreds if not thousands of times before.
So tell me how this would work in a magical ideal situation?
You put the strontium in the water. Pretty simple.
Add as much of it all as you want and tell me in simple terms how it works.
Again, just put the strontium in the water.
You could set off those things with a wet fart.
Nope, stop lying. Also, I proposed zinc sulfide. Zinc sulfide definitely doesn't spark from wet farts.
Yeah well, good luck with that.
I'd get more generated electricity out of a shop bought sponge cake.
You'd also generate more energy with a coal powerplant than this setup. Your point?
And of course I'm not going to do it. It's unsafe, illegal and useless. But it would be strong evidence for radioactivity.
-
Yeah, ok, I bet you've actually done this, right?
Don't answer that.
Let's deal with these supposed nuclear power stations throwing out mega watts of electricity by using uranium pellets dipped into a large sealed kettle/reactor or whatever the thing is.
I have used a geiger counter and small radioactive sample instead, you can try it in a university. The video shows someone doing this with a sample of strontium and some x-ray fabric. The experiment I'm proposing is actually very similar to the Rutherford gold foil experiment, just a different radioactive isotope and no gold foil.
This is just something very simple that has been done in very similar ways hundreds if not thousands of times before.
So tell me how this would work in a magical ideal situation?
You put the strontium in the water. Pretty simple.
Add as much of it all as you want and tell me in simple terms how it works.
Again, just put the strontium in the water.
You could set off those things with a wet fart.
Nope, stop lying. Also, I proposed zinc sulfide. Zinc sulfide definitely doesn't spark from wet farts.
Yeah well, good luck with that.
I'd get more generated electricity out of a shop bought sponge cake.
You'd also generate more energy with a coal powerplant than this setup. Your point?
And of course I'm not going to do it. It's unsafe, illegal and useless. But it would be strong evidence for radioactivity.
Your reliance on nuclear power/weapons being real is entirely based on what you read or are told, plus the media videos and what not.
You have no physical evidence of any of it being real and nor do I.
You enjoy magic tricks and so do I.
The difference is, I try to figure out how it's all done and you accept the magic trick as being exactly that.
-
Your reliance on nuclear power/weapons being real is entirely based on what you read or are told, plus the media videos and what not.
You have no physical evidence of any of it being real and nor do I.
You enjoy magic tricks and so do I.
The difference is, I try to figure out how it's all done and you accept the magic trick as being exactly that.
So, even when I press the experiment up your face you deny it's existence. Okay then...
Also, there is no denying what is happening in these situations. I have asked you before, how can YOU explain why the luminiscent material flashes when a radioactive material is put near it?
-
Your reliance on nuclear power/weapons being real is entirely based on what you read or are told, plus the media videos and what not.
You have no physical evidence of any of it being real and nor do I.
You enjoy magic tricks and so do I.
The difference is, I try to figure out how it's all done and you accept the magic trick as being exactly that.
So, even when I press the experiment up your face you deny it's existence. Okay then...
Also, there is no denying what is happening in these situations. I have asked you before, how can YOU explain why the luminiscent material flashes when a radioactive material is put near it?
For the last time I'm talking about nuclear power and weapons not being what we are told. I'm not arguing luminescence and such like so stop jumping into that as if this stuff proves anything about nuclear power plants and weapons.
Seriously don't waste your time coming back at me with that rabble.
-
For the last time I'm talking about nuclear power and weapons not being what we are told. I'm not arguing luminescence and such like so stop jumping into that as if this stuff proves anything about nuclear power plants and weapons.
Seriously don't waste your time coming back at me with that rabble.
But the luminiscense caused by radiation is direct evidence of nuclear decay, the basis of nuclear power.
-
Your reliance on nuclear power/weapons being real is entirely based on what you read or are told, plus the media videos and what not.
You have no physical evidence of any of it being real and nor do I.
You enjoy magic tricks and so do I.
The difference is, I try to figure out how it's all done and you accept the magic trick as being exactly that.
So, even when I press the experiment up your face you deny it's existence. Okay then...
Also, there is no denying what is happening in these situations. I have asked you before, how can YOU explain why the luminiscent material flashes when a radioactive material is put near it?
For the last time I'm talking about nuclear power and weapons not being what we are told. I'm not arguing luminescence and such like so stop jumping into that as if this stuff proves anything about nuclear power plants and weapons.
Seriously don't waste your time coming back at me with that rabble.
Lots of evidence exists showing nuclear power. I personally know someone who has spent their life working in nuclear power plants at a high enough level to actually deal with these materials. You simply claim all of that is a lie and anyone who doesn't believe you is ignorant. Yet you cannot supply even the tiniest shred of evidence to support your position that it's really hydrogen. You claim others aren't thinking and yet any thinking person would look at this exchange and say you are the one spewing bullshit. Supply some evidence for your claims or acknowledge that a reasonable, thinking, person, can only come to the conclusion that you are simply paranoid and delusional.
You claimed, I believe at one point, that I dismissed your theories, but that is t true, I simply asked you to support them. That's incredibly reasonable.
I would like to discuss this with you but you literally give us nothing to discuss. One word answers with no supporting evidence isn't grounds for discussion. Surely you can see this
-
His answer
I think Nuclear power and weapons are bullshit simply by looking through much of it all and seeing how it's all supposed to happen. It reeks of crap.
Really means he just doesn't understand how it works. That or he's just trolling and leading everyone on.
Scepti, if you don't believe in nuclear power or weapons, why continue on the subject? Why not just move on and not come back? You're so positively sure on your position, but put forth zero evidence when asked for it. I believe you are lying and just like the (weird) attention.
-
For the last time I'm talking about nuclear power and weapons not being what we are told. I'm not arguing luminescence and such like so stop jumping into that as if this stuff proves anything about nuclear power plants and weapons.
Seriously don't waste your time coming back at me with that rabble.
But the luminiscense caused by radiation is direct evidence of nuclear decay, the basis of nuclear power.
No it's not. It's evidence of luminescence. You can liken it to uranium fission all you want but you are still in the dark about it all, because you'll never see uranium pellets fission and boiling water for a decade, without the aid of any external energy applied.
Everything decays over time, whether it's natural or by force of applied energy.
You only have to look into the set up of supposed nuclear power plants to know there's something not quite right about how they work.
Naturally people like you will never see anything wrong. They can tell you people that they work with pixie dust and you will believe it.
-
His answer
I think Nuclear power and weapons are bullshit simply by looking through much of it all and seeing how it's all supposed to happen. It reeks of crap.
Really means he just doesn't understand how it works. That or he's just trolling and leading everyone on.
Scepti, if you don't believe in nuclear power or weapons, why continue on the subject? Why not just move on and not come back? You're so positively sure on your position, but put forth zero evidence when asked for it. I believe you are lying and just like the (weird) attention.
I'm not here for you or people like you. I know your position and the position of people like you.
I'm here for people that can actually think for themselves. There are a good few on here, although most seem to have disappeared of late.
I question this stuff. I question the magic behind it all - and believe me, this stuff is down the magic route. This stuff is your classic magicians sleight of hand energy trick, in MY opinion.
Like I said, I already know your stance on it all. You believe anything 100% no matter what and will go as far as having an uncle or friend that actually works with uranium, etc. This is how you people play to try and shove bullshit down the throats of people that question.
Not for me so take it elsewhere.
Oh and by the way, the topic is "nuclear weapons DO NOT exist." You think they do so how about you stay out of it.
-
No it's not. It's evidence of luminescence. You can liken it to uranium fission all you want but you are still in the dark about it all, because you'll never see uranium pellets fission and boiling water for a decade, without the aid of any external energy applied.
Everything decays over time, whether it's natural or by force of applied energy.
You only have to look into the set up of supposed nuclear power plants to know there's something not quite right about how they work.
Naturally people like you will never see anything wrong. They can tell you people that they work with pixie dust and you will believe it.
Why does the luminiscent material spark when a radioactive material is put next to it?
-
No it's not. It's evidence of luminescence. You can liken it to uranium fission all you want but you are still in the dark about it all, because you'll never see uranium pellets fission and boiling water for a decade, without the aid of any external energy applied.
Everything decays over time, whether it's natural or by force of applied energy.
You only have to look into the set up of supposed nuclear power plants to know there's something not quite right about how they work.
Naturally people like you will never see anything wrong. They can tell you people that they work with pixie dust and you will believe it.
Why does the luminiscent material spark when a radioactive material is put next to it?
A jumper sparks when you take it off your body, it doesn't mean it's going to boil water for a decade or blow up a city.
The reason why you keep pushing this crap is because you have no idea how metal frigging pellets can boil water just by sitting inside a rod.
How about those things are not uranium pellets in a rod.
To be honest I'm bored with talking to people like you. Your mindset is a belief in anything and everything told to you by supposed officials who you believe tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Don't bother replying, I can't be arsed with you.
-
A jumper sparks when you take it off your body
No it does not.
The reason why you keep pushing this crap is because you have no idea how metal frigging pellets can boil water just by sitting inside a rod.
How about those things are not uranium pellets in a rod.
Yes, because you ignore my explanations that means they don't exist. It's a weird world we live in huh?
To be honest I'm bored with talking to people like you. Your mindset is a belief in anything and everything told to you by supposed officials who you believe tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Yes, since you ignore my experiments they don't exist, I get it.
Don't bother replying, I can't be arsed with you.
My posts are only asking you questions and proposing experiments. If you can't handle questions or experiments, you're not suited to claim truths.
-
I question this stuff. I question the magic behind it all - and believe me, this stuff is down the magic route. This stuff is your classic magicians sleight of hand energy trick, in MY opinion.
You aren't questioning anything. You've already decided you know the answer. This is not asking questions. All you're doing is talking about the discussion, not involving yourself in it. Spending your life trying to decode the intents and motives of people who disagree with you isn't going to solve any of the issues you're trying to discuss.
[qouote]Like I said, I already know your stance on it all. You believe anything 100% no matter what and will go as far as having an uncle or friend that actually works with uranium, etc. This is how you people play to try and shove bullshit down the throats of people that question.[/quote]
"How you people play"? You clearly have some sort of massive chip on your shoulder about people knowing what they're talking about. Even the anecdotal evidence presented by people here is more than you have presented in support of any of your knee-jerk dismissals. If it's bullshit, say why it's bullshit. Just telling me it's bullshit doesn't cut it.
Not for me so take it elsewhere.
Oh and by the way, the topic is "nuclear weapons DO NOT exist." You think they do so how about you stay out of it.
Not your thread or your forum. A free ranging discussion on a topic does not consist solely of "Why yes, you;re completely right!). I am firmly of the opinion that they do exist because the evidence supports the claim. Why should I stand by and let something I believe to be untrue pass without comment?
I got told to 'stay out of it' by someone on another forum once. So I paid for myself to get some web space and write my own website where I didn't have to bow beneath the petty diktats of keyboard Napoleons with an axe to grind. If all you want is a self-congratulatory circle jerk then set up your own place and you can spend your time telling yourself how smart you are.
Meanwhile a discussion forum exists around you. Try, you know, discussing stuff. Like how you think you can generate enough hydrogen to pretend it's a nuclear power station without needing another power station to supply it. Like how you think the sun is powered, and all the other examples provided to you.
-
I question this stuff. I question the magic behind it all - and believe me, this stuff is down the magic route. This stuff is your classic magicians sleight of hand energy trick, in MY opinion.
You aren't questioning anything. You've already decided you know the answer. This is not asking questions. All you're doing is talking about the discussion, not involving yourself in it. Spending your life trying to decode the intents and motives of people who disagree with you isn't going to solve any of the issues you're trying to discuss.
[qouote]Like I said, I already know your stance on it all. You believe anything 100% no matter what and will go as far as having an uncle or friend that actually works with uranium, etc. This is how you people play to try and shove bullshit down the throats of people that question.
"How you people play"? You clearly have some sort of massive chip on your shoulder about people knowing what they're talking about. Even the anecdotal evidence presented by people here is more than you have presented in support of any of your knee-jerk dismissals. If it's bullshit, say why it's bullshit. Just telling me it's bullshit doesn't cut it.
Not for me so take it elsewhere.
Oh and by the way, the topic is "nuclear weapons DO NOT exist." You think they do so how about you stay out of it.
Not your thread or your forum. A free ranging discussion on a topic does not consist solely of "Why yes, you;re completely right!). I am firmly of the opinion that they do exist because the evidence supports the claim. Why should I stand by and let something I believe to be untrue pass without comment?
I got told to 'stay out of it' by someone on another forum once. So I paid for myself to get some web space and write my own website where I didn't have to bow beneath the petty diktats of keyboard Napoleons with an axe to grind. If all you want is a self-congratulatory circle jerk then set up your own place and you can spend your time telling yourself how smart you are.
Meanwhile a discussion forum exists around you. Try, you know, discussing stuff. Like how you think you can generate enough hydrogen to pretend it's a nuclear power station without needing another power station to supply it. Like how you think the sun is powered, and all the other examples provided to you.
[/quote]I didn't quote you so calm down.
-
Right, you quoted me. But he gave a rather good answer. You see, you're just saying it doesn't work because honestly you don't understand it. And it's somehow magic. I could say the same thing about cell phones, and how they transmit and receive through the air wirelessly is pure magical BS too. I mean, come on! There's absolutely no way that can happen! But just because I don't understand it (which I do) does that give me justification to say it doesn't exist? No! There's people 10 times smarter than I am that come up with stuff. It's called technology. Human advancement. And all of these conspiracies you seem to believe are centered around technology. Look how far we have come in the last 100 years!
You've been asked several times how you've come to the conclusion hydrogen is the fuel, and not nuclear fission. And never given a rational explanation of it. I for one would like to hear this process. I'm guessing you're going with electrolysis?
-
Right, you quoted me. But he gave a rather good answer. You see, you're just saying it doesn't work because honestly you don't understand it. And it's somehow magic. I could say the same thing about cell phones, and how they transmit and receive through the air wirelessly is pure magical BS too. I mean, come on! There's absolutely no way that can happen! But just because I don't understand it (which I do) does that give me justification to say it doesn't exist? No! There's people 10 times smarter than I am that come up with stuff. It's called technology. Human advancement. And all of these conspiracies you seem to believe are centered around technology. Look how far we have come in the last 100 years!
You've been asked several times how you've come to the conclusion hydrogen is the fuel, and not nuclear fission. And never given a rational explanation of it. I for one would like to hear this process. I'm guessing you're going with electrolysis?
Yeah it's electrolysis. You went on and on and knew the answer.
Let's just leave it there because I don't want you jumping up and screaming " how can it be electrolysis, do you realise how much energy that requires to make it." And blah blah blah.
All I'll say to you is; forget about paper money and just ask yourself what is the most abundant potential fuel on the Earth.
-
I asked how you thought all that power coming from nuclear power plants. You gave a one word response, hydrogen. You never explained how that would work exactly. I mean, firstly what is the actual mechanism for that, but also, where is the infrastructure.
The big masses of water they are situated next to. Hydrogen in abundance. It's all there in the plants if you care to look at them in a different way.
Related to that, I a have a friend who works at nuclear power plants, what about all those people who think that's what they are doing? What is the mechanism for keeping that lie going?
How in the hell would anyone know what's inside those so called reactors?
It's all shrouded in mystery and massive security. It's easy to dupe people working there. Very few people need to know what's really going on.
Put it this way, it's possible, right?
If you think it's impossible then we have nothing left to say to each other.
You asked me this before and I said yes. I suppose anything is possible. Probable is another story. To assess that probability I would need more information. I've asked you several times for that.
There is ample evidence for nuclear power. To really have a meaningful discussion on this you would have to provide some kind of supporting evidence for your position. That's all I'm asking for.
-
So Fukushima was just a publicity stunt? And they need not be worried? As was Chernobyl and 3 Mile Island? All just to pull the wool over our eyes every few years just to keep us in fear? If Chernobyl were just a hydrogen accident, don't you think somebody would've figured that out by now, and called BS?
To come to this conclusion that nuclear isn't real, you'd have to have serious concrete evidence. Not just deep thought. Because that would have to mean you are far more intelligent than all the nuclear physicists ever born and all the people in the related fields. You have to be smarter than all of them to KNOW nuclear power is faked.
-
Let's just leave it there because I don't want you jumping up and screaming " how can it be electrolysis, do you realise how much energy that requires to make it." And blah blah blah.
I bed you don't want people asking that, because it will reveal how little thought you've put in. It doesn't take much searching to find that current large scale electrolysis plants for producing hydrogen operate at best at 70% efficiency. The typical efficiency of a hydrogen cell is about 50%. Even if the electrolysis process was 100% efficient, you would need use twice as much power as you create.
See what's happening there? See why your hydrogen claim is just unworkable?
Oh and you can add to that the complete lack of any kind of giant electrolysis plant or hydrogen fuel cells in any of the nuclear plants.
-
I didn't wanna be the one to say it, so thank you. Why go through all the trouble to make hydrogen, under the guise of "nuclear power"? Just to fool the population? You don't think just one disgruntled employee might end up spilling the beans? Everyone is just THAT good at keeping secrets? Seriously????
-
End of conversation.
-
It would be easier just to say "I don't know".
-
End of conversation.
Come on scepti just a bit of evidence isn't too much to ask for is it?
-
End of conversation.
Lol
Pretend millionaire got destroyed.
Lol
-
So what are neutron detectors actually detecting, and why do they pick up strong signals near reactors? You can buy one, on eBay probably. Also what was Marie Curie working on all those years? What are Geiger counters doing when they click?
What a silly thing to say, that nuclear weapons don't exist. People are great at weaponizing things. If nuclear fission reactions happen, you can bet they will be weaponized. There's a lot of energy there to make use of.
-
So do you think nuclear reactors are real?
No, not at all. No nuclear power at all in any description. It's made up bullshit in my opinion.
What about nuclear medicine? You do understand that various forms of radiation and radioactive materials have been commonly used in cancer diagnosis and treatment for many years, don't you? Or is that just another long running scam that's being perpetrated by the health care industry?
Does your nuclear medicine boil water into steam for a decade without the aid of any external energy applied to it to make it work?
If not, then this is not what we're dealing with.
No, but nuclear submarines do. However, nuclear medicine does involve using breeder reactors to make the radioactive materials used for the treatments.
By the way, I did tour a teaching nuclear reactor at an Ivy League school some years ago. I didn't see them boil water, but I did see the eerie blue glow (Cerencov radiation) around the submerged nuclear fuel rods. It looked something like this (but not as intense).
(http://www.webexhibits.org/causesofcolor/images/content/aurora/Cerenkov-radiation-reedZ.jpg)
-
None of you have seen a nuclear weapon explosion, except on film. None of you have any idea, physically if uranium is under self fission inside a so called nuclear reactor.
You're told about this magical stuff and yet you cannot prove it is a reality, except to say Geiger counters work or you've toured a nuclear plant or your uncle, friend, cousin or whoever has seen it all.
So how can I prove it isn't all nuclear? What could I possibly say that would convince anyone that nuclear power isn't real?
The answer is, I can't. I can't prove it's not real no more than any of you can prove it is real.
So what does this drop down to?
It means that questions are asked and rational answers are sought, not magical answers that does not cut the mustard whether people shout and scream that I don't know how it works so it simply doesn't.
Clap trap. We live on Earth and we can build many things. We can explode many different types of bomb by packing explosives into it. The explosion strength is determined by how much explosive mix is put into the bomb casing, etc.
Then we have the nuclear bombs. A small bullet shaped piece of metal and discs of the same metal or supposed uranium/plutonium mix, which is naturally weapon grade as we are told. These metals are placed inside a bomb casing and are forced into each other by the explosion of cordite which smashes the bullet shaped metal into the disc and bang your city has been wiped out. This is your basic atom bomb but naturally we have moved on from there with more sophisticated weapons of better mass destruction, in how the weapons grade uranium/plutonium works.
We get told that nuclear power plants produce this weapons grade uranium due to the fission process. They obviously didn't require any of this in the 40's. They just thought of atoms and split them causing fission. This was enough to rig a few bombs up for a supposed quick test and then drop them on cities.
"But we can see the hands of a watch glow in the dark. What more proof do you need, you imbecile", one would say.
And so on and so on.
Nuclear submarines are another silly example. We are told they work because everything is contained. Your reactor sends steam to the turbines to work propeller and electricals inside the sub and yet no steam let off required, because let's face it. No matter which way you look at it, the sub is essentially a steam powered sub, except it does not require a funnel to dissipate the steam
Yeah I know, it condenses we are told.
War machines out to sea full of nuclear missiles as well as being run by a nuclear reactor that just keeps powering it along for 20 years or so. This super dangerous stuff placed in an unstable environment of the ocean and also enemy missiles?
These subs don't spend 20 years out at sea. They come into ports. They come into ports with their supposed reactor blurting out power as the reactor is still in fission mode.
" But scepti, you're dumb and you don't know how it all works and we do, so you're an idiot and we are super scientists." Say some.
The weird thing about these nuclear power stations, is that they produce hydrogen as a part of the process.
Of course they do and it's that hydrogen that can blow up stuff.
Spent fuel pools 40 feet deep and a huge area. Just drop the rods in there for 40 years till they cool down.
What a joke and the joke is on us.
-
The only way nuclear plants can produce hydrogen is with the electricity it produces in the reactor.
Nuclear subs? Well gee if only there was a way of turning steam back into water.
The first nuclear weapons still needed plutonium produced in a reactor.
-
The only way nuclear plants can produce hydrogen is with the electricity it produces in the reactor.
It doesn't produce electricity in a reactor, it apparently produces boiling water.
Nuclear subs? Well gee if only there was a way of turning steam back into water.
First you need to turn it into actual steam to enable turbines to turn before turning it back into water in a condensing fashion.
It simply wouldn't work on any so called nuclear sub.
It's like saying a steam train can operate in the same manner. the clue is in that huge mass of steam that billows out of the funnel.
If a so called nuclear sub can condense it's steam without producing any into the environment, then so could a steam loco. We know this can't happen anymore than a household pressure cooker cannot cause anything to work until it's release valve opens up.
Nuclear subs and power stations are fiction. What they use is definitely not fission type metals.
The first nuclear weapons still needed plutonium produced in a reactor.
So tell me about this reactor that was built to make this weapons grade so called plutonium in the 40's?
-
First you need to turn it into actual steam to enable turbines to turn before turning it back into water in a condensing fashion.
It simply wouldn't work on any so called nuclear sub.
It's like saying a steam train can operate in the same manner. the clue is in that huge mass of steam that billows out of the funnel.
If a so called nuclear sub can condense it's steam without producing any into the environment, then so could a steam loco. We know this can't happen anymore than a household pressure cooker cannot cause anything to work until it's release valve opens up.
(http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/rcs-c2.jpg)
-
First you need to turn it into actual steam to enable turbines to turn before turning it back into water in a condensing fashion.
It simply wouldn't work on any so called nuclear sub.
It's like saying a steam train can operate in the same manner. the clue is in that huge mass of steam that billows out of the funnel.
If a so called nuclear sub can condense it's steam without producing any into the environment, then so could a steam loco. We know this can't happen anymore than a household pressure cooker cannot cause anything to work until it's release valve opens up.
(http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/rcs-c2.jpg)
How about showing me a nuclear sub diagram of it's nuclear workings.
-
Sceptimatic, you still can't explain why luminiscent materials only spark with flashes of light if you put a radioactive material near them. But if you don't think this is evidence for nuclear reactors working, then I guess your only choice is to build one yourself. Schematics can be found everywhere on the internet, including the one posted here above. Here's more detail on the fuel rod and control rod setup:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/10/Magnox_reactor_schematic.svg/2000px-Magnox_reactor_schematic.svg.png)
You can make the fuel rods by melting yellowcake, filtering out the slag and molding it into rods.
If you don't want to build a full scale reactor, you can make it a bit smaller and instead of using control rods you have to use a large neutron generator. Fire the neutron generator to start the fission, and stop firing to stop the fission.
Now, this is unless you actually have some evidence that nuclear reactors don't work.
-
None of you have seen a nuclear weapon explosion, except on film. None of you have any idea, physically if uranium is under self fission inside a so called nuclear reactor.
You're told about this magical stuff and yet you cannot prove it is a reality, except to say Geiger counters work or you've toured a nuclear plant or your uncle, friend, cousin or whoever has seen it all.
So how can I prove it isn't all nuclear? What could I possibly say that would convince anyone that nuclear power isn't real?
The answer is, I can't. I can't prove it's not real no more than any of you can prove it is real.
So what does this drop down to?
It means that questions are asked and rational answers are sought, not magical answers that does not cut the mustard whether people shout and scream that I don't know how it works so it simply doesn't.
Clap trap. We live on Earth and we can build many things. We can explode many different types of bomb by packing explosives into it. The explosion strength is determined by how much explosive mix is put into the bomb casing, etc.
Then we have the nuclear bombs. A small bullet shaped piece of metal and discs of the same metal or supposed uranium/plutonium mix, which is naturally weapon grade as we are told. These metals are placed inside a bomb casing and are forced into each other by the explosion of cordite which smashes the bullet shaped metal into the disc and bang your city has been wiped out. This is your basic atom bomb but naturally we have moved on from there with more sophisticated weapons of better mass destruction, in how the weapons grade uranium/plutonium works.
We get told that nuclear power plants produce this weapons grade uranium due to the fission process. They obviously didn't require any of this in the 40's. They just thought of atoms and split them causing fission. This was enough to rig a few bombs up for a supposed quick test and then drop them on cities.
"But we can see the hands of a watch glow in the dark. What more proof do you need, you imbecile", one would say.
And so on and so on.
Nuclear submarines are another silly example. We are told they work because everything is contained. Your reactor sends steam to the turbines to work propeller and electricals inside the sub and yet no steam let off required, because let's face it. No matter which way you look at it, the sub is essentially a steam powered sub, except it does not require a funnel to dissipate the steam
Yeah I know, it condenses we are told.
War machines out to sea full of nuclear missiles as well as being run by a nuclear reactor that just keeps powering it along for 20 years or so. This super dangerous stuff placed in an unstable environment of the ocean and also enemy missiles?
These subs don't spend 20 years out at sea. They come into ports. They come into ports with their supposed reactor blurting out power as the reactor is still in fission mode.
" But scepti, you're dumb and you don't know how it all works and we do, so you're an idiot and we are super scientists." Say some.
The weird thing about these nuclear power stations, is that they produce hydrogen as a part of the process.
Of course they do and it's that hydrogen that can blow up stuff.
Spent fuel pools 40 feet deep and a huge area. Just drop the rods in there for 40 years till they cool down.
What a joke and the joke is on us.
Your main approach seems to be, you don't understand how it could work so it can't work and there is a massive conspiracy, for some reason, to cover this up. You say no one can prove that it works but you refuse any evidence to the contrary. People work in these fields, people here know them but your response is they are either being fooled or lying. I suppose given your bar for evidence it's true, there is no way to prove it.
Like there is no way to prove anything outside of yourself exists. You could be the only one left and everything you see is just a hoax but on by a master AI in order to study a nearly extinct species. Wake up scepti it's all a hoax for your benefit.
Or, you could accept that, while absolute 100% proof maybe impossible, there is evidence enough to show an incredibly high probability that the world is real. It's really that probability we are looking for.
The probability that nuclear power and weapons exist, based on all the reasonable evidence, is very high. Now you claim it's all nonsense, but you offer no evidence to change that probability. That's all we are asking for, some evidence. Any at all.
-
First you need to turn it into actual steam to enable turbines to turn before turning it back into water in a condensing fashion.
It simply wouldn't work on any so called nuclear sub.
It's like saying a steam train can operate in the same manner. the clue is in that huge mass of steam that billows out of the funnel.
If a so called nuclear sub can condense it's steam without producing any into the environment, then so could a steam loco. We know this can't happen anymore than a household pressure cooker cannot cause anything to work until it's release valve opens up.
(http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/rcs-c2.jpg)
How about showing me a nuclear sub diagram of it's nuclear workings.
This is what happens when you request something like this -
He tried to use the Hillary Clinton excuse, but seems it doesn't work that way for the common man.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine
-
Actually, a nuclear submarine have the same type of reactor as a normal land-based reactor. Except it is smaller, and uses plutonium instead of uranium.
-
The first nuclear reactor was the Chicago pile, which was involved in the research work behind the Trinity Project. However the fissile material from it wasn't what they needed for the atomic bomb, so they used it from other sources, notably Berkeley's Cyclotron Accelerator:
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/science-behind-atom-bomb
So, you learn something new every day.
As for the nuclear submarine's internal workings, it strikes me that disposing of steam is a lot less problematic than getting rid of fumes from a diesel generator. It isn't hard to find simple schematics, look - it even works in French:
(http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/French%20Propulsion.jpg)
-
Your main approach seems to be, you don't understand how it could work so it can't work and there is a massive conspiracy, for some reason, to cover this up.
I do understand how it could work, by reading up on it all just as you people have done, on the fly mainly.
I also could understand how the star ship enterprise works by studying the diagram, in how it's set out for us.
I could study many things like this but it doesn't make them real.
They say a nuclear power station is very similar to a coal fired power station with a few differences.
Change the coal to another source. An abundant source, like hydrogen or whatever. I'll go with hydrogen.
You see, I don't understand how aluminium hollow cylinders with wings can melt into steel framed and concrete floor and steel buildings but apparently the experts say it happened.
I don't accept it but because I'm not into all the necessary technological know how of planes and structures, I should accept the official line?
I question it because it does not seem to make sense.
That's what I'm doing with this, whether you think it makes sense or whatever.
You say no one can prove that it works but you refuse any evidence to the contrary.
I don't refuse evidence. I refuse to accept animations and diagrams or the word of mouth by so called nuclear experts, unless I see evidence that proves I was wrong. I'll never see that evidence because it's all shrouded in secrecy and security.
A magician can do his magic in front of large audiences. Some tricks look amazing and defy logic. How are they done. Easy; ask the magician. What does the magician say?
He/she can say, " oh it's real magic." Or they can say that it's a secret.
Now I can walk away and believe in magic or try to figure out how they do the trick.
I'm a person that tries to figure it out, which is what I'm doing here.
People work in these fields, people here know them but your response is they are either being fooled or lying.
I suppose given your bar for evidence it's true, there is no way to prove it.
There's no way to directly, physically prove many things. It comes down to looking deeper into stuff and taking from it what you will. This gives all of us a chance to make a decision on acceptance (which most do because it's an official explanation) or it begs questions and thoughts.
Like there is no way to prove anything outside of yourself exists. You could be the only one left and everything you see is just a hoax but on by a master AI in order to study a nearly extinct species. Wake up scepti it's all a hoax for your benefit.
Or, you could accept that, while absolute 100% proof maybe impossible, there is evidence enough to show an incredibly high probability that the world is real. It's really that probability we are looking for.
My friends and family exist to me. All things around me that I see, feel and smell, exist to me. I accept it all without question whether it turns out to be true or not. I'm not questioning any of that. I'm questioning stuff that reeks of bullshit.
The probability that nuclear power and weapons exist, based on all the reasonable evidence, is very high.
If they read or are read fairy stories then the probability of fairies being real is high for a kid. Santa is real for kids. The evidence is overwhelming, right?
Push something into a persons mind for long enough and anything can become a reality or a massive probability of truth. It doesn't make any of it true to all and some people question it. I am one.
The issue is I have to provide evidence and I can't - and people know I can't, which is why it's used to try to make someone like me back peddle.
Well like I explained, there is no evidence either side as physical proof, no matter how many people scream that there is.
Now you claim it's all nonsense, but you offer no evidence to change that probability. That's all we are asking for, some evidence. Any at all.
You, or WE as you put it do not want any snippets of anything to make you think. You want stuff to sit back and smugly try to ridicule en masse.
Let's be real here. You people are here to spend all your time making sure that nobody argues against mainstream science or official lines. Why you spend all your time doing this can only be guessed as to your real motive, whether innocently joining in with the crowd to feel smart of secure or more sneaky purposes.
I don't really know. All I know is this forum breeds people like you in such a continuous fashion that I wonder if it's a change of name on a regular basis or merely newbies just deciding they want to argue for the official lines.
It's a strange one but I won't delve into it as I might get called a nutter conspiracy theorist. Oh wait. :P
-
First you need to turn it into actual steam to enable turbines to turn before turning it back into water in a condensing fashion.
It simply wouldn't work on any so called nuclear sub.
It's like saying a steam train can operate in the same manner. the clue is in that huge mass of steam that billows out of the funnel.
If a so called nuclear sub can condense it's steam without producing any into the environment, then so could a steam loco. We know this can't happen anymore than a household pressure cooker cannot cause anything to work until it's release valve opens up.
(http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/rcs-c2.jpg)
How about showing me a nuclear sub diagram of it's nuclear workings.
This is what happens when you request something like this -
He tried to use the Hillary Clinton excuse, but seems it doesn't work that way for the common man.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine
A bit desperate aren't you.
I asked for a diagram. I didn't ask you to go and take photographs.
This type of shit only makes it worse. I bet you just innocently put this in, eh?
-
Actually, a nuclear submarine have the same type of reactor as a normal land-based reactor. Except it is smaller, and uses plutonium instead of uranium.
Keep your mouth open wide enough and for long enough because the feeding can come thick and fast with this kind of crap. Swallow it all and try not to question what you ate. Just be happy you're full on a constant basis.
-
The first nuclear reactor was the Chicago pile, which was involved in the research work behind the Trinity Project. However the fissile material from it wasn't what they needed for the atomic bomb, so they used it from other sources, notably Berkeley's Cyclotron Accelerator:
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/science-behind-atom-bomb
So, you learn something new every day.
As for the nuclear submarine's internal workings, it strikes me that disposing of steam is a lot less problematic than getting rid of fumes from a diesel generator. It isn't hard to find simple schematics, look - it even works in French:
(http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedImages/org/info/French%20Propulsion.jpg)
You keep reading up on it all and you'll become an expert narrator in time. Maybe you could even become a professor on nuclear theory, based on book memories.
-
Let's be real here. You people are here to spend all your time making sure that nobody argues against mainstream science or official lines.
Nope - 'people like us' are here to correct falsehoods and lies and stand up for their principles, just as people who genuinely (even if mistakenly) hold opposing views are. If people post something I believe is false, or misleading, or an outright lie, it is a moral duty to point that out.
Why you spend all your time doing this can only be guessed as to your real motive,
Because spreading falsehoods and lies is offensive and serve only to promote humanity's rapid progression to the inevitable Idiocracy that you seem to prefer
whether innocently joining in with the crowd to feel smart of secure or more sneaky purposes.
I don't really know. All I know is this forum breeds people like you in such a continuous fashion that I wonder if it's a change of name on a regular basis or merely newbies just deciding they want to argue for the official lines.
And yet here you are spending all your time promoting utter crap. Some might argue that your presence here, and some very similar people like you in forums like this, serves only to make people genuinely trying to look at the bad shit going on and who's doing it look like utter morons so that normal people can just dismiss them as whackjobs. I find it hilarious that the only reason you can think of that people contradict you is because they are being told to, or paid to, or have some sinister motive, rather than the truth - which is because you're wrong and arguing from a position of complete ignorance draped in a thick coating of prejudice and bitterness that the world just won't behave as you think it should.
It's a strange one but I won't delve into it as I might get called a nutter conspiracy theorist. Oh wait. :P
Demonstrate that you aren't one by backing up your argument with something approaching researched and factually correct argument. Stop indulging in meta-discussion and join in an actual debate.
-
The only way you can find out for yourself is to build a nuclear reactor.
Possible, but illegal.
But for the seeker of truth, this should be a small price to pay.
-
Actually, a nuclear submarine have the same type of reactor as a normal land-based reactor. Except it is smaller, and uses plutonium instead of uranium.
Keep your mouth open wide enough and for long enough because the feeding can come thick and fast with this kind of crap. Swallow it all and try not to question what you ate. Just be happy you're full on a constant basis.
You know, it's not a lot of ways to get electrical energy out of nuclear energy. For large scale, it's always turbines.
And sure, they MIGHT use a more advanced system for better efficiency, my point is that it is possible to make one fit into a submarine.
You know what, here is my simplest evidence:
My experiment, which is a repurposed rutherford gold foil experiment.
Using a geigercounter.
What is your evidence?
-
Actually, a nuclear submarine have the same type of reactor as a normal land-based reactor. Except it is smaller, and uses plutonium instead of uranium.
Keep your mouth open wide enough and for long enough because the feeding can come thick and fast with this kind of crap. Swallow it all and try not to question what you ate. Just be happy you're full on a constant basis.
You know, it's not a lot of ways to get electrical energy out of nuclear energy. For large scale, it's always turbines.
And sure, they MIGHT use a more advanced system for better efficiency, my point is that it is possible to make one fit into a submarine.
You know what, here is my simplest evidence:
My experiment, which is a repurposed rutherford gold foil experiment.
Using a geigercounter.
What is your evidence?
You don't have any evidence. All you have is silliness like what you're putting. I keep telling you it is not going to boil water for decades or blow up cities but here you go coming out with supposed evidence.
Stop it. Just pack it in and stop thinking you're proving anything.
Provide me with some real evidence and I'll change my mind, seriously.
I've already told you that I can't physically prove what I'm saying due to never being allowed to see what goes on and checking it out due to massive security and secrecy cloaks.
And here's you thinking you have all the evidence.
You have story books with diagrams.
-
I've already told you that I can't physically prove what I'm saying due to never being allowed to see what goes on and checking it out due to massive security and secrecy cloaks.
And here's you thinking you have all the evidence.
You have story books with diagrams.
You know what, here is my simplest evidence:
My experiment, which is a repurposed rutherford gold foil experiment.
Using a geigercounter.
What is your evidence?
-
I've already told you that I can't physically prove what I'm saying due to never being allowed to see what goes on and checking it out due to massive security and secrecy cloaks.
And here's you thinking you have all the evidence.
You have story books with diagrams.
You know what, here is my simplest evidence:
My experiment, which is a repurposed rutherford gold foil experiment.
Using a geigercounter.
What is your evidence?
What is your evidence?
-
What is your evidence?
My experiment, which is a repurposed rutherford gold foil experiment.
Using a geigercounter.
-
Your main approach seems to be, you don't understand how it could work so it can't work and there is a massive conspiracy, for some reason, to cover this up.
I do understand how it could work, by reading up on it all just as you people have done, on the fly mainly.
I also could understand how the star ship enterprise works by studying the diagram, in how it's set out for us.
I could study many things like this but it doesn't make them real.
They say a nuclear power station is very similar to a coal fired power station with a few differences.
Change the coal to another source. An abundant source, like hydrogen or whatever. I'll go with hydrogen.
You see, I don't understand how aluminium hollow cylinders with wings can melt into steel framed and concrete floor and steel buildings but apparently the experts say it happened.
I don't accept it but because I'm not into all the necessary technological know how of planes and structures, I should accept the official line?
I question it because it does not seem to make sense.
That's what I'm doing with this, whether you think it makes sense or whatever.
You say no one can prove that it works but you refuse any evidence to the contrary.
I don't refuse evidence. I refuse to accept animations and diagrams or the word of mouth by so called nuclear experts, unless I see evidence that proves I was wrong. I'll never see that evidence because it's all shrouded in secrecy and security.
A magician can do his magic in front of large audiences. Some tricks look amazing and defy logic. How are they done. Easy; ask the magician. What does the magician say?
He/she can say, " oh it's real magic." Or they can say that it's a secret.
Now I can walk away and believe in magic or try to figure out how they do the trick.
I'm a person that tries to figure it out, which is what I'm doing here.
People work in these fields, people here know them but your response is they are either being fooled or lying.
I suppose given your bar for evidence it's true, there is no way to prove it.
There's no way to directly, physically prove many things. It comes down to looking deeper into stuff and taking from it what you will. This gives all of us a chance to make a decision on acceptance (which most do because it's an official explanation) or it begs questions and thoughts.
Like there is no way to prove anything outside of yourself exists. You could be the only one left and everything you see is just a hoax but on by a master AI in order to study a nearly extinct species. Wake up scepti it's all a hoax for your benefit.
Or, you could accept that, while absolute 100% proof maybe impossible, there is evidence enough to show an incredibly high probability that the world is real. It's really that probability we are looking for.
My friends and family exist to me. All things around me that I see, feel and smell, exist to me. I accept it all without question whether it turns out to be true or not. I'm not questioning any of that. I'm questioning stuff that reeks of bullshit.
The probability that nuclear power and weapons exist, based on all the reasonable evidence, is very high.
If they read or are read fairy stories then the probability of fairies being real is high for a kid. Santa is real for kids. The evidence is overwhelming, right?
Push something into a persons mind for long enough and anything can become a reality or a massive probability of truth. It doesn't make any of it true to all and some people question it. I am one.
The issue is I have to provide evidence and I can't - and people know I can't, which is why it's used to try to make someone like me back peddle.
Well like I explained, there is no evidence either side as physical proof, no matter how many people scream that there is.
Now you claim it's all nonsense, but you offer no evidence to change that probability. That's all we are asking for, some evidence. Any at all.
You, or WE as you put it do not want any snippets of anything to make you think. You want stuff to sit back and smugly try to ridicule en masse.
Let's be real here. You people are here to spend all your time making sure that nobody argues against mainstream science or official lines. Why you spend all your time doing this can only be guessed as to your real motive, whether innocently joining in with the crowd to feel smart of secure or more sneaky purposes.
I don't really know. All I know is this forum breeds people like you in such a continuous fashion that I wonder if it's a change of name on a regular basis or merely newbies just deciding they want to argue for the official lines.
It's a strange one but I won't delve into it as I might get called a nutter conspiracy theorist. Oh wait. :P
I'm sorry scept but your response pretty much confirms exactly what I said. You have no reasonable argument, no fact based objection and no evidence to support your position. You don't understand it so it must be fake. A vast conspiracy must exist to cover all of this up for some bizarre reason. Sorry my friend, but it is your view that makes no rational sense.
-
What is your evidence?
My experiment, which is a repurposed rutherford gold foil experiment.
Using a geigercounter.
Let me know when you have physical evidence of a working nuclear power plant or weapon.
-
I'm sorry scept but your response pretty much confirms exactly what I said. You have no reasonable argument, no fact based objection and no evidence to support your position. You don't understand it so it must be fake. A vast conspiracy must exist to cover all of this up for some bizarre reason. Sorry my friend, but it is your view that makes no rational sense.
No problem. I don't ask you to follow anything I say. I can't prove anything anymore than you can.
You go your way and I'll go mine.
-
I'm sorry scept but your response pretty much confirms exactly what I said. You have no reasonable argument, no fact based objection and no evidence to support your position. You don't understand it so it must be fake. A vast conspiracy must exist to cover all of this up for some bizarre reason. Sorry my friend, but it is your view that makes no rational sense.
No problem. I don't ask you to follow anything I say. I can't prove anything anymore than you can.
You go your way and I'll go mine.
The difference is there is literally mountains of evidence supporting nuclear power, evidence you reject out of hand. You have zero evidence to support your position. Again, it becomes a question of probability.
-
I'm sorry scept but your response pretty much confirms exactly what I said. You have no reasonable argument, no fact based objection and no evidence to support your position. You don't understand it so it must be fake. A vast conspiracy must exist to cover all of this up for some bizarre reason. Sorry my friend, but it is your view that makes no rational sense.
No problem. I don't ask you to follow anything I say. I can't prove anything anymore than you can.
You go your way and I'll go mine.
The difference is there is literally mountains of evidence supporting nuclear power, evidence you reject out of hand. You have zero evidence to support your position. Again, it becomes a question of probability.
What evidence is there?
-
What is your evidence?
My experiment, which is a repurposed rutherford gold foil experiment.
Using a geigercounter.
Let me know when you have physical evidence of a working nuclear power plant or weapon.
Do you agree that this is evidence for radioativity?
-
Feel free to get as near as you can to Fukushima or Chernobyl. You will most definitely find your evidence there.
Nobody is gonna just hand it over to you and say "here is your evidence". You're gonna have to get up and do it for yourself. Or continue with your head in the sand.
And speaking of coal fired plants - did you actually see the coal burning? Did you watch it go into the fire? I'm gonna say no. Maybe your uncle did, but not you. So if you haven't actually been inside to watch the process, how can you prove it? Or have you just been spoon fed "coal fired plant" your whole life? Do you see how silly this sounds? Yet you don't doubt it one bit.
-
What is your evidence?
My experiment, which is a repurposed rutherford gold foil experiment.
Using a geigercounter.
Let me know when you have physical evidence of a working nuclear power plant or weapon.
Do you agree that this is evidence for radioativity?
We are talking about lumps of metal that apparently can fission and heat water up for a decade without the aid of any external power source to keep it going.
We are also talking about warships and mainly, so called nuclear submarines being able to run for nearly 2 decades on.
In fact read this complete and utter garbage. This is the nonsense we are dealt that people like you swallow up with joy and magical thoughts.
How much power do nuclear subs use?
Free from the limits of conventional power
The switch from diesel-electric power to nuclear-powered submarines completely removed the need for air in propulsion systems. That meant that, whereas conventional subs could only stay submerged for a matter of hours or days, nuclear ones could theoretically stay under for years. Just as long as the crew had enough to eat.
So it’s no surprise that the world record for the longest underwater patrol is held by a nuclear submarine: back in 1983, the HM Warspite stayed fully submerged and unsupported for 111 days. ::)
Perhaps more amazingly, the average nuclear submarine of today probably won’t even outlive its own fuel reserves. It will be taken out of service before they run out. ::)
Because even the tiniest weight of nuclear fuel can produce a massive amount of energy, many modern subs could operate for 25 years without ever needing to be refuelled.
And that’s still while producing a serious amount of energy: according to the Royal Navy, just one of its Trafalgar-class subs has a reactor that could power the whole town of Swindon.
Swindon's population is estimated to be 217,160
The first: the USS Nautilus
In 1954, the United States launched the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus. Named after the famous sub from Jules Verne’s Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, she had a power output of 10 Megawatts (MW). That’s comparable to some of the smallest UK wind farms and power stations active today. ::)
It gets better.
The biggest: the Russian Typhoon
Also known as the Shark class, this nautical monster of the 1980s is the largest class of submarine ever built, with a length of 175 metres and a weight of over 24,000 tonnes.
It was so huge, in fact, that it was powered by two nuclear reactors: a pair of OK-650s with a power rating of 190 MW each. That’s 19 times more powerful as the Nautilus.
Just one of those nuclear reactors – if running continuously at full capacity – could create the same amount of energy as the business electricity supply for around 24,000 average-sized UK companies.
And yet it requires 2 to sail this piece of metal.
So what do we know about nuclear power and how it started off?
1954: The first nuclear power plant to be connected to an external grid goes operational in Obninsk, outside of Moscow.
I bet that was twitchy bum time.
Since the plant opened in 1954, most of the industrialized West, along with countries like India and China, have embraced nuclear power.
Fair enough....BUT, what do we have?
Back to this:
The first: the USS Nautilus
In 1954, the United States launched the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus. Named after the famous sub from Jules Verne’s Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, she had a power output of 10 Megawatts (MW). That’s comparable to some of the smallest UK wind farms and power stations active today. ::)
You see, you open a nuclear power plant and switch it on. At the same time you also sling one inside a submarine...a WAR machine but essentially a floating sardine tin of men bobbing about on the water and yet these things can power places like Swindon.
So I wonder what in the hell we are doing with massive nuclear power stations costing umpteen billions . that take up a mammoth part of the landscape?
Not only that but also 10 MW supplying a town ,like Swindon with a near 220,000 population and yet France supply 77% of their energy needs 58 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF), with total capacity of 63.2 GWe, supplying 416 billion kWh (net) in 2014, 77% of the total generated there (RTE data).Total generating capacity (end 2014, RTE data) is 129 GWe, including 25.4 GWe hydro, 24.4 GWe fossil fuel, 9.1 GWe wind and 5.3 GWe solar PV. Peak demand is about 100 GWe. In 2013 gross production was 424 TWh from nuclear, 76 billion kWh from hydro, 24.7 billion kWh from coal, 17.7 billion kWh from natural gas, 20.6 from solar and wind, and 8.0 from biofuels & waste, of total 575 TWh.
And all that nuclear capacity can only supply 77% with the rest coming from all other energy sources.
Does this make any sense given the output of these things?
Remember just 10 MW can supply Swindon, we are told and this could be done with the little old reactor on Nautilus.
Why in the hell are we using any other energy when nuclear supplies this much?
Let me guess. dangerous?
Hard to get rid of the waste, even though the spent fuel sits in a large pool for about 40 years in 40 feet of water without bothering anyone and in fact people can swim in it if they wish.
But apparently it's too dangerous to dump.
Too expensive to build maybe?
Well look at the subs and what they can give out. Just build subs reactors and wire them up to the grid and we're good to go for 25 years at a time.
Nuclear power: The magical fission of uranium lead looking metal pellets that boil water into steam for 10 to 20 years or so.
And people wonder why I don't believe any of it.
-
Feel free to get as near as you can to Fukushima or Chernobyl. You will most definitely find your evidence there.
And you can attest to this by being there yourself, right?
Nobody is gonna just hand it over to you and say "here is your evidence".
Of course not. Magicians only tell you what they want to tell you.
You're gonna have to get up and do it for yourself. Or continue with your head in the sand.
Or maybe head in many books that tell me it's all true so I can be gullible enough to go along with it.
And speaking of coal fired plants - did you actually see the coal burning? Did you watch it go into the fire? I'm gonna say no. Maybe your uncle did, but not you. So if you haven't actually been inside to watch the process, how can you prove it? Or have you just been spoon fed "coal fired plant" your whole life? Do you see how silly this sounds? Yet you don't doubt it one bit.
I think we can leave coal fired power plants out of it for now, as I have no inclination to actually question them. If there comes a time to do so, then I will. As it stands I'll accept it.
Maybe I'm gullible on it but then again that also makes you potentially gullible on your magical nuclear power, right? Or doesn't it work like that when Mister mainstream sets out the rules?
-
Do you agree that this is evidence for radioativity?
We are talking about lumps of metal that apparently can fission and heat water up for a decade without the aid of any external power source to keep it going.
We are also talking about warships and mainly, so called nuclear submarines being able to run for nearly 2 decades on.
In fact read this complete and utter garbage. This is the nonsense we are dealt that people like you swallow up with joy and magical thoughts.
...
...
...
I asked you: Do you agree that my experiment is evidence of radioactivity? Yes or no. If no, specify why.
I hope you understand that we can't have a discussion about nuclear power if you are sceptic about radioactivity, one of the basis of nuclear power.
-
I'm sorry scept but your response pretty much confirms exactly what I said. You have no reasonable argument, no fact based objection and no evidence to support your position. You don't understand it so it must be fake. A vast conspiracy must exist to cover all of this up for some bizarre reason. Sorry my friend, but it is your view that makes no rational sense.
No problem. I don't ask you to follow anything I say. I can't prove anything anymore than you can.
You go your way and I'll go mine.
The difference is there is literally mountains of evidence supporting nuclear power, evidence you reject out of hand. You have zero evidence to support your position. Again, it becomes a question of probability.
What evidence is there?
The fact that such power plants exist. The fact that people work in them and they produce electricity. The basic plans you can find online explaining how they work. And that this has been going on for decades. The fact that to cover this up as a fake would require the participation of thousands of people. The fact that you can look up numerous articles and papers regarding this subject. Just for starters
-
You could show us equations disproving e=mc2.
Nevermind.
The big bang. In the first moments it was all energy, no mass, and the energy was traveling at speeds much greater than the speed of light.
e = 0 * c_k ^2 | c_k > c
Not only does the resulting energy = 0 when the entire universe WAS energy, but the constant speed of light was inconstant. The equation simply doesn't hold water.
-
You could show us equations disproving e=mc2.
Nevermind.
The big bang. In the first moments it was all energy, no mass, and the energy was traveling at speeds much greater than the speed of light.
e = 0 * c_k ^2 | c_k > c
Not only does the resulting energy = 0 when the entire universe WAS energy, but the constant speed of light was inconstant. The equation simply doesn't hold water.
Yes, the total amount energy of all the mass in a massless universe was, guess it, 0! What a surprise.
And nothing travelled faster than light. However, the universe expanded faster than light. As long as nothing is moving faster than light through space, it holds grounds.
-
Do you agree that this is evidence for radioativity?
We are talking about lumps of metal that apparently can fission and heat water up for a decade without the aid of any external power source to keep it going.
We are also talking about warships and mainly, so called nuclear submarines being able to run for nearly 2 decades on.
In fact read this complete and utter garbage. This is the nonsense we are dealt that people like you swallow up with joy and magical thoughts.
...
...
...
I asked you: Do you agree that my experiment is evidence of radioactivity? Yes or no. If no, specify why.
I hope you understand that we can't have a discussion about nuclear power if you are sceptic about radioactivity, one of the basis of nuclear power.
I'm not interested about reactions of this stuff no matter what you say. I've just told you what I'm questioning.
The reason you use this clap trap is because you cannot prove what you are saying about nuclear power. This is why you use all kinds of little experiments.
Many things create reactions but they are extremely short lived in terms of energy production, except this magical metal called uranium that just happens to produce so much energy for decades, then add a little bit of another metal called plutonium and BANG your city has gone.
This is what I'm talking about. This is the magic that you adhere to instead of thinking "hmmm, I wonder."
The big bang is a given for you so I do not expect you to question anything at all. An open mouthed believer in officialdom is what you are.
-
I'm not interested about reactions of this stuff no matter what you say. I've just told you what I'm questioning.
The reason you use this clap trap is because you cannot prove what you are saying about nuclear power. This is why you use all kinds of little experiments.
Many things create reactions but they are extremely short lived in terms of energy production, except this magical metal called uranium that just happens to produce so much energy for decades, then add a little bit of another metal called plutonium and BANG your city has gone.
This is what I'm talking about. This is the magic that you adhere to instead of thinking "hmmm, I wonder."
The big bang is a given for you so I do not expect you to question anything at all. An open mouthed believer in officialdom is what you are.
I have no idea if you're even trying to make an argument here.
Anyways, I can't see a "Yes" or "No", so 'll try again:
Do you think my experiment is evidence for radioactivity? Answer yes or no.
-
The fact that such power plants exist.
Power plants do exist but it's what they are using. You cannot say for certain they use nuclear. You can accept it as being true but you have no direct proof if you're honest.
The fact that people work in them and they produce electricity.
Compartmentalisation. This is all you need to know about the secrecy behind anything.
The basic plans you can find online explaining how they work. And that this has been going on for decades.
You can find all the plans for how the star ship enterprise works. Does this make it real?
The fact that to cover this up as a fake would require the participation of thousands of people.
No it wouldn't and you know this. This gets used all of the time.
I'll say it again. COMPARTMENTALISATION.
The fact that you can look up numerous articles and papers regarding this subject. Just for starters
You can look up numerous articles and papers on the big bang or black holes and a whole host of gobbledygook. It doesn't make them any more real unless people want to make them real in their minds.
-
I'm not interested about reactions of this stuff no matter what you say. I've just told you what I'm questioning.
The reason you use this clap trap is because you cannot prove what you are saying about nuclear power. This is why you use all kinds of little experiments.
Many things create reactions but they are extremely short lived in terms of energy production, except this magical metal called uranium that just happens to produce so much energy for decades, then add a little bit of another metal called plutonium and BANG your city has gone.
This is what I'm talking about. This is the magic that you adhere to instead of thinking "hmmm, I wonder."
The big bang is a given for you so I do not expect you to question anything at all. An open mouthed believer in officialdom is what you are.
I have no idea if you're even trying to make an argument here.
Anyways, I can't see a "Yes" or "No", so 'll try again:
Do you think my experiment is evidence for radioactivity? Answer yes or no.
You haven't done any experiment.
-
You haven't done any experiment.
I don't know what your problem with yes/no questions is.
If you don't answer yes or no in the next post I'll assume you mean yes.
So, do you think that my experiment is evidence for radioactivity? Yes or no?
-
You haven't done any experiment.
I don't know what your problem with yes/no questions is.
If you don't answer yes or no in the next post I'll assume you mean yes.
So, do you think that my experiment is evidence for radioactivity? Yes or no?
Assume what you want to assume, it changes absolutely nothing. And like I said, you haven't done any experiment.
-
You haven't done any experiment.
I don't know what your problem with yes/no questions is.
If you don't answer yes or no in the next post I'll assume you mean yes.
So, do you think that my experiment is evidence for radioactivity? Yes or no?
Assume what you want to assume, it changes absolutely nothing. And like I said, you haven't done any experiment.
Ah, good to hear you also think my experiment is evidence for radioactivity.
So, in the experiment the radioactive material is causing the luminiscent material to give off light. To give off light, energy is required. So the radioactivity transfers energy. Answer yes if you agree, no if you disagree.
-
You haven't done any experiment.
I don't know what your problem with yes/no questions is.
If you don't answer yes or no in the next post I'll assume you mean yes.
So, do you think that my experiment is evidence for radioactivity? Yes or no?
Assume what you want to assume, it changes absolutely nothing. And like I said, you haven't done any experiment.
Ah, good to hear you also think my experiment is evidence for radioactivity.
So, in the experiment the radioactive material is causing the luminiscent material to give off light. To give off light, energy is required. So the radioactivity transfers energy. Answer yes if you agree, no if you disagree.
What experiment?
-
You haven't done any experiment.
I don't know what your problem with yes/no questions is.
If you don't answer yes or no in the next post I'll assume you mean yes.
So, do you think that my experiment is evidence for radioactivity? Yes or no?
Assume what you want to assume, it changes absolutely nothing. And like I said, you haven't done any experiment.
Ah, good to hear you also think my experiment is evidence for radioactivity.
So, in the experiment the radioactive material is causing the luminiscent material to give off light. To give off light, energy is required. So the radioactivity transfers energy. Answer yes if you agree, no if you disagree.
What experiment?
Putting a radioactive material at different distances from a detector.
-
You haven't done any experiment.
I don't know what your problem with yes/no questions is.
If you don't answer yes or no in the next post I'll assume you mean yes.
So, do you think that my experiment is evidence for radioactivity? Yes or no?
Assume what you want to assume, it changes absolutely nothing. And like I said, you haven't done any experiment.
Ah, good to hear you also think my experiment is evidence for radioactivity.
So, in the experiment the radioactive material is causing the luminiscent material to give off light. To give off light, energy is required. So the radioactivity transfers energy. Answer yes if you agree, no if you disagree.
What experiment?
Putting a radioactive material at different distances from a detector.
Explain your experiment in simple terms as to how you did it and tell me what's happening as you perform it.
-
Explain your experiment in simple terms as to how you did it and tell me what's happening as you perform it.
I put a radioactive material close to a detector. The detector gives off a signal
I take the radioactive material away from the detector. The detector stops giving off a signal.
(Extra: I put other materials near the reactor, and between the reactor and the radioactive material, the reactor doesn't signal anything)
-
Explain your experiment in simple terms as to how you did it and tell me what's happening as you perform it.
I put a radioactive material close to a detector. The detector gives off a signal
I take the radioactive material away from the detector. The detector stops giving off a signal.
(Extra: I put other materials near the reactor, and between the reactor and the radioactive material, the reactor doesn't signal anything)
What type of reactor do you have?
Does it power your whole house and others in your area or do you still have to rely on the grid?
-
Explain your experiment in simple terms as to how you did it and tell me what's happening as you perform it.
I put a radioactive material close to a detector. The detector gives off a signal
I take the radioactive material away from the detector. The detector stops giving off a signal.
(Extra: I put other materials near the reactor, and between the reactor and the radioactive material, the reactor doesn't signal anything)
What type of reactor do you have?
Does it power your whole house and others in your area or do you still have to rely on the grid?
Sorry, typo:
Extra: I put other materials near the detector, and between the detector and the radioactive material, the detector doesn't signal anything.
Detectors reacts to stuff, that's why I confused the terms a little.
-
Explain your experiment in simple terms as to how you did it and tell me what's happening as you perform it.
I put a radioactive material close to a detector. The detector gives off a signal
I take the radioactive material away from the detector. The detector stops giving off a signal.
(Extra: I put other materials near the reactor, and between the reactor and the radioactive material, the reactor doesn't signal anything)
What type of reactor do you have?
Does it power your whole house and others in your area or do you still have to rely on the grid?
Sorry, typo:
Extra: I put other materials near the detector, and between the detector and the radioactive material, the detector doesn't signal anything.
Detectors reacts to stuff, that's why I confused the terms a little.
Detectors react to smoke. Intruder alarms react to body heat. I could go on and on about reactions to this and that.
The reason why you are still going on about this is because you know it makes no sense for a small amount of a metal they call uranium can power a supposed nuclear submarine for 25 years without refuelling.
The thing is, it doesn't really have to make any sense to people like you, as long as some in the spotlight supposed scientist tells you it's true.
You know as well as I know that these supposed nuclear plants do not, ever work for years on end. Sometimes they don't even work for a year before shut down and re-starting after a few weeks.
Why?
-
Detectors react to smoke. Intruder alarms react to body heat. I could go on and on about reactions to this and that.
The reason why you are still going on about this is because you know it makes no sense for a small amount of a metal they call uranium can power a supposed nuclear submarine for 25 years without refuelling.
The thing is, it doesn't really have to make any sense to people like you, as long as some in the spotlight supposed scientist tells you it's true.
You know as well as I know that these supposed nuclear plants do not, ever work for years on end. Sometimes they don't even work for a year before shut down and re-starting after a few weeks.
Why?
No, detectors of radioactivity only react when there is a radioactive material nearby. Stop lying.
-
First you need to turn it into actual steam to enable turbines to turn before turning it back into water in a condensing fashion.
It simply wouldn't work on any so called nuclear sub.
It's like saying a steam train can operate in the same manner. the clue is in that huge mass of steam that billows out of the funnel.
If a so called nuclear sub can condense it's steam without producing any into the environment, then so could a steam loco. We know this can't happen anymore than a household pressure cooker cannot cause anything to work until it's release valve opens up.
(http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/rcs-c2.jpg)
How about showing me a nuclear sub diagram of it's nuclear workings.
I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure something like that is classified. Why announce to the world how to disable a submarine capable of destroying an entire country?
-
First you need to turn it into actual steam to enable turbines to turn before turning it back into water in a condensing fashion.
It simply wouldn't work on any so called nuclear sub.
It's like saying a steam train can operate in the same manner. the clue is in that huge mass of steam that billows out of the funnel.
If a so called nuclear sub can condense it's steam without producing any into the environment, then so could a steam loco. We know this can't happen anymore than a household pressure cooker cannot cause anything to work until it's release valve opens up.
(http://www.nucleartourist.com/images/rcs-c2.jpg)
How about showing me a nuclear sub diagram of it's nuclear workings.
This is what happens when you request something like this -
He tried to use the Hillary Clinton excuse, but seems it doesn't work that way for the common man.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/us-navy-sailor-jailed-for-taking-photos-of-classified-areas-of-nuclear-submarine
A bit desperate aren't you.
I asked for a diagram. I didn't ask you to go and take photographs.
This type of nonsense only makes it worse. I bet you just innocently put this in, eh?
Are you kidding? A diagram is worse than taking a photo. A photo just shows you a bunch of pipes leading to who knows what. A diagram shows you what goes where and how much. The stupidity of your request is incredible.
-
All sceppy can do is talk in circles. He will not answer any questions because it will prove him wrong, and he knows it. He has been publicly defeated and won't own up to it.
-
You could show us equations disproving e=mc2.
Nevermind.
The big bang. In the first moments it was all energy, no mass, and the energy was traveling at speeds much greater than the speed of light.
e = 0 * c_k ^2 | c_k > c
Not only does the resulting energy = 0 when the entire universe WAS energy, but the constant speed of light was inconstant. The equation simply doesn't hold water.
Don't apply the formula to things it was never meant to apply to.
-
All sceppy can do is talk in circles. He will not answer any questions because it will prove him wrong, and he knows it. He has been publicly defeated and won't own up to it.
Ask him about his claims that he is a millionaire. I hear he likes that.
-
A millionaire could afford to circle the globe. Or venture to the ice wall. Probably could talk to the right people and visit a nuclear reactor!
Claiming to be a millionaire on here is like Intikam claiming to have an iq of 160.
-
Detectors react to smoke. Intruder alarms react to body heat. I could go on and on about reactions to this and that.
The reason why you are still going on about this is because you know it makes no sense for a small amount of a metal they call uranium can power a supposed nuclear submarine for 25 years without refuelling.
The thing is, it doesn't really have to make any sense to people like you, as long as some in the spotlight supposed scientist tells you it's true.
You know as well as I know that these supposed nuclear plants do not, ever work for years on end. Sometimes they don't even work for a year before shut down and re-starting after a few weeks.
Why?
No, detectors of radioactivity only react when there is a radioactive material nearby. Stop lying.
It all depends on what you want to believe is radioactivity and what it does.
My questions are about NUCLEAR and this uranium/plutonium nonsense.
The supposed energy they give out "by themselves" just through decay, apparently - produces so much energy that it can boil water to steam for decades and provide millions of people, power.
Then the very same type of stuff with a little mix of similar metals, we are led to believe, can smash together and blow up and vapourise cities.
This is what I'm talking about and yet you want to keep harping on about luminescence as if it does the same thing.
Whatever gives us electricity, it isn't nuclear, as far as I'm concerned.
What you believe is up to you.
-
I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure something like that is classified. Why announce to the world how to disable a submarine capable of destroying an entire country?
Yeah, I mean it would be silly. Imagine some radioactive monster coming on-board and tearing that nuclear submarine running power plant to shreds to gain more radioactive strength.
Seriously though I'm glad you said it was classified because that negates the arguments given about the thousands of people having to be in the know. Now you know it doesn't. And now you know that nobody on that submarine, except the chosen few, will know what the hell it's using.
-
Are you kidding? A diagram is worse than taking a photo. A photo just shows you a bunch of pipes leading to who knows what. A diagram shows you what goes where and how much. The stupidity of your request is incredible.
Calm down and stop getting into a frenzy over a discussion.
-
Detectors react to smoke. Intruder alarms react to body heat. I could go on and on about reactions to this and that.
The reason why you are still going on about this is because you know it makes no sense for a small amount of a metal they call uranium can power a supposed nuclear submarine for 25 years without refuelling.
The thing is, it doesn't really have to make any sense to people like you, as long as some in the spotlight supposed scientist tells you it's true.
You know as well as I know that these supposed nuclear plants do not, ever work for years on end. Sometimes they don't even work for a year before shut down and re-starting after a few weeks.
Why?
No, detectors of radioactivity only react when there is a radioactive material nearby. Stop lying.
It all depends on what you want to believe is radioactivity and what it does.
...(incoherent ranting)...
No. Radioactive detectors, as I have said:
I put a radioactive material close to a detector. The detector gives off a signal
I take the radioactive material away from the detector. The detector stops giving off a signal.
ONLY.
If you have an explanation for why this happens other than radioactivity, present it instead of ranting on about boiling water.
-
Detectors react to smoke. Intruder alarms react to body heat. I could go on and on about reactions to this and that.
The reason why you are still going on about this is because you know it makes no sense for a small amount of a metal they call uranium can power a supposed nuclear submarine for 25 years without refuelling.
The thing is, it doesn't really have to make any sense to people like you, as long as some in the spotlight supposed scientist tells you it's true.
You know as well as I know that these supposed nuclear plants do not, ever work for years on end. Sometimes they don't even work for a year before shut down and re-starting after a few weeks.
Why?
No, detectors of radioactivity only react when there is a radioactive material nearby. Stop lying.
It all depends on what you want to believe is radioactivity and what it does.
...(incoherent ranting)...
No. Radioactive detectors, as I have said:
I put a radioactive material close to a detector. The detector gives off a signal
I take the radioactive material away from the detector. The detector stops giving off a signal.
ONLY.
If you have an explanation for why this happens other than radioactivity, present it instead of ranting on about boiling water.
Wake up wake up. We are talking about boiling water with uranium, for decades, remember.
What's the problem?
-
Wake up wake up. We are talking about boiling water with uranium, for decades, remember.
What's the problem?
Using a well understood process for which your reductio ad absurdum tactic is dismally failing to provide a credible alternative explanation.
-
Wake up wake up. We are talking about boiling water with uranium, for decades, remember.
What's the problem?
Oh yes, thank you for reminding me that you already accepted the experiment as evidence for radioactivity.
So, I ask you once again, is the energy given off from the detector originating from the radioactive material, yes or no? If you don't answer, I'll simply assume yes again.
-
I think that will conclude our conversations for the time being.
I think it blatantly obvious that nuclear power and weapons require severe questioning as to their reality.
Logic points to nuclear power being something entirely different in its working and nuclear weapons simply do not exist at all, which should be obvious by now, given the pathetic silliness of the so called filming of explosions.
-
I think that will conclude our conversations for the time being.
I think it blatantly obvious that nuclear power and weapons require severe questioning as to their reality.
Logic points to nuclear power being something entirely different in its working and nuclear weapons simply do not exist at all, which should be obvious by now, given the pathetic silliness of the so called filming of explosions.
I think it blatantly obvious that nuclear power and weapons require severe ignorance as to question their reality.
Logic points to nuclear power not being something entirely different in its working and nuclear weapons simply do not exist at all, which should be obvious by now, given the pathetic silliness of the so called counter evidence.
-
Feel free to get as near as you can to Fukushima or Chernobyl. You will most definitely find your evidence there.
And you can attest to this by being there yourself, right?
I think that he's suggesting that you go to Fukushima or Chernobyl and collect evidence yourself, seeing as you'll never take anyone else's word for it.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't need to go there, I'm content with it.
So what exactly happened at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and 3 Mile Island Sceppy? I asked you this once before but you didn't respond. And why would they go to such great lengths to contain them? Was it just to further the conspiracy? I'm asking you an honest question. What happened at those facilities? Could hydrogen cause that much chaos and panic?
I'd really like to hear your position on this topic.
-
One of the things I specialised in at University was soil erosion. One of the things you can use as a marker in soil layers as a method of working out soil accumulation and erosion rates is the presence of radioactive marker layers from our nuclear testing (and specifically the cessation of atmospheric testing) and Chernobyl.
Pretty convinced that hydrogen wouldn't work there.
Sceptimatic could google that if he chose, but he won't, so here's a primer for him:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0228e/T0228E04.htm
-
I think that will conclude our conversations for the time being.
I think it blatantly obvious that nuclear power and weapons require severe questioning as to their reality.
Logic points to nuclear power being something entirely different in its working and nuclear weapons simply do not exist at all, which should be obvious by now, given the pathetic silliness of the so called filming of explosions.
I think it blatantly obvious that nuclear power and weapons require severe ignorance as to question their reality.
Logic points to nuclear power not being something entirely different in its working and nuclear weapons simply do not exist at all, which should be obvious by now, given the pathetic silliness of the so called counter evidence.
It comes down to reading between the lines and using logic and basic common sense to see that this nuclear stuff is baloney.
However; saying that, any person who hasn't read into it all in any depth will no doubt accept it as real. You can't expect anything else. I thought it was all real a good few years ago. ALL of it.
The thing is, I didn't question any of it or look into any of it.
I question it all now because the world is literally saturated in all variations of stories of fact and fiction, plus a lot of in between.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't need to go there, I'm content with it.
So what exactly happened at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and 3 Mile Island Sceppy? I asked you this once before but you didn't respond. And why would they go to such great lengths to contain them? Was it just to further the conspiracy? I'm asking you an honest question. What happened at those facilities? Could hydrogen cause that much chaos and panic?
I'd really like to hear your position on this topic.
I'd give you it but I have this strange feeling that you will go into a frenzy like Luke did over me asking for a diagram.
It's hard to talk to people like you. Not just you. I mean people like you. Basically the big posse rides again into this topic with the same old routine. It's all real..everything is real. We are never told lies in this world and if you think we are, you're a nutter.
Bollocks.
-
I think Sceptimatic is forgetting that nobody want nuclear weapons to be real...
Nobody wants the Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Fukushima and Nagasaki disasters to be real.
Nobody wants the people who where there to suffer.
Nobody wants multiple generations at those events to suffer for the rest of their lives, a horrible gnawing disease which slowly kills them from the inside.
Nobody wants a city of death, flames, hell, screams and pain to ever happen again in the history of mankind.
Nuclear weapons are the physicalisation, personification of man's evil thoughts and what we are sadly capable of creating.
Created with good intention to end the war or not... does this really matter in the grand scheme of things?
-
I think Sceptimatic is forgetting that nobody want nuclear weapons to be real...
Nobody wants the Chernobyl, Hiroshima, Fukushima and Nagasaki disasters to be real.
Nobody wants the people who where there to suffer.
Nobody wants multiple generations at those events to suffer for the rest of their lives, a horrible gnawing disease which slowly kills them from the inside.
Nobody wants a city of death, flames, hell, screams and pain to ever happen again in the history of mankind.
Nuclear weapons are the physicalisation, personification of man's evil thoughts and what we are sadly capable of creating.
Created with good intention to end the war or not... does this really matter in the grand scheme of things?
Emotion as an argument. In the bin for you.
-
Not wanting to discuss the presence of radioactive isotopes as marker layers in soil as a direct result of atmospheric testing and nuclear accidents then?
Have some more reading
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/TECDOCS/TECDOC%200828%20Soil%20erosion%20and%20siltation%201995.PDF
-
Not wanting to discuss the presence of radioactive isotopes as marker layers in soil as a direct result of atmospheric testing and nuclear accidents then?
Have some more reading
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/TECDOCS/TECDOC%200828%20Soil%20erosion%20and%20siltation%201995.PDF
It's blatantly clear that none of you know if nuclear power/weapons are real. You simply buy into the story 100% and believe that's enough proof.
Wrong.
-
Not wanting to discuss the presence of radioactive isotopes as marker layers in soil as a direct result of atmospheric testing and nuclear accidents then?
Have some more reading
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/TECDOCS/TECDOC%200828%20Soil%20erosion%20and%20siltation%201995.PDF
It's blatantly clear that none of you know if nuclear power/weapons are real. You simply buy into the story 100% and believe that's enough proof.
Wrong.
Your definition of 'discuss' and mine seem to differ.
On my bookshelf are two conference proceedings that contain papers directly relating to using radioactive tracer material from nuclear weapons testing. I was at the conferences and have met the authors.
Feel free to tell me why they aren't measuring radioactive Caesium from nuclear weapons in their research.
-
It comes down to reading between the lines and using logic and basic common sense to see that this nuclear stuff is baloney.
However; saying that, any person who hasn't read into it all in any depth will no doubt accept it as real. You can't expect anything else. I thought it was all real a good few years ago. ALL of it.
The thing is, I didn't question any of it or look into any of it.
I question it all now because the world is literally saturated in all variations of stories of fact and fiction, plus a lot of in between.
It comes down to reading between the lines and using logic and basic common sense to see that this nuclear stuff is totally legit.
However; saying that, any person who hasn't read into it all in any depth will no doubt accept it as fake. You can't expect anything else. I know it is all real. ALL of it.
The thing is, I didn't question it but looked into it.
I don't question it at all now because the world is literally saturated in all variations of facts and evidence, plus a lot of in between.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't need to go there, I'm content with it.
So what exactly happened at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and 3 Mile Island Sceppy? I asked you this once before but you didn't respond. And why would they go to such great lengths to contain them? Was it just to further the conspiracy? I'm asking you an honest question. What happened at those facilities? Could hydrogen cause that much chaos and panic?
I'd really like to hear your position on this topic.
I'd give you it but I have this strange feeling that you will go into a frenzy like Luke did over me asking for a diagram.
It's hard to talk to people like you. Not just you. I mean people like you. Basically the big posse rides again into this topic with the same old routine. It's all real..everything is real. We are never told lies in this world and if you think we are, you're a nutter.
Bollocks.
It's even more difficult talking to people like you who are so paranoid, so delusional that it's almost laughable to think you're serious.
I'm all ears on Fukushima and Chernobyl. Please, go on. I won't go into any frenzy. I promise.
There must be people that on their death bed who have worked in the nuclear field first hand that would spill the beans if it were just hydrogen. Think about if you were the one who broke the story. You'd be the most famous journalist on the globe! If you had all the evidence, and gave it all away.
But please, tell us what really happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl. How have we been lied to? Do you realize how massive the cover up would have to be? How many people would have to keep their mouths shut? For this long? And nobody has brought forth the real truth? Literally millions of people over the last several decades all keeping their mouths shut.
And I'M the nutter?
Bollocks.
-
Tsar Bomba. Does this look like any normal ordnance from over 50 years ago? The explosive energy equivalence of 50 million tons of trinitrotoluene. 50M TONS. This one thermonuclear device was greater than all the ordnance used in WW2. Combined.
-
Not wanting to discuss the presence of radioactive isotopes as marker layers in soil as a direct result of atmospheric testing and nuclear accidents then?
Have some more reading
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/TECDOCS/TECDOC%200828%20Soil%20erosion%20and%20siltation%201995.PDF
It's blatantly clear that none of you know if nuclear power/weapons are real. You simply buy into the story 100% and believe that's enough proof.
Wrong.
Sceptimatic, we have stronger evidence for the existence of nuclear bombs than we have for the existence of you.
-
Here in Denver they still run commercials directed at past workers of Rocky Flats.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocky_Flats_Plant
I wonder what they did all day to become exposed to radioactive material.
-
That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't need to go there, I'm content with it.
So what exactly happened at Chernobyl, Fukushima, and 3 Mile Island Sceppy? I asked you this once before but you didn't respond. And why would they go to such great lengths to contain them? Was it just to further the conspiracy? I'm asking you an honest question. What happened at those facilities? Could hydrogen cause that much chaos and panic?
I'd really like to hear your position on this topic.
I'd give you it but I have this strange feeling that you will go into a frenzy like Luke did over me asking for a diagram.
It's hard to talk to people like you. Not just you. I mean people like you. Basically the big posse rides again into this topic with the same old routine. It's all real..everything is real. We are never told lies in this world and if you think we are, you're a nutter.
Bollocks.
It's even more difficult talking to people like you who are so paranoid, so delusional that it's almost laughable to think you're serious.
I'm all ears on Fukushima and Chernobyl. Please, go on. I won't go into any frenzy. I promise.
There must be people that on their death bed who have worked in the nuclear field first hand that would spill the beans if it were just hydrogen. Think about if you were the one who broke the story. You'd be the most famous journalist on the globe! If you had all the evidence, and gave it all away.
But please, tell us what really happened at Fukushima and Chernobyl. How have we been lied to? Do you realize how massive the cover up would have to be? How many people would have to keep their mouths shut? For this long? And nobody has brought forth the real truth? Literally millions of people over the last several decades all keeping their mouths shut.
And I'M the nutter?
Bollocks.
Sarcasm will get you many places. Just not here.
-
Tsar Bomba. Does this look like any normal ordnance from over 50 years ago? The explosive energy equivalence of 50 million tons of trinitrotoluene. 50M TONS. This one thermonuclear device was greater than all the ordnance used in WW2. Combined.
50 million tons of TNT. Honestly. Ah never mind.
-
Not wanting to discuss the presence of radioactive isotopes as marker layers in soil as a direct result of atmospheric testing and nuclear accidents then?
Have some more reading
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/TECDOCS/TECDOC%200828%20Soil%20erosion%20and%20siltation%201995.PDF
It's blatantly clear that none of you know if nuclear power/weapons are real. You simply buy into the story 100% and believe that's enough proof.
Wrong.
Sceptimatic, we have stronger evidence for the existence of nuclear bombs than we have for the existence of you.
Good for your people. Your WE.
-
Tsar Bomba. Does this look like any normal ordnance from over 50 years ago? The explosive energy equivalence of 50 million tons of trinitrotoluene. 50M TONS. This one thermonuclear device was greater than all the ordnance used in WW2. Combined.
50 million tons of TNT. Honestly. Ah never mind.
I haven't used this phrase in awhile but you are quite narcberry stupid.
Instead of pretending to be right(and really just running away), why don't you explain how it's not equal to 50 million tons of TNT.
-
Tsar Bomba. Does this look like any normal ordnance from over 50 years ago? The explosive energy equivalence of 50 million tons of trinitrotoluene. 50M TONS. This one thermonuclear device was greater than all the ordnance used in WW2. Combined.
I'm so scared. They put out a scare piece on tv, so it has to real. Right?
Just in case you don't know it. This is how propaganda works.
-
Caesium marker layers in soil.
Missed your response there. Maybe you forgot.
-
The US also made and tested thermonuclear devices. Plenty of evidence for it.
But still nothing about Fukushima and Chernobyl. So now we have another FE'r denying nuclear power. Maybe he could tell us about them? Sceppy won't.
-
Tsar Bomba. Does this look like any normal ordnance from over 50 years ago? The explosive energy equivalence of 50 million tons of trinitrotoluene. 50M TONS. This one thermonuclear device was greater than all the ordnance used in WW2. Combined.
I'm so scared. They put out a scare piece on tv, so it has to real. Right?
Just in case you don't know it. This is how propaganda works.
Fear is your first reaction? A military has a great many ways to end someone's life.
Firearms are scary. Do those not exist?
-
Tsar Bomba. Does this look like any normal ordnance from over 50 years ago? The explosive energy equivalence of 50 million tons of trinitrotoluene. 50M TONS. This one thermonuclear device was greater than all the ordnance used in WW2. Combined.
I'm so scared. They put out a scare piece on tv, so it has to real. Right?
Just in case you don't know it. This is how propaganda works.
Fear is your first reaction? A military has a great many ways to end someone's life.
Firearms are scary. Do those not exist?
I've seen these answers many times.
This is the best you can come up with because you simply cannot prove that nuclear power or weapons exist, so you come up with, "Firearms are scary. Do those not exist."
You can physically use fire-arms and you can see what they're all about. Massive micro second explosion to release all the energy that is spent in that time
Nuclear power and weapons are remarkably different, as we are led to believe. Not only does this stuff release slow energy that boils water for decades without any other aid, if you mix it you can explode it in a micro second that continues to build in energy that turns cities into waste land, apparently.
It's so ridiculous it borders on the genius for getting gullible people to believe in it all. It's clever in it's story telling but when all's said and done, it's basically a story of pure fiction.
-
Is it a fact that marker layers can be found in soils world wide that are a direct consequence of atmospheric atomic testing and nuclear accidents.
Your avoidance of that topic is telling.
-
Is it a fact that marker layers can be found in soils world wide that are a direct consequence of atmospheric atomic testing and nuclear accidents.
Your avoidance of that topic is telling.
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
-
He is avoiding both our questions. I suspect for 2 reasons. Either he just doesn't know (which would then prove him wrong), or he does know, but just won't admit it this late in the game (which would then prove him wrong).
-
He is avoiding both our questions. I suspect for 2 reasons. Either he just doesn't know (which would then prove him wrong), or he does know, but just won't admit it this late in the game (which would then prove him wrong).
Your questions have no relevance.
-
Is it a fact that marker layers can be found in soils world wide that are a direct consequence of atmospheric atomic testing and nuclear accidents.
Your avoidance of that topic is telling.
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
Soil erosion is the subject of my PhD. I know exactly what I'm talking about. We have no idea what you're talking about because you have studiously avoided demonstrating any kind of knowledge about anything.
Now, how do you explain the existence of marker layers in soil formed by products of nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents?
-
Is it a fact that marker layers can be found in soils world wide that are a direct consequence of atmospheric atomic testing and nuclear accidents.
Your avoidance of that topic is telling.
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
Soil erosion is the subject of my PhD. I know exactly what I'm talking about. We have no idea what you're talking about because you have studiously avoided demonstrating any kind of knowledge about anything.
Now, how do you explain the existence of marker layers in soil formed by products of nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents?
Stop making crap up and pretending you know what you're talking about. You have no idea about soil marker layers happening due to nuclear weapons testing or nuclear accident because you've never been anywhere near anything like that.
Reading up on this stuff only makes you an expert on memorising what you're reading. It gives you no physical expertise, so don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.
-
Is it a fact that marker layers can be found in soils world wide that are a direct consequence of atmospheric atomic testing and nuclear accidents.
Your avoidance of that topic is telling.
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
Soil erosion is the subject of my PhD. I know exactly what I'm talking about. We have no idea what you're talking about because you have studiously avoided demonstrating any kind of knowledge about anything.
Now, how do you explain the existence of marker layers in soil formed by products of nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents?
Stop making crap up and pretending you know what you're talking about. You have no idea about soil marker layers happening due to nuclear weapons testing or nuclear accident because you've never been anywhere near anything like that.
Reading up on this stuff only makes you an expert on memorising what you're reading. It gives you no physical expertise, so don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.
Prove it's crap.
As I said, soil erosion is something of a specialism, and you have absolutely no idea what I know and what I have expertise in.
Even if I did know nothing about the subject, had not read about it extensively and had not attended conferences and had not met people researching the subject, your hysterical shrieks of denial do not prove that there are no marker layers in soil from nuclear weapons testing and accidents.
If they do not exist, what are they measuring?
-
Is it a fact that marker layers can be found in soils world wide that are a direct consequence of atmospheric atomic testing and nuclear accidents.
Your avoidance of that topic is telling.
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
Soil erosion is the subject of my PhD. I know exactly what I'm talking about. We have no idea what you're talking about because you have studiously avoided demonstrating any kind of knowledge about anything.
Now, how do you explain the existence of marker layers in soil formed by products of nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents?
Stop making crap up and pretending you know what you're talking about. You have no idea about soil marker layers happening due to nuclear weapons testing or nuclear accident because you've never been anywhere near anything like that.
Reading up on this stuff only makes you an expert on memorising what you're reading. It gives you no physical expertise, so don't waste your time trying to convince me otherwise.
Prove it's crap.
As I said, soil erosion is something of a specialism, and you have absolutely no idea what I know and what I have expertise in.
Even if I did know nothing about the subject, had not read about it extensively and had not attended conferences and had not met people researching the subject, your hysterical shrieks of denial do not prove that there are no marker layers in soil from nuclear weapons testing and accidents.
If they do not exist, what are they measuring?
I don't know what they are measuring. I don't know who is measuring anything. You're telling me they're measuring the soil for nuclear fall out.
Don't waste your time telling me that you know this and that when I know you physically do not.
-
I don't know what they are measuring.
I do.
I don't know who is measuring anything.
I do
You're telling me they're measuring the soil for nuclear fall out.
They are.
Don't waste your time telling me that you know this and that when I know you physically do not.
You know jack shit matey. You're wriggling like a worm on a hook with this one because you have no response to it. Are you too scared to google the subject? Or should I just scan some conference papers for you?
-
And just so we're clear that you physically know as much about me as you do about nuclear weapons, have a couple of photos. First, my PhD:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/6eno95.jpg)
and a page from it about the measurement of catchment sediment yields using radioactive fallout.
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2nsp6iw.jpg)
You're welcome.
-
You are desperate to be someone but can't be anyone special on a flat Earth forum.
You show me a book and that proves nuclear power and weapons exist. Seriously?
-
You are desperate to be someone but can't be anyone special on a flat Earth forum.
You show me a book and that proves nuclear power and weapons exist. Seriously?
Nope. Wrong yet again with the reading comprehension. You seem very keen to discuss the poster and not the post so I'm showing you something that proves you know nothing about what I know.
Marker horizons from weapons fallout. Your evidence. Any time you like.
-
He is avoiding both our questions. I suspect for 2 reasons. Either he just doesn't know (which would then prove him wrong), or he does know, but just won't admit it this late in the game (which would then prove him wrong).
Your questions have no relevance.
Actually they do have relevance. Both are nuclear meltdown sites, you know, where nuclear reactors were built and operated? And since you deny there's anything radioactive going on, no nuclear reactors, then what is the big deal at both sites? You continue to dismiss these questions because you and I and everyone else reading this know these incidences have occurred. You're back into (another) corner you have no way out of.
What is your explanation to these?
-
You are desperate to be someone but can't be anyone special on a flat Earth forum.
You show me a book and that proves nuclear power and weapons exist. Seriously?
Nope. Wrong yet again with the reading comprehension. You seem very keen to discuss the poster and not the post so I'm showing you something that proves you know nothing about what I know.
Marker horizons from weapons fallout. Your evidence. Any time you like.
There's no evidence I can give that will have any effect on what you think, just as any evidence you believe you think you can bullshit me into thinking you have will do absolutely nothing to convince me, so there's no real point in you trying.
However, you can harp on all you want if it makes you feel better.
-
He is avoiding both our questions. I suspect for 2 reasons. Either he just doesn't know (which would then prove him wrong), or he does know, but just won't admit it this late in the game (which would then prove him wrong).
Your questions have no relevance.
Actually they do have relevance. Both are nuclear meltdown sites, you know, where nuclear reactors were built and operated? And since you deny there's anything radioactive going on, no nuclear reactors, then what is the big deal at both sites? You continue to dismiss these questions because you and I and everyone else reading this know these incidences have occurred. You're back into (another) corner you have no way out of.
What is your explanation to these?
You know nothing. You think you know because you're an avid reader of anything that has an official stamp on it, or basically anything that says, "true story" or "non-fiction."
Graphite. Now what could graphite be used for?
-
What I know or do not know is not the question at hand. I am asking YOU - Sceptimatic - what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima? I am genuinely interested in what you think occurred. And why it isn't safe to go there.
Why you keep turning this around back on to me I have no idea. Either answer with some substance, or concede. It's not as if I'm gonna laugh at you and call you stupid, you could do the same back to me. We won't get anywhere that way. I honestly wanna know the long version of what TRULY happened.
-
What I know or do not know is not the question at hand. I am asking YOU - Sceptimatic - what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima? I am genuinely interested in what you think occurred. And why it isn't safe to go there.
Why you keep turning this around back on to me I have no idea. Either answer with some substance, or concede. It's not as if I'm gonna laugh at you and call you stupid, you could do the same back to me. We won't get anywhere that way. I honestly wanna know the long version of what TRULY happened.
You don't want to know anything other than the official version. Stick to that.
-
Well I'd sure like to know...
-
Would anyone else care to know Sceptimatic's thoughts on Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Since he's dodged me about 7 times now, maybe he will answer if more are interested.
-
He's ignoring me so I can't ask.
Really though his opinion is shit. I say opinion because he hasn't back anything up to make it an argument.
-
Would anyone else care to know Sceptimatic's thoughts on Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Since he's dodged me about 7 times now, maybe he will answer if more are interested.
I am also interested.
-
He's ignoring me so I can't ask.
Really though his opinion is shit. I say opinion because he hasn't back anything up to make it an argument.
And this makes 4.
Whenever you're ready Scep.
-
Scepti, I know nuke bombs are bull. I'm not too sure about nuke plants. You do have me thinking about it now. It does sound like a good fairy tale.
Why aren't all plants nuclear? They could save carbon emissions( global warming is bs anyway).
Is there a shortage of uranium?
-
Scepti, I know nuke bombs are bull. I'm not too sure about nuke plants. You do have me thinking about it now. It does sound like a good fairy tale.
Why aren't all plants nuclear? They could save carbon emissions( global warming is bs anyway).
Is there a shortage of uranium?
The cost of setup and teardown for a nuclear power plant are enormous. The general public has an irrational fear of anything with the word "nuclear" in it. During its functional lifetime a nuclear power plant has to face an intense amount of scrutiny from the government (we're kind of big on the whole nuclear non proliferation thing).
-
Scepti, I know nuke bombs are bull. I'm not too sure about nuke plants. You do have me thinking about it now. It does sound like a good fairy tale.
Why aren't all plants nuclear? They could save carbon emissions( global warming is bs anyway).
Is there a shortage of uranium?
Look up how much energy is stored in a kilogram of uranium compared to coal and natural gas. You will wonder why there aren't more nuclear reactors.
-
There's no evidence I can give
ftfy.
-
I only see one person in this topic of late that is genuine in wanting to know what's what with these power plants.
The rest of you are just here to follow what you were told/taught and I'm literally not interested in you people.
When I see some normality and genuine desire and want, to look for a potential truth by questioning this stuff much deeper, then I'll be happy to discuss it.
Other than that I'd rather just sit back and put in vague snippets just to see who bothers to look into stuff.
Basically the snippets I've put in have been totally overlooked. I knew this would happen of course, because, like I said, the game isn't about looking for potential truth's, it's about keeping official explanations at the forefront of people's minds.
-
Which science should I look into to see that nuclear weapons don't exist?
-
Have you tried psychology or philosophy?
-
Those aren't sciences.
-
This thread is going nowhere...
Lock?
-
Another victory for RE!!
-
Graphite and hydrogen for all your energy requirements disguised as nuclear fission.
-
Graphite and hydrogen for all your energy requirements disguised as nuclear fission.
This has nothing to do with Chernobyl or Fukushima. You know exactly what I'm asking you, and you know it. There's a word for what you're doing, I just can't think of it..
-
Graphite and hydrogen for all your energy requirements disguised as nuclear fission.
This has nothing to do with Chernobyl or Fukushima. You know exactly what I'm asking you, and you know it. There's a word for what you're doing, I just can't think of it..
What do you PHYSICALLY know about Fukushima and Chernobyl?
-
Wait till sceppy hears about lenses with radioactive lens elements. Hes going to pass out from laughing!
-
I guess you could say I have as much physical evidence for either Chernobyl or Fukushima as I do for The Holocaust. Although I have been inside Anne Frank's house in Amsterdam. But yet I do not deny it, not one single bit. The evidence is out there. So I could ask you, did The Holocaust happen? You have no evidence, you weren't there, but do you deny it? Same goes for Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Why do you continue to not answer my question?
-
There's no evidence I can give that will have any effect on what you think, [/quote]
You haven't even tried. All I've seen is "lalalalala not listening lalalala hydrogen lalalala you're wrong and I know best".
just as any evidence you believe you think you can bullshit me into thinking you have will do absolutely nothing to convince me,
Because you are utterly blinded by ignorance and prejudice.
so there's no real point in you trying.
However, you can harp on all you want if it makes you feel better.
Gee thanks, very gracious of you.
Why can't you explain the existence of radioactive layers in soil fro nuclear weapons testing and nuclear accidents?
What do you PHYSICALLY know about Fukushima and Chernobyl?
Not that long ago you made the claim " I know you physically do not." in terms of my knowledge and understanding of a subject, despite never having met me or knowing anything about me. How come you are allowed to make such judgements but no-one else is? Shame I had to prove that you physically knew no such thing at all. See, I can back up my claims, you can't.
-
Scepti, I know nuke bombs are bull. I'm not too sure about nuke plants. You do have me thinking about it now. It does sound like a good fairy tale.
Why aren't all plants nuclear? They could save carbon emissions( global warming is bs anyway).
Is there a shortage of uranium?
Look up how much energy is stored in a kilogram of uranium compared to coal and natural gas. You will wonder why there aren't more nuclear reactors.
How much energy is required to refine that uranium compared to how much useable energy stored in a kilogram.
-
Scepti, I know nuke bombs are bull. I'm not too sure about nuke plants. You do have me thinking about it now. It does sound like a good fairy tale.
Why aren't all plants nuclear? They could save carbon emissions( global warming is bs anyway).
Is there a shortage of uranium?
Look up how much energy is stored in a kilogram of uranium compared to coal and natural gas. You will wonder why there aren't more nuclear reactors.
How much energy is required to refine that uranium compared to how much useable energy stored in a kilogram.
You can argue that for any energy source, up to and including solar and wind power.
-
I've seen these answers many times.
This is the best you can come up with because you simply cannot prove that nuclear power or weapons exist, so you come up with, "Firearms are scary. Do those not exist."
Why don't you ask Kim Jong Un if nuclear weapons exist? He wouldn't lie about something like that, would he?
-
Scepti, I know nuke bombs are bull. I'm not too sure about nuke plants. You do have me thinking about it now. It does sound like a good fairy tale.
Why aren't all plants nuclear? They could save carbon emissions( global warming is bs anyway).
Is there a shortage of uranium?
Look up how much energy is stored in a kilogram of uranium compared to coal and natural gas. You will wonder why there aren't more nuclear reactors.
How much energy is required to refine that uranium compared to how much useable energy stored in a kilogram.
I would hope so.
In other news,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/us/tennessee-nuclear-power-plant/index.html
-
I'm no expert but I'm pretty sure something like that is classified. Why announce to the world how to disable a submarine capable of destroying an entire country?
Yeah, I mean it would be silly. Imagine some radioactive monster coming on-board and tearing that nuclear submarine running power plant to shreds to gain more radioactive strength.
How about an enemy country copying our technology and using it against us?
Seriously though I'm glad you said it was classified because that negates the arguments given about the thousands of people having to be in the know. Now you know it doesn't. And now you know that nobody on that submarine, except the chosen few, will know what the hell it's using.
That doesn't negate nukes being real. Please show evidence that they're fake. I dare you.
-
That's what now, 6 or 7 people that want to know. Still waiting...
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
So either you are calling your friend a liar or you are lying. Which is it?
Do you have an explanation for the existence of radioactive marker layers in soil as a direct result of atomic testing and nuclear accidents?
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
Your time line doesn't make sense. Sceptimatic doesn't believe the cold war or ww2 took place. You're obviously talking nonsense.
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
So either you are calling your friend a liar or you are lying. Which is it?
Do you have an explanation for the existence of radioactive marker layers in soil as a direct result of atomic testing and nuclear accidents?
My friend worked for Wismut AG in the Soviet Occupation Zone in Germany 1946/58. Wismut AG produced the uranium ore to build the Stalin a-bomb in various 'objects' or GULAG camps in Saxony.
However, that ore didn't contain much uranium to build an a-bomb. But with plenty propaganda Stalin's bomb exploded 1949 and the mushroom cloud went up into the stratosphere, etc, etc. People believed such nonsense in the 1940's and plenty twerps believe it today.
As an a-bomb cannot explode in a FLASH no radioactivity is produced anywhere. So any radioactivity in soil must have other origin. The Wismut AG ore contained 0.02% uranium oxide. Make a powder of it and spread it around and you geiger meter will notice it. But it is harmless.
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
So either you are calling your friend a liar or you are lying. Which is it?
Do you have an explanation for the existence of radioactive marker layers in soil as a direct result of atomic testing and nuclear accidents?
My friend worked for Wismut AG in the Soviet Occupation Zone in Germany 1946/58. Wismut AG produced the uranium ore to build the Stalin a-bomb in various 'objects' or GULAG camps in Saxony.
However, that ore didn't contain much uranium to build an a-bomb. But with plenty propaganda Stalin's bomb exploded 1949 and the mushroom cloud went up into the stratosphere, etc, etc. People believed such nonsense in the 1940's and plenty twerps believe it today.
As an a-bomb cannot explode in a FLASH no radioactivity is produced anywhere. So any radioactivity in soil must have other origin. The Wismut AG ore contained 0.02% uranium oxide. Make a powder of it and spread it around and you geiger meter will notice it. But it is harmless.
Was this before or after you kicked soviet arses for Sweden in the baltic sea from your minelayer?
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
Your time line doesn't make sense. Sceptimatic doesn't believe the cold war or ww2 took place. You're obviously talking nonsense.
According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project Stalin's a-bomb exploded August 29, 1949! But it is and was just propaganda. Stalin had no uranium (or plutonium) to build anything and no implosion lens to ignite it. Wikipedia tells nonsense (as usual).
Look at the photo of the Soviet a-bomb and the black mushroom cloud. Probably a normal dynamite explosion + photoshop. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Aren't you happy a-bombs do not work? So we don't have to worry about nuclear wars, etc?
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
Your time line doesn't make sense. Sceptimatic doesn't believe the cold war or ww2 took place. You're obviously talking nonsense.
According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project Stalin's a-bomb exploded August 29, 1949! But it is and was just propaganda. Stalin had no uranium (or plutonium) to build anything and no implosion lens to ignite it. Wikipedia tells nonsense (as usual).
Look at the photo of the Soviet a-bomb and the black mushroom cloud. Probably a normal dynamite explosion + photoshop. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Aren't you happy a-bombs do not work? So we don't have to worry about nuclear wars, etc?
Oh my sweet sweet child Heiwi, Of course there were never any nukes since WW2 and the Cold War Never Happened!
We have an expert on this thread, sceptimatic. He'll educate you on the subject.
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
So either you are calling your friend a liar or you are lying. Which is it?
Do you have an explanation for the existence of radioactive marker layers in soil as a direct result of atomic testing and nuclear accidents?
My friend worked for Wismut AG in the Soviet Occupation Zone in Germany 1946/58. Wismut AG produced the uranium ore to build the Stalin a-bomb in various 'objects' or GULAG camps in Saxony.
However, that ore didn't contain much uranium to build an a-bomb. But with plenty propaganda Stalin's bomb exploded 1949 and the mushroom cloud went up into the stratosphere, etc, etc. People believed such nonsense in the 1940's and plenty twerps believe it today.
As an a-bomb cannot explode in a FLASH no radioactivity is produced anywhere. So any radioactivity in soil must have other origin. The Wismut AG ore contained 0.02% uranium oxide. Make a powder of it and spread it around and you geiger meter will notice it. But it is harmless.
Was this before or after you kicked soviet arses for Sweden in the baltic sea from your minelayer?
September/October 1970 the Swedish Armed Forces had a big exercise with>40 000 soldiers/seamen involved and due to international agreements Sweden had to invite NATO and WP and Finland as observers. I was the youngest officer in the complete show! My men converted a merchant ship into a minelayer that then could drop 100's of mines/week to stop the enemy invading ships. The Russian and Polish observers were very impressed and offered me some bottles of vodka to explain more. The NATO observer (an American marine colonel) didn't drink but wondered, where the mines were dropped. In the water below the surface, I told him. Those were the times.
-
I work by myself heaps and this website is a great place to socialise and laugh, however I do recommend making some real life friends heiwa, I am sure they would love to hear your stories.
Honestly most of us are a little tired of them.
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
Your time line doesn't make sense. Sceptimatic doesn't believe the cold war or ww2 took place. You're obviously talking nonsense.
According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project Stalin's a-bomb exploded August 29, 1949! But it is and was just propaganda. Stalin had no uranium (or plutonium) to build anything and no implosion lens to ignite it. Wikipedia tells nonsense (as usual).
Look at the photo of the Soviet a-bomb and the black mushroom cloud. Probably a normal dynamite explosion + photoshop. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Aren't you happy a-bombs do not work? So we don't have to worry about nuclear wars, etc?
Oh my sweet sweet child Heiwi, Of course there were never any nukes since WW2 and the Cold War Never Happened!
We have an expert on this thread, sceptimatic. He'll educate you on the subject.
Yes - no nukes ever! You cannot ignite them. Compressing metal to double density is ... nonsense!
No - the Cold War happened but it was just a show to spend money on military things not to be used (except against poor countries with no military at all).
-
I work by myself heaps and this website is a great place to socialise and laugh, however I do recommend making some real life friends heiwa, I am sure they would love to hear your stories.
Honestly most of us are a little tired of them.
You sound tired. Go and take a nap.
-
I work by myself heaps and this website is a great place to socialise and laugh, however I do recommend making some real life friends heiwa, I am sure they would love to hear your stories.
Honestly most of us are a little tired of them.
You sound tired. Go and take a nap.
It's 3:40 on a Friday afternoon, on my way home, I would rather go out and have fun.
Sunday is a much better day for naps imo.
-
A friend of mine helped Josef Stalin building the communist a-bomb that exploded 1949! I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Josef Stalin's bomb was just propaganda! It never existed then or today.
Your time line doesn't make sense. Sceptimatic doesn't believe the cold war or ww2 took place. You're obviously talking nonsense.
According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project Stalin's a-bomb exploded August 29, 1949! But it is and was just propaganda. Stalin had no uranium (or plutonium) to build anything and no implosion lens to ignite it. Wikipedia tells nonsense (as usual).
Look at the photo of the Soviet a-bomb and the black mushroom cloud. Probably a normal dynamite explosion + photoshop. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Aren't you happy a-bombs do not work? So we don't have to worry about nuclear wars, etc?
Oh my sweet sweet child Heiwi, Of course there were never any nukes since WW2 and the Cold War Never Happened!
We have an expert on this thread, sceptimatic. He'll educate you on the subject.
Yes - no nukes ever! You cannot ignite them. Compressing metal to double density is ... nonsense!
No - the Cold War happened but it was just a show to spend money on military things not to be used (except against poor countries with no military at all).
You might have something with that first statement.
That second one though. Good lord Heiwi. I thought you were smarter than that. A war between two super powers where not a shot is fired but we need to keep shoveling money into a bottomless money fire? Yeah that totally happened.
Look I can tell you're new at this but when Scepti shows up just ask him about it. He'll bring you up to speed.
-
So how does one explain why geiger counters scream when you point them at the glass parts of Thorium oxide thoriated glass lenses? which emit radiation.
-
So how does one explain why geiger counters scream when you point them at the glass parts of Thorium oxide thoriated glass lenses? which emit radiation.
You sound tired. Go and take a nap.
-
High quality response from a high quality member.
-
High quality response from a high quality member.
That seems to be the common theme here as of late. See your post for reference.
-
High quality response from a high quality member.
That seems to be the common theme here as of late. See your post for reference.
Cool. Respond to this post but not the one where I answered your solar panel question.
Nice play on the picking and choosing.
-
High quality response from a high quality member.
Cool. Respond to this post but not the one where I answered your solar panel question.
Nice play on the picking and choosing.
That seems to be the common theme here as of late. See your post for reference.
You sound tired. Go and take a nap.
-
You sound uneducated. Go and take a science class.
-
You sound uneducated. Go and take a science class.
But, if he follows in your footsteps, he will get cyanide in his eyes. :(
-
For the tenth time your memory sucks.
Anyways...
-
So, maybe you Heiwa can answer for Scepti - what occurred at Chernobyl and Fukushima? Were they both just massive pieces of propaganda to keep us all in fear? Scep won't answer, for unknown reasons. But I know you are much more intelligent than him, so maybe you could give an answer?
-
For the tenth time your memory sucks.
Anyways...
You must have taught him all about PPE, sokarul. While his glasses did not have side shields, they still would have offered more protection on his nose that they did on his head. And, he appeared to wear nitrile gloves (non-cut resistant) while holding a lemon in his hand and cutting towards his palm with a knife. Does this idiot work with you? At my work, they would consider him to be a liability.
-
So, maybe you Heiwa can answer for Scepti - what occurred at Chernobyl and Fukushima? Were they both just massive pieces of propaganda to keep us all in fear? Scep won't answer, for unknown reasons. But I know you are much more intelligent than him, so maybe you could give an answer?
Thanks for asking.
No a-bombs exploded at Chernobyl and Fukushima. A-bombs do not work as explained at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm.
Chernobyl was just a nuclear power station producing electricity, when something went wrong in operations. The operators lost control of the fission modulating medium, the water, the plant overheated, the combustion chamber melted, etc, etc. Very bad soviet, Ukrainian, communist management. I worked 1992/7 in southern Ukraine trying to restart the shipbuilding industry but failed ... Kiev is a very corrupt place.
Fukushima was also a nuclear power station producing electricity, when an earthquake took place far away out at sea. The operators decided to stop the plant. However, the earthquake produced a tsunami that hit the plant a couple of hours later and destroyed the emergency power system cooling down the plant. When the cooling system didn't work, the Fukhushima plant overheated and one combustion chamber part melted, etc, etc.
No big deal actually, which I explain at my website. However, as Japan is easy to manipulate about anything atomic since August 1945.
Japan closed all their nuclear power plants, chased away the population of Fukushima and declared a national emergency ... assisted by media. And the local yakusa! I know Japan fairly well as I worked there 1972/6. I rented my flat from a yakusa boss!
IMHO there was no great danger at Fukushima. Nobody there has died of radiation or nuclear posioning, etc. Stress and violence, yes! But no fatalities due to anything nuclear.
It seems media and authorities exagerate a lot to put fear in the people all the time.
-
I understand there were no A-bombs that exploded at Chernobyl or Fukushima or 3 Mile Island. They were nuclear fission power plants. Scepti claims they are not nuclear, but rather hydrogen from electrolysis of water. Because "pellets of metal cannot boil water for a decade". Maybe you could explain to him how nuclear power works? According to him, we are all "being BS'd" about nuclear power.
Thank you.
-
I understand there were no A-bombs that exploded at Chernobyl or Fukushima or 3 Mile Island. They were nuclear fission power plants. Scepti claims they are not nuclear, but rather hydrogen from electrolysis of water. Because "pellets of metal cannot boil water for a decade". Maybe you could explain to him how nuclear power works? According to him, we are all "being BS'd" about nuclear power.
Thank you.
Well - I explain how fission works in a peaceful nuclear power station at my web site. It is moderated, etc. Just visit my site at http://heiwaco.com . Doesn't cost anything! No publicity!
There are plenty crazy people that suggest that fission can also be used in an atomic bomb!!! You compress plutonium or uranium metal to double density with a little neutron in between and suddenly
FLASH !!!
there is a hot, high pressure explosion vaporizing people at the speed of light. If you are not killed at once, there is radiation destroying your cells, bla, bla.
It is just 71 years old nonsense. Just stupid propaganda.
-
For the tenth time your memory sucks.
Anyways...
You must have taught him all about PPE, sokarul. While his glasses did not have side shields, they still would have offered more protection on his nose that they did on his head. And, he appeared to wear nitrile gloves (non-cut resistant) while holding a lemon in his hand and cutting towards his palm with a knife. Does this idiot work with you? At my work, they would consider him to be a liability.
No, he does not work with me. Maybe at your place side shields would be fine but at real places googles or z87 rated safety glasses are the norm.
Nitrile gloves aren't cut resistant? Reallyyyyy? Cut resistant gloves aren't really lab PPE so it's not surprising he doesn't have them.
Either way I think it's safe to say you should not say he would be a liability at your work. Your norm is to not properly lock out tag out and die. So....
-
I understand there were no A-bombs that exploded at Chernobyl or Fukushima or 3 Mile Island. They were nuclear fission power plants. Scepti claims they are not nuclear, but rather hydrogen from electrolysis of water. Because "pellets of metal cannot boil water for a decade". Maybe you could explain to him how nuclear power works? According to him, we are all "being BS'd" about nuclear power.
Thank you.
Well - I explain how fission works in a peaceful nuclear power station at my web site. It is moderated, etc. Just visit my site at http://heiwaco.com . Doesn't cost anything! No publicity!
There are plenty crazy people that suggest that fission can also be used in an atomic bomb!!! You compress plutonium or uranium metal to double density with a little neutron in between and suddenly
FLASH !!!
there is a hot, high pressure explosion vaporizing people at the speed of light. If you are not killed at once, there is radiation destroying your cells, bla, bla.
It is just 71 years old nonsense. Just stupid propaganda.
Shockwaves travel at the speed of sound, not light.
-
Heiwa - there is much video footage of the testing of nuclear devices, and thermonuclear devices. Very very large explosions, some under water, others underground. How would you explain these? They do not appear to be even close to conventional ordnance. We've all seen the one where the massive column of water was ejected near all the Navy ships. Was it merely trick photography, or just dynamite/TNT or other high explosive?
-
Heiwa - there is much video footage of the testing of nuclear devices, and thermonuclear devices. Very very large explosions, some under water, others underground. How would you explain these? They do not appear to be even close to conventional ordnance. We've all seen the one where the massive column of water was ejected near all the Navy ships. Was it merely trick photography, or just dynamite/TNT or other high explosive?
Yes, I have seen them all. Just trick photography.
Reason is that compressing metal uranium or plutonium to double density with a neutron in between does not produce a shock wave and a FLASH!!! vaporizing the surrounding at the speed of light.
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Very popular web page of mine.
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
-
You sure have a lot of friends in the exact place you need them. Too bad you didn't have any in New York in September 11th though.
I await your Nobel Prize.
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
Is this non-sequitur your way of admitting not believing in nukes is not punishable by death? Or are you just unable to keep your train of thought on track?
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
Napalm carpet bombing is no big deal? :o Well, I suppose it might not be a big deal as long as it's someone else who's getting carpet bombed. ::)
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
What do Russian and Swedish A-bombs have to do with American A-bombs? ???
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
Napalm carpet bombing is no big deal? :o Well, I suppose it might not be a big deal as long as it's someone else who's getting carpet bombed. ::)
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
What do Russian and Swedish A-bombs have to do with American A-bombs? ???
They do not work! Compressing two pieces of uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between does not produce a FLASH vaporizing people! I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
Napalm carpet bombing is no big deal? :o Well, I suppose it might not be a big deal as long as it's someone else who's getting carpet bombed. ::)
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
What do Russian and Swedish A-bombs have to do with American A-bombs? ???
They do not work! Compressing two pieces of uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between does not produce a FLASH vaporizing people! I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Then how do you explain the existence of the by products of that process in soil layers? Or their accumulation in organisms?
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
Napalm carpet bombing is no big deal? :o Well, I suppose it might not be a big deal as long as it's someone else who's getting carpet bombed. ::)
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
What do Russian and Swedish A-bombs have to do with American A-bombs? ???
They do not work! Compressing two pieces of uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between does not produce a FLASH vaporizing people! I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Then how do you explain the existence of the by products of that process in soil layers? Or their accumulation in organisms?
The by products are just planted by the scientists discovering them, i.e. they only exist in their fantasies. It is part of the magic trick.
-
The by products are just planted by the scientists discovering them, i.e. they only exist in their fantasies. It is part of the magic trick.
Apart from this being a total and complete fabrication on your part, the logical inconsistency on your argument is that in order for them to be by-products they have to be produced by the process you deny exists.
The people I met at academic conferences presenting the data you claim are fabricated are still working. You can easily email the people involved in the research work and challenge them. Why not do so?
-
The by products are just planted by the scientists discovering them, i.e. they only exist in their fantasies. It is part of the magic trick.
Apart from this being a total and complete fabrication on your part, the logical inconsistency on your argument is that in order for them to be by-products they have to be produced by the process you deny exists.
The people I met at academic conferences presenting the data you claim are fabricated are still working. You can easily email the people involved in the research work and challenge them. Why not do so?
I have emailed several scientists asking them for explanations of strange findings and ... never a reply. What do you think about Josef Stalin building an a-bomb from scratch 1945-1949 using uranium from Wismut AG or rather Gulag camps in Saxony occupied by the Red Army and KGB?
Or was the Stalin a-bomb just propaganda?
Like the FDR a-bomb!
-
I have emailed several scientists asking them for explanations of strange findings and ... never a reply.
Gee I wonder why that might be. Your instant assumption is that they made it up then? Not "I am too busy to reply to some random kook asking dumbass questions".
The research I describe is out there. Real scientists doing real research using real phenomena. Prove them wrong. You could refute it using your own research or just do your usual knee-jerk reactionary BS.
What do you think about Josef Stalin building an a-bomb from scratch 1945-1949 using uranium from Wismut AG or rather Gulag camps in Saxony occupied by the Red Army and KGB?
Or was the Stalin a-bomb just propaganda?
Like the FDR a-bomb!
Why should I think anything different other than its real? You have presented no evidence beyond "A friend of mine said".
Oh, and don't direct me to your page. I don't need to infect myself with the stupid. Statements like "An a-bomb blast or fission does not produce dirty smoke!" just demonstrate your lack of knowledge and understanding.
-
I have emailed several scientists asking them for explanations of strange findings and ... never a reply.
Gee I wonder why that might be. Your instant assumption is that they made it up then? Not "I am too busy to reply to some random kook asking dumbass questions".
The research I describe is out there. Real scientists doing real research using real phenomena. Prove them wrong. You could refute it using your own research or just do your usual knee-jerk reactionary BS.
What do you think about Josef Stalin building an a-bomb from scratch 1945-1949 using uranium from Wismut AG or rather Gulag camps in Saxony occupied by the Red Army and KGB?
Or was the Stalin a-bomb just propaganda?
Like the FDR a-bomb!
Why should I think anything different other than its real? You have presented no evidence beyond "A friend of mine said".
Oh, and don't direct me to your page. I don't need to infect myself with the stupid. Statements like "An a-bomb blast or fission does not produce dirty smoke!" just demonstrate your lack of knowledge and understanding.
Hm, according several 1940's scientists or atombombdesigners (!) you must compress abt 60 kg of uranium 235 to double density with a neutron in the middle and then ... FLASH ... the uranium 235 fissions and releases 20 000 tons TNT energy in a few nanoseconds.
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Isn't it funny. And there are people believing in this a-bomb nonsense.
The latest a-bomb designer is some North Korean big monkey that apparently threatens to destroy the whole world or at least South Korea, Japan and USA with his a-bomb. And CIA and MI5 believe it.
Crazy world. Are you related to your North Korean cousin?
-
Hm, according several 1940's scientists or atombombdesigners (!) you must compress abt 60 kg of uranium 235 to double density with a neutron in the middle and then ... FLASH... the uranium 235 fissions and releases 20 000 tons TNT energy in a few nanoseconds.
Yeah you keep repeating this in the hope that people will eventually start accepting your version as a fact.
Feel free to explain why this is impossible. Feel free to explain how the by-products of this process actually appear in soil all over the world as marker horizons. "They faked it" doesn't work here.
Feel free to explain to us why an atomic bomb exploded on the ground won't produce a dirty cloud.
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
This is another of your lies that you insist on repeating. Like the lies about your friends who built Stalin's bomb. I can provide you with the names of very well respected scientists who research the radioactive by-products of atomic testing in soil. I can even prove I've met them. Where's the name of your imaginary friend?
Isn't it funny. And there are people believing in this a-bomb nonsense.
The latest a-bomb designer is some North Korean big monkey that apparently threatens to destroy the whole world or at least South Korea, Japan and USA with his a-bomb. And CIA and MI5 believe it.
Crazy world. Are you related to your North Korean cousin?
Don't be a dick. I know that won't be easy for you, but it would help your cause greatly.
-
I can provide you with the names of very well respected scientists who research the radioactive by-products of atomic testing in soil. I can even prove I've met them.
Go ahead. Full style please and when you met them, and I will contact them!
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Stop lying Heiwa. You are NOT sentenced to death anywhere. You have been told multiple times the only way to break the law you refer to would be to disclose classified info which you have NOT had access to and have not done. Nobody has sentenced you to death and I doubt they even care about you and your rantings. Stop lying.
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
Napalm carpet bombing is no big deal? :o Well, I suppose it might not be a big deal as long as it's someone else who's getting carpet bombed. ::)
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
What do Russian and Swedish A-bombs have to do with American A-bombs? ???
They do not work! Compressing two pieces of uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between does not produce a FLASH vaporizing people! I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Did you know that U-235 makes up less than one percent of natural Uranium and must be enriched to at least 90% U-235 to be considered weapons grade?
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Stop lying Heiwa. You are NOT sentenced to death anywhere. You have been told multiple times the only way to break the law you refer to would be to disclose classified info which you have NOT had access to and have not done. Nobody has sentenced you to death and I doubt they even care about you and your rantings. Stop lying.
The law is clear and applies only in the USA ... so that's why I avoid USA. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Stop lying Heiwa. You are NOT sentenced to death anywhere. You have been told multiple times the only way to break the law you refer to would be to disclose classified info which you have NOT had access to and have not done. Nobody has sentenced you to death and I doubt they even care about you and your rantings. Stop lying.
The law is clear and applies only in the USA ... so that's why I avoid USA. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
The law is clear that it applies to disclosure of classified information which you have not had access to and have not done. Your continued statement of being sentenced to death is a delusional LIE to make yourself look more important than you are. You have not been sentenced to anything. Nobody cares about your ranting.
Stop lying.
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
Napalm carpet bombing is no big deal? :o Well, I suppose it might not be a big deal as long as it's someone else who's getting carpet bombed. ::)
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
What do Russian and Swedish A-bombs have to do with American A-bombs? ???
They do not work! Compressing two pieces of uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between does not produce a FLASH vaporizing people! I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Did you know that U-235 makes up less than one percent of natural Uranium and must be enriched to at least 90% U-235 to be considered weapons grade?
Yes! And the Saxon ore used to build Stalin's a-bomb 1945/9 contained 0.07% uranium (238) oxide.
Actually only twerps think there is something like weapons grade uranium. Uranium cannot fission to produce a FLASH! You sound like a twerp.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Stop lying Heiwa. You are NOT sentenced to death anywhere. You have been told multiple times the only way to break the law you refer to would be to disclose classified info which you have NOT had access to and have not done. Nobody has sentenced you to death and I doubt they even care about you and your rantings. Stop lying.
The law is clear and applies only in the USA ... so that's why I avoid USA. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
The law is clear that it applies to disclosure of classified information which you have not had access to and have not done. Your continued statement of being sentenced to death is a delusional LIE likely to make yourself look more important than you are. You have not been sentenced to anything. Nobody cares about your ranting.
Stop lying.
Hm, but I disclose classified information at my website. That's why FBI, NSA, CIA, Obama, GWB & Co are so upset. Isn't it a crazy world?
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Stop lying Heiwa. You are NOT sentenced to death anywhere. You have been told multiple times the only way to break the law you refer to would be to disclose classified info which you have NOT had access to and have not done. Nobody has sentenced you to death and I doubt they even care about you and your rantings. Stop lying.
The law is clear and applies only in the USA ... so that's why I avoid USA. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
The law is clear that it applies to disclosure of classified information which you have not had access to and have not done. Your continued statement of being sentenced to death is a delusional LIE likely to make yourself look more important than you are. You have not been sentenced to anything. Nobody cares about your ranting.
Stop lying.
Hm, but I disclose classified information at my website. That's why FBI, NSA, CIA, Obama, GWB & Co are so upset. Isn't it a crazy world?
No, you don't. NONE of your information was obtained from classified sources. All is either public domain or your speculation. You have no proof any of those mentioned are upset. Yet more LIES from you to boost your ego.
-
I can provide you with the names of very well respected scientists who research the radioactive by-products of atomic testing in soil. I can even prove I've met them.
Go ahead. Full style please and when you met them, and I will contact them!
The names you need to search for are Des Walling, John Rowan, John Dearing, amongst others. Their research is based around using these radioactive by-products of atomic testing to measure sediment erosion and movement in catchments. YOu'll see some of them referenced on the page I posted of my PhD research.
I met them at the 1992 conference in Oslo of the International Associaation of Hydrological Sciences conference on Erosion and Sediment Transport Monitoring, where I presented a paper based on my own PhD. By all means email and them and call them liars.
Are you still baffled as to how a ground burst atomic weapon can make a dirty mushroom cloud?
-
Hm, but I disclose classified information at my website. That's why FBI, NSA, CIA, Obama, GWB & Co are so upset. Isn't it a crazy world?
You just can't help lying can you? There is no classified information on your website. This is a lie.
-
It's quite ironic how great of a danger Heiwa believes he's in, yet if it was actually as severe as he claims then he would've been shut up years ago (at least his website and accounts would be taken down).
And not only that, he believes that in a world where most governments are actually cooperating with each other to uphold conspiracies (US and russia to uphold the moon landing conspiracy), he'd be safe from the US in Europe, or more specifically in France.
-
Don't forget putting up his full name and address for all to see.
I suppose the best way to hide is in plain sight ??? Lol....
-
Hm, but I disclose classified information at my website. That's why FBI, NSA, CIA, Obama, GWB & Co are so upset. Isn't it a crazy world?
You just can't help lying can you? There is no classified information on your website. This is a lie.
Well, that Manne Siegbahn was 1945 asked by the Swedish government to design a Swedish a-bomb and agreed - subject all his findings were made public - and that he was then asked to shut up is not really public knowledge today. He hinted me about it 1964! Or that the uranium ore that Wismut AG (or whatever you call it?) provided to Stalin/USSR 1945/9 assisted by a friend of mine to build a communist a-bomb didn't really contain any uranium is not public knowledge either. All this unique info made me conclude that the Swedish and USSR a-bombs were just fantasies. And look at all the footage of the famous a-bombs FLASH available on the net. Where does the dirty smoke come from?
No, only brainwashed people believe in and love a-bombs. How anyone can love an a-bomb is beyond me.
-
Well, that Manne Siegbahn was 1945 asked by the Swedish government to design a Swedish a-bomb and agreed - subject all his findings were made public - and that he was then asked to shut up is not really public knowledge today. He hinted me about it 1964!
Hinted? All you have are hints from someone who was on a committee to help develop a Swedish nuclear weapon, not someone asked to actually design a bomb? The person who could have designed it was employed by him but he treated her like crap. 'Hinting' is not the same as 'fact'.
Or that the uranium ore that Wismut AG (or whatever you call it?) provided to Stalin/USSR 1945/9 assisted by a friend of mine to build a communist a-bomb didn't really contain any uranium is not public knowledge either.
Not all atomic weapons contain Uranium. Not everyone you talk about exists. Not every fact you mention is actually a facxt.
All this unique info made me conclude that the Swedish and USSR a-bombs were just fantasies. And look at all the footage of the famous a-bombs FLASH available on the net. Where does the dirty smoke come from?
Really? You can't work out why a very hot bang on the ground can get dirty? Does all the smoke in any explosion always come from the explosive device? Are you really so ill-informed?
No, only brainwashed people believe in and love a-bombs. How anyone can love an a-bomb is beyond me.
Strawman. Who said anyone loves them? I spent enough time protesting against them in my youth to know a lot about them.
-
Here's some more about Manne Siegbahn.
http://staff.www.ltu.se/~maggus/MOLEC2014/Meitner-essay-pdf.pdf
See how many times you can find variations of the words "Siegbahn was not a good nuclear physicist".
-
Here's some more about Manne Siegbahn.
http://staff.www.ltu.se/~maggus/MOLEC2014/Meitner-essay-pdf.pdf
See how many times you can find variations of the words "Siegbahn was not a good nuclear physicist".
Thanks - a good article. Manne was asked by the Swedish government to build an a-bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to everything being public and peer reviewed. The government didn't like it. Public? Not possible! The a-bomb was a hoax. Lies! Manne knew it.
So he got $1M by Rockefeller to shut up and develop his cyclotron. I only knew Manne and his cyclotron in the 1960's but he was a good friend of my grandfather since the 1910's. Manne didn't really recommend physics for me 1964. Too much politics, etc. Good advice. So I could do better, more fun things and start my popular website in the 1990's. http://heiwaco.com .
-
Yeah, you know nothing.
What do you think is physically keeping a chain reaction from happening in fissile material at critical mass?
-
Nuclear weapons are very fragile. The slightest thing wrong and they won't work. It's kind of funny when you think about it.
-
Manne was asked by the Swedish government to build an a-bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to everything being public and peer reviewed. The government didn't like it. Public? Not possible!
Okay, provided your story is true, to me there are two possible expectations:
1. Thousands of scientists, including former nazis, americans, russians, french, indians etc. all lied. Somehow nuclear power works but a chain reaction is not possible. The hundreds of videos are faked or they smuggled a cube with side lengths of 500m full of TNT to the destined location of detonation. The increase in radioactivity measured by countless departments during a time of high testing frequency, the seismic shockwaves, all is faked.
2. The swedish government did not want the plans of a weapon that can potentially kill millions to be publicly available, especially because of the rather tense situation with the soviet union
You may pick which ever seems more likely to you.
-
Manne was asked by the Swedish government to build an a-bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to everything being public and peer reviewed. The government didn't like it. Public? Not possible!
Okay, provided your story is true, to me there are two possible expectations:
1. Thousands of scientists, including former nazis, americans, russians, french, indians etc. all lied. Somehow nuclear power works but a chain reaction is not possible. The hundreds of videos are faked or they smuggled a cube with side lengths of 500m full of TNT to the destined location of detonation. The increase in radioactivity measured by countless departments during a time of high testing frequency, the seismic shockwaves, all is faked.
2. The swedish government did not want the plans of a weapon that can potentially kill millions to be publicly available, especially because of the rather tense situation with the soviet union
You may pick which ever seems more likely to you.
1.
You should also consider Wismut AG of Saxony, Germany. It was actually a Soviet konzentration camp producing the uranium ore for the Soviet a-bomb that exploded 1949 in Kazakhstan. If you didn't agree with Wismut AG, you simply disappeared. Imagine building an a-bomb in four years in the 1940's using political prisoners mining granite? Poor Islamic Republic of Iran has been trying since the 1970's to copy Stalin without success, while a monkey in North Korea has recently managed it ... if you believe that nonsense?
-
I am proud of being an a-bomb and metal atoms compression denier. It is illegal in USA, though. Punished by death!
Still a lie. Not believing in it does not carry any punishment. You know that yet continue to spread this lie.
Well just visit the a-bomb museum at Nagasaki, Japan. I have done it several times. We are told a much more powerful than Hiroshima a-bomb exploded there over a suburb ... and wiped it out, while downtown Nagasaki on the other side of a hill was unharmed, incl. a friend of mine there.
No a-bomb exploded at Nagasaki 9 August 1945. The suburb was just napalm carpet bombed like Hiroshima. No big deal, really.
Napalm carpet bombing is no big deal? :o Well, I suppose it might not be a big deal as long as it's someone else who's getting carpet bombed. ::)
How do I know? Well, a friend of mine helped Stalin build his a-bomb a little later. It was as real as a 7 rubles note in old USSR. And another friend of mine was asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and ... agreed ... subject to it being public and peer reviewed. Manne didn't get the job because he knew it was all nonsense. I describe it at my website.
What do Russian and Swedish A-bombs have to do with American A-bombs? ???
They do not work! Compressing two pieces of uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between does not produce a FLASH vaporizing people! I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Did you know that U-235 makes up less than one percent of natural Uranium and must be enriched to at least 90% U-235 to be considered weapons grade?
Yes! And the Saxon ore used to build Stalin's a-bomb 1945/9 contained 0.07% uranium (238) oxide.
U-235 is used in a-bombs, not U-238.
Actually only twerps think there is something like weapons grade uranium. Uranium cannot fission to produce a FLASH! You sound like a twerp.
You sound like you're tired. You should take a nap.
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
If you were truly sentenced to death for revealing top secret information, then you would have been extradited to the US long ago. We Americans love executing spies and will not be denied.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Out of curiosity how many countries have sentenced you to death?
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Out of curiosity how many countries have sentenced you to death?
Only one! The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) is tough to abide with. Luckily FBI sleeps at the switches as usual.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Out of curiosity how many countries have sentenced you to death?
Only one! The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) is tough to abide with. Luckily FBI sleeps at the switches as usual.
The FBI handles domestic matters. The NSA and CIA are the ones you have to worry about that. Actually scratch that. The president unilaterally raining death from the skies with drone strikes are what you have to worry about.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Out of curiosity how many countries have sentenced you to death?
Only one! The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) is tough to abide with. Luckily FBI sleeps at the switches as usual.
The FBI handles domestic matters. The NSA and CIA are the ones you have to worry about that. Actually scratch that. The president unilaterally raining death from the skies with drone strikes are what you have to worry about.
Correct. Telling the US public the truth about fake a-bombs is punished by death in the USA. FBI is everywhere abroad as legal attachés at the US embassies. I wonder what my neighbors have to say about drone strikes.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Out of curiosity how many countries have sentenced you to death?
Only one! The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) is tough to abide with. Luckily FBI sleeps at the switches as usual.
The FBI handles domestic matters. The NSA and CIA are the ones you have to worry about that. Actually scratch that. The president unilaterally raining death from the skies with drone strikes are what you have to worry about.
Correct. Telling the US public the truth about fake a-bombs is punished by death in the USA. FBI is everywhere abroad as legal attachés at the US embassies. I wonder what my neighbors have to say about drone strikes.
If they've been struck by a drone? Probably not much.
If you feel that a drone strike might be eminent remember to duck and cover. Keep wearing your helmet at all times as it will offer some protection against drone strikes.
-
If you were truly sentenced to death for revealing top secret information, then you would have been extradited to the US long ago. We Americans love executing spies and will not be denied.
Can't argue with that.
-
Nuclear weapons are very fragile. The slightest thing wrong and they won't work. It's kind of funny when you think about it.
Actually the original "shotgun" designed A-bombs were quite robust. They were actually quite "simple" ... Two materials separated by a neutron inhibitor literally would be "shotgun blast" together. Kinda funny when you think about it.
Now get into thermonuclear designs then you get a little more complex and chance of failure. Timing is much more precise to use the fission ignition for compression of the fusion ignition. In these things a half of a millisecond can mean the difference of megatons of force.
Biggest issue with all these designs is the material itself. It slowly decays. Even under perfect storage and care, Neutron inhibitors etc etc, they still decay in the form of free radicals (the uranium/ plutonium)...which is what is interesting about russia. We have been scratching our ass while Russia has been updating their stockpile.
Though, if you live in Anders "world" then we will be just launching empty metal cans are each other so I suppose a nuclear war won't be that bad. Unless you happen to be standing directly under the can...which would more than likely be my luck.
And LOL at Anders saying he is alive because Americans are that incompetent. I am sure it would be difficult to find him with his name and address posted online for all to see, with him registered with the protection sociale and living in social welfare housing......A true story of the invisible man.. ::)
The American government may be inept, corrupt, lazy and incompetent....but they are not THAT bad at their jobs.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Out of curiosity how many countries have sentenced you to death?
Only one! The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) is tough to abide with. Luckily FBI sleeps at the switches as usual.
Stop lying. You have not been sentenced to death. You have NOT had access to nor revealed any classified information. A death sentence would have a record, such as a court proceeding. You can not and will not produce that because it never happened and never will. You are lying only because it stokes your ego and you're a pathological liar.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Out of curiosity how many countries have sentenced you to death?
Only one! The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) is tough to abide with. Luckily FBI sleeps at the switches as usual.
The FBI handles domestic matters. The NSA and CIA are the ones you have to worry about that. Actually scratch that. The president unilaterally raining death from the skies with drone strikes are what you have to worry about.
Correct. Telling the US public the truth about fake a-bombs is punished by death in the USA.
Wrong. Still a lie. You are deliberately misinterpreting the law just to boost your own ego. You're not as important as you think you are.
-
That is the secret of the atomic bomb! I am sentenced to death in the USA by revealing it ... but such is life ... or death.
Out of curiosity how many countries have sentenced you to death?
Only one! The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law 585, 79th Congress) is tough to abide with. Luckily FBI sleeps at the switches as usual.
Stop lying. You have not been sentenced to death. You have NOT had access to nor revealed any classified information. A death sentence would have a record, such as a court proceeding. You can not and will not produce that because it never happened and never will. You are lying only because it stokes your ego and you're a pathological liar.
Don't listen to these people Anders. They're FBI agents trying to lull you into a false sense of security and then FLASH a drone strike hits you.
Make sure to take these preventative tips to avoid a drone strike:
1. Only come out at night. It'll be more difficult for drones to spot you.
2. Always wear a black cloak. It'll confound their image detection software.
3. Avoid foods at the supermarket. The GMO component will allow them to track you easier. I'd recommend eating off the grid with a liquid diet rich in nutrients such as blood plasma.
4. Do not attempt to cross bodies of running water. This doesn't have anything to do with drones so much as it's just safety.
5. Do not enter anyone's house unless you're explicitly granted permission. Otherwise that would be breaking and entering which would attract attention from the drones.
6. Stay away from garlic. It's garlic, ewwwww!
7. Do not allow anyone to drive a wooden stake through your heart. It WILL kill you.
8. Beware of crucifixes. They're so 1990's.
9. Do not allow a drone to bite you. Drones have technology where a drone bite that doesn't kill you will turn you into one of them.
-
The usa takes nukes very seriously, and does a good job at doing whatever they want with them. Just take a look at Stuxnet (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet)
-
Nuclear weapons are very fragile. The slightest thing wrong and they won't work. It's kind of funny when you think about it.
Actually the original "shotgun" designed A-bombs were quite robust. They were actually quite "simple" ... Two materials separated by a neutron inhibitor literally would be "shotgun blast" together. Kinda funny when you think about it.
Now get into thermonuclear designs then you get a little more complex and chance of failure. Timing is much more precise to use the fission ignition for compression of the fusion ignition. In these things a half of a millisecond can mean the difference of megatons of force.
Biggest issue with all these designs is the material itself. It slowly decays. Even under perfect storage and care, Neutron inhibitors etc etc, they still decay in the form of free radicals (the uranium/ plutonium)...which is what is interesting about russia. We have been scratching our ass while Russia has been updating their stockpile.
Though, if you live in Anders "world" then we will be just launching empty metal cans are each other so I suppose a nuclear war won't be that bad. Unless you happen to be standing directly under the can...which would more than likely be my luck.
And LOL at Anders saying he is alive because Americans are that incompetent. I am sure it would be difficult to find him with his name and address posted online for all to see, with him registered with the protection sociale and living in social welfare housing......A true story of the invisible man.. ::)
The American government may be inept, corrupt, lazy and incompetent....but they are not THAT bad at their jobs.
Yes, the idea that you trigger an a-bomb by compressing two pieces of metal to double density with a neutron in between is really fantastic and a wonderful concept that the American people adore since 70 years. What a joke! To demonstrate that it really works, I offer €1M to anyone doing it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
-
Yes, the idea that you trigger an a-bomb by compressing two pieces of metal to double density with a neutron in between is really fantastic and a wonderful concept that the American people adore since 70 years. What a joke! To demonstrate that it really works, I offer €1M to anyone doing it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
What if compressing two pieces of metal to double density has nothing at all to do with how atomic bombs work? How do you expect anyone to win your challenge when your challenge is based on a false premise?
-
Yes, the idea that you trigger an a-bomb by compressing two pieces of metal to double density with a neutron in between is really fantastic and a wonderful concept that the American people adore since 70 years. What a joke! To demonstrate that it really works, I offer €1M to anyone doing it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
Tell you what stud muffin, if you put a million dollars in escrow and appoint 4 extra unbiased judges I will make a working fusion reactor.
I would say fission but the government already isn't fond of me, last thing I need is another reason for them to think I am a terrorist(and give them a reason to jail me). Even though mechanically it is hands down easier to build than a fusion reactor (at least to prove a mild brief reaction, enough to prove the concept is sound)..getting the source material does require some creativity and time, is also the hardest part of assembling a fission reactor.
Anyways....fusion reactor, you know what you gotta do punkin....So??
(Yes I know he is going to come back with wasted non sense, it will go nowhere, I also know I am violating my own terms of heiwa contact..but it's a different thread, figured I would try one form of contact for fun :-\)
-
Yes, the idea that you trigger an a-bomb by compressing two pieces of metal to double density with a neutron in between is really fantastic and a wonderful concept that the American people adore since 70 years. What a joke! To demonstrate that it really works, I offer €1M to anyone doing it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
Tell you what stud muffin, if you put a million dollars in escrow and appoint 4 extra unbiased judges I will make a working fusion reactor.
It is my €1M Challenge 3 - the fusion reactor - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm . One, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is built at Cadarache, France, just down the road from me.
It will never produce any fusion, though. Cost overruns, incompetent management, etc, etc. M. Bigot may be bigot about fusion but IMHO the plant will never work.
-
So no escrow account and judges?
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
Other judges are easily bought at little cost!
Remember my friend Francesco Schettino being sentenced to 16+ years in prison by some judges, when his ship accidently contacted a submerged rock. It is a crime to be a seaman today and innocent people are just thrown in jail. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
It could have been me! Ashore.
A person, having a job similar to the one I had for many years, advising Francesco Schettino how to handle the incident was also threatened by prosecutors and judges with jail. It suddenly became a crime to assist seamen sorting out incidents at sea.
So I am the judge in this case. Your application will be treated fairly.
-
So no escrow account and judges?
-
Heiwi, I'm going to tell you something that's going to sound a little offensive but I promise I'm not trolling you here and you need to hear it. Ready:
Your web site sucks.
It's poorly formatted, there's shit everywhere in random colors. Nothing's organized. Nothing's written particularly well.
I actually like to read conspiracy theory site. Just not yours because it's cumbersome trying to make out the structure of it.
Would you please use some of your helmet budget aside and hire a damn web developer?
thanks
-
(Yes I know he is going to come back with wasted non sense, it will go nowhere, I also know I am violating my own terms of heiwa contact..but it's a different thread, figured I would try one form of contact for fun :-\)
And....drum roll...
It is my €1M Challenge 3 - the fusion reactor - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm . One, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is built at Cadarache, France, just down the road from me.
It will never produce any fusion, though. Cost overruns, incompetent management, etc, etc. M. Bigot may be bigot about fusion but IMHO the plant will never work.
Sigh....I am Jack's total lack of surprise.
So no escrow account and judges?
Did you really expect anything else lol??
Ok...one more offer Mr. Heiwa. Forget the money, as I have already been kicking around building a fusion reactor for fun as I actually already have everything I need that is just sitting around as extras from other projects.
The design I drew on ACAD is about the size of a twin bed, and runs off 48k volts/68 amps (not including the vacuum pump, that is another 30 amps a/c) through a Tig welder DC converter to a tungsten core.
All I ask in return is you post up online you wearing a pair of leopard print assless chaps, riding a bicycle, with your safety hat on. Then I shall build the small functional fusion reactor (and also win your challenge so you can remove it off your website)...
Deal?? To me this seems fair...also if there happens to be any money from winning the challenge (lol) I will want a percentage of it donated to this site...the rest will be to the charities of my choice. You can even keep the tax write off
-
(Yes I know he is going to come back with wasted non sense, it will go nowhere, I also know I am violating my own terms of heiwa contact..but it's a different thread, figured I would try one form of contact for fun :-\)
And....drum roll...
It is my €1M Challenge 3 - the fusion reactor - http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm . One, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is built at Cadarache, France, just down the road from me.
It will never produce any fusion, though. Cost overruns, incompetent management, etc, etc. M. Bigot may be bigot about fusion but IMHO the plant will never work.
Sigh....I am Jack's total lack of surprise.
So no escrow account and judges?
Did you really expect anything else lol??
Ok...one more offer Mr. Heiwa. Forget the money, as I have already been kicking around building a fusion reactor for fun as I actually already have everything I need that is just sitting around as extras from other projects.
The design I drew on ACAD is about the size of a twin bed, and runs off 48k volts/68 amps (not including the vacuum pump, that is another 30 amps a/c) through a Tig welder DC converter to a tungsten core.
All I ask in return is you post up online you wearing a pair of leopard print assless chaps, riding a bicycle, with your safety hat on. Then I shall build the small functional fusion reactor (and also win your challenge so you can remove it off your website)...
Deal?? To me this seems fair...also if there happens to be any money from winning the challenge (lol) I will want a percentage of it donated to this site...the rest will be to the charities of my choice. You can even keep the tax write off
No deal! You sound being American having health problems. Maybe your fusion reactor infected you?
-
Heiwi, I'm going to tell you something that's going to sound a little offensive but I promise I'm not trolling you here and you need to hear it. Ready:
Your web site sucks.
Sorry - my web site http://heiwaco.com is very nice and popular. Of course the design is from the past century but the content is up to date 27 October 2016.
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
But you are under a death sentence. What happens if you are extradited to the US so that sentence can be carried out?
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
But you are under a death sentence. What happens if you are extradited to the US so that sentence can be carried out?
Well, EU does not extradite people to be executed in the USA. We are not talking fake rapes à la Assange here, who has to hide in an embassy.
My case is clear. The US law about nuclear weapons is crystal clear. Everything is secret! If you explain in the USA (the secret) how they do not work, you are sentenced to death in the USA.
It is a fact! Remember the Rosenbergs!
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
But you are under a death sentence. What happens if you are extradited to the US so that sentence can be carried out?
Well, EU does not extradite people to be executed in the USA. We are not talking fake rapes à la Assange here, who has to hide in an embassy.
My case is clear. The US law about nuclear weapons is crystal clear. Everything is secret! If you explain in the USA (the secret) how they do not work, you are sentenced to death in the USA.
It is a fact! Remember the Rosenbergs!
Yes, the law is very clear. It is about disclosing classified information. Speculation and rantings are not covered.
The Rosenbergs had access to classified information. You do not. You have not been sentenced to anything. Nor will you be. Stop lying. Nobody believes you.
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Did you really expect anything else lol??
Naw, I just like rubbing it in.
Kinda a dick move I guess.
All I ask in return is you post up online you wearing a pair of leopard print assless chaps, riding a bicycle, with your safety hat on. Then I shall build the small functional fusion reactor (and also win your challenge so you can remove it off your website)...
Underrated post, Also, dude you are like Tony Stark, the things I would do for a fusion reactor lol.
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
But you are under a death sentence. What happens if you are extradited to the US so that sentence can be carried out?
Well, EU does not extradite people to be executed in the USA. We are not talking fake rapes à la Assange here, who has to hide in an embassy.
My case is clear. The US law about nuclear weapons is crystal clear. Everything is secret! If you explain in the USA (the secret) how they do not work, you are sentenced to death in the USA.
It is a fact! Remember the Rosenbergs!
Yes, US law is crystal clear. You must stand trial in order to receive a death sentence like the Rosenbergs. When and where was your trial?
-
Underrated post, Also, dude you are like Tony Stark, the things I would do for a fusion reactor lol.
Ha ha....well, unfortunately I would not be able to power his beastly suit with it(or anything for a matter of fact without an external source lol) I haven't discovered his trick yet(nor anyone that we know of).
I promise though if I figure it out one day, then figure out how to replicate his suit...you can have a clone free of charge. Please just don't turn evil and become my nemesis.
The last thing the planet needs is a Texan and an aussie duking it out on the street in fusion powered bio suits. Something tells me much collateral damage will take place.
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
But you are under a death sentence. What happens if you are extradited to the US so that sentence can be carried out?
Well, EU does not extradite people to be executed in the USA. We are not talking fake rapes à la Assange here, who has to hide in an embassy.
My case is clear. The US law about nuclear weapons is crystal clear. Everything is secret! If you explain in the USA (the secret) how they do not work, you are sentenced to death in the USA.
It is a fact! Remember the Rosenbergs!
Yes, the law is very clear. It is about disclosing classified information.
No, the law (Sec. 10) is about dissemination of restricted data. Restricted data is everything about atomic weapons. If you disseminate, publish, distribute, spread restricted data (like me) you are punished by death.
So, yes, the law is very clear. It is not about disclosing classified information. Why do you make up such nonsense?
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
But you are under a death sentence. What happens if you are extradited to the US so that sentence can be carried out?
Well, EU does not extradite people to be executed in the USA. We are not talking fake rapes à la Assange here, who has to hide in an embassy.
My case is clear. The US law about nuclear weapons is crystal clear. Everything is secret! If you explain in the USA (the secret) how they do not work, you are sentenced to death in the USA.
It is a fact! Remember the Rosenbergs!
Yes, the law is very clear. It is about disclosing classified information.
No, the law (Sec. 10) is about dissemination of restricted data. Restricted data is everything about atomic weapons. If you disseminate, publish, distribute, spread restricted data (like me) you are punished by death.
So, yes, the law is very clear. It is not about disclosing classified information. Why do you make up such nonsense?
Restricted data is classified data. That is how it is restricted. You have not had access to it and have not disclosed it or disseminated it. You have also not had a trial or any court proceeding sentencing you to anything. Again, speculation and rantings (all you have) are not covered. I have made up nothing. YOU have repeatedly lied about this. Why do you lie?
If you continue to claim to be sentenced to death then please link to your trial data and/or sentencing hearing. You won't because you haven't been and this is all just a delusional fantasy of yours to make yourself look more important. How sad for you.
You are not unique. There are plenty of people IN the US that have the same opinion as you (many with better support than your arguments from incredulity and amateur website) and NONE have been sentenced to death.
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
But you are under a death sentence. What happens if you are extradited to the US so that sentence can be carried out?
Well, EU does not extradite people to be executed in the USA. We are not talking fake rapes à la Assange here, who has to hide in an embassy.
My case is clear. The US law about nuclear weapons is crystal clear. Everything is secret! If you explain in the USA (the secret) how they do not work, you are sentenced to death in the USA.
It is a fact! Remember the Rosenbergs!
Yes, the law is very clear. It is about disclosing classified information.
No, the law (Sec. 10) is about dissemination of restricted data. Restricted data is everything about atomic weapons. If you disseminate, publish, distribute, spread restricted data (like me) you are punished by death.
So, yes, the law is very clear. It is not about disclosing classified information. Why do you make up such nonsense?
Restricted data is classified data. That is how it is restricted. You have not had access to it and have not disclosed it or disseminated it. You have also not had a trial or any court proceeding sentencing you to anything. Again, speculation and rantings (all you have) are not covered. I have made up nothing. YOU have repeatedly lied about this. Why do you lie?
If you continue to claim to be sentenced to death then please link to your trial data and/or sentencing hearing. You won't because you haven't been and this is all just a delusional fantasy of yours to make yourself look more important. How sad for you.
You are not unique. There are plenty of people IN the US that have the same opinion as you (many with better support than your arguments from incredulity and amateur website) and NONE have been sentenced to death.
Sorry. You have to read the law. Restricted data is all real information about nuclear weapons!
USA authorities publish data about nuclear weapons, e.g. that they work and vaporize people. But it is just propaganda.
The restricted data is that nuclear weapons do not work at all. That's why it is punished by death if disseminated!
-
So no escrow account and judges?
Correct. If you worry about the money, just come around and have a look at my assets. And I am the judge!
But you are under a death sentence. What happens if you are extradited to the US so that sentence can be carried out?
Well, EU does not extradite people to be executed in the USA. We are not talking fake rapes à la Assange here, who has to hide in an embassy.
My case is clear. The US law about nuclear weapons is crystal clear. Everything is secret! If you explain in the USA (the secret) how they do not work, you are sentenced to death in the USA.
It is a fact! Remember the Rosenbergs!
Yes, the law is very clear. It is about disclosing classified information.
No, the law (Sec. 10) is about dissemination of restricted data. Restricted data is everything about atomic weapons. If you disseminate, publish, distribute, spread restricted data (like me) you are punished by death.
So, yes, the law is very clear. It is not about disclosing classified information. Why do you make up such nonsense?
Restricted data is classified data. That is how it is restricted. You have not had access to it and have not disclosed it or disseminated it. You have also not had a trial or any court proceeding sentencing you to anything. Again, speculation and rantings (all you have) are not covered. I have made up nothing. YOU have repeatedly lied about this. Why do you lie?
If you continue to claim to be sentenced to death then please link to your trial data and/or sentencing hearing. You won't because you haven't been and this is all just a delusional fantasy of yours to make yourself look more important. How sad for you.
You are not unique. There are plenty of people IN the US that have the same opinion as you (many with better support than your arguments from incredulity and amateur website) and NONE have been sentenced to death.
Sorry. You have to read the law. Restricted data is all real information about nuclear weapons!
USA authorities publish data about nuclear weapons, e.g. that they work and vaporize people. But it is just propaganda.
The restricted data is that nuclear weapons do not work at all. That's why it is punished by death if disseminated!
so no link to your court proceedings? More LIES from Heiwa. You have not had access to restricted data and you have not disseminated it. You have not been sentenced to anything and only claim to in order to make yourself appear important. Stop lying.
-
USA authorities publish data about nuclear weapons, e.g. that they work and vaporize people. But it is just propaganda.
The restricted data is that nuclear weapons do not work at all. That's why it is punished by death if disseminated!
Then why are you still alive?
-
I wonder why none of the workers came forth to say they are fake. After all they are still dying of cancer. Cancer that they must have known was giving to them in order to keep on faking the weapons.
http://www.denverpost.com/2014/02/18/rocky-flats-workers-no-longer-must-prove-cancers-are-work-related/
-
Heiwi, I'm going to tell you something that's going to sound a little offensive but I promise I'm not trolling you here and you need to hear it. Ready:
Your web site sucks.
Sorry - my web site http://heiwaco.com is very nice and popular. Of course the design is from the past century but the content is up to date 27 October 2016.
This statement is demonstrably false.
First off it looks terrible. Everyone agrees on that.
Second. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/heiwaco.com Your global rank is 15,869,460. Your site has 1.7 daily page views per visitor.
Let's put those numbers into perspective. This is the alexa ranking of a website called ratemypoo in which you can rate other peoples poo on a scale from 1 to 10 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ratemypoo.com It has a rank of 370,744. It draw 5.8 daily page views per visitor.
Here are the stats for a site called catsthatlooklikehitler http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/catsthatlooklikehitler.com where you can view pictures of cats that have the unfortunate distinction of looking like feline versions of the notorious WW2 genocidal maniac. It has a rank of 979,433 and 4 daily page views per visitor.
So I can say this without exaggeration since I have the hard numbers to prove it, poop is 3 times more popular than your site and cats that look like hitler are twice as popular as your site.
-
Heiwa, your website IS rather lame, I have to agree. I explain how below.
The more I read, the more I felt I was just being led on. I explain the details below.
I kept reading farther and farther down, expecting to see the bombshell, but never saw anything. I explain this in further detail below.
That's what it's like reading your stories.
-
Heiwa, your website IS rather lame, I have to agree. I explain how below.
The more I read, the more I felt I was just being led on. I explain the details below.
I kept reading farther and farther down, expecting to see the bombshell, but never saw anything. I explain this in further detail below.
That's what it's like reading your stories.
It is because he never actually explains anything. His entire site is just begging the question and arguments from incredulity.
-
I never got to the end of his topic, I'll admit. I could see what was happening.
-
Heiwa, I just got off the phone with the FBI and told them your location (which you advertise on your website) so I'd say you have a few hours before they get to you.
obviously in joking, the FBI doesn't even do international things.
-
That's funny. I just got off the phone with the FBI and they laughed that he thought he was sentenced to death. They said they don't care about random speculation and rantings as long as classified information is not involved. They said if they had to kill everyone on the internet that thought nuclear weapons didn't work there would be a line 5 years long waiting for the executioner. They thanked me for the humor and said they were going to mention Heiwa at their Christmas party. Should get a bunch of laughs.
-
Underrated post, Also, dude you are like Tony Stark, the things I would do for a fusion reactor lol.
Ha ha....well, unfortunately I would not be able to power his beastly suit with it(or anything for a matter of fact without an external source lol) I haven't discovered his trick yet(nor anyone that we know of).
I promise though if I figure it out one day, then figure out how to replicate his suit...you can have a clone free of charge. Please just don't turn evil and become my nemesis.
I promise haha
The last thing the planet needs is a Texan and an aussie duking it out on the street in fusion powered bio suits. Something tells me much collateral damage will take place.
Agreed it would invariably result in the end of the world, we can fight the penguin menace together.
-
Heiwi, I'm going to tell you something that's going to sound a little offensive but I promise I'm not trolling you here and you need to hear it. Ready:
Your web site sucks.
Sorry - my web site http://heiwaco.com is very nice and popular. Of course the design is from the past century but the content is up to date 27 October 2016.
This statement is demonstrably false.
First off it looks terrible. Everyone agrees on that.
Second. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/heiwaco.com Your global rank is 15,869,460. Your site has 1.7 daily page views per visitor.
Let's put those numbers into perspective. This is the alexa ranking of a website called ratemypoo in which you can rate other peoples poo on a scale from 1 to 10 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ratemypoo.com It has a rank of 370,744. It draw 5.8 daily page views per visitor.
Here are the stats for a site called catsthatlooklikehitler http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/catsthatlooklikehitler.com where you can view pictures of cats that have the unfortunate distinction of looking like feline versions of the notorious WW2 genocidal maniac. It has a rank of 979,433 and 4 daily page views per visitor.
So I can say this without exaggeration since I have the hard numbers to prove it, poop is 3 times more popular than your site and cats that look like hitler are twice as popular as your site.
This is epic....^^^^....I mean really epic...I want to use other words to describe this but just can't...
I mean seriously crutonius...what do you want for Christmas, I will send it...you most certainly deserve it. I surely will be using these facts in the future, and the issuing comparison that blossom from said facts.
Also who wants to bet that one person per day is Anders himself....that actually means he doesn't average even a whole person per day ha ha ha
-
I was the one visitor per day for a week or so :-/. Actually two or three times per day so I most likely bumped his average up.
Nice work Crutonius.
So I can say this without exaggeration since I have the hard numbers to prove it, poop is 3 times more popular than your site and cats that look like hitler are twice as popular as your site.
-
Heiwa, your website IS rather lame, I have to agree. I explain how below.
The more I read, the more I felt I was just being led on. I explain the details below.
I kept reading farther and farther down, expecting to see the bombshell, but never saw anything. I explain this in further detail below.
That's what it's like reading your stories.
Well, that's your opinion. If you visit my website you see a little box at bottom left with numbers, e.g. 2230000. It means that it has been downloaded 2.23 million times since I put the box there. Yesterday I had >600 visitors downloading >900 pages, so it looks I am popular.
The most popular page is about the space travel hoax followed by the atomic bomb hoax. So I see no reason to change anything.
-
Don't mistake laughter for applause.
Mostly it's this:
(https://m0.joe.ie/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/19150046/FreakPointing.jpg)
-
Heiwi, I'm going to tell you something that's going to sound a little offensive but I promise I'm not trolling you here and you need to hear it. Ready:
Your web site sucks.
Sorry - my web site http://heiwaco.com is very nice and popular. Of course the design is from the past century but the content is up to date 27 October 2016.
This statement is demonstrably false.
First off it looks terrible. Everyone agrees on that.
Second. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/heiwaco.com Your global rank is 15,869,460. Your site has 1.7 daily page views per visitor.
Let's put those numbers into perspective. This is the alexa ranking of a website called ratemypoo in which you can rate other peoples poo on a scale from 1 to 10 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ratemypoo.com It has a rank of 370,744. It draw 5.8 daily page views per visitor.
Here are the stats for a site called catsthatlooklikehitler http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/catsthatlooklikehitler.com where you can view pictures of cats that have the unfortunate distinction of looking like feline versions of the notorious WW2 genocidal maniac. It has a rank of 979,433 and 4 daily page views per visitor.
So I can say this without exaggeration since I have the hard numbers to prove it, poop is 3 times more popular than your site and cats that look like hitler are twice as popular as your site.
This is epic....^^^^....I mean really epic...I want to use other words to describe this but just can't...
I mean seriously crutonius...what do you want for Christmas, I will send it...you most certainly deserve it. I surely will be using these facts in the future, and the issuing comparison that blossom from said facts.
Also who wants to bet that one person per day is Anders himself....that actually means he doesn't average even a whole person per day ha ha ha
I was the one visitor per day for a week or so :-/. Actually two or three times per day so I most likely bumped his average up.
Nice work Crutonius.
So I can say this without exaggeration since I have the hard numbers to prove it, poop is 3 times more popular than your site and cats that look like hitler are twice as popular as your site.
Thanks everyone.
Heiwa, your website IS rather lame, I have to agree. I explain how below.
The more I read, the more I felt I was just being led on. I explain the details below.
I kept reading farther and farther down, expecting to see the bombshell, but never saw anything. I explain this in further detail below.
That's what it's like reading your stories.
Well, that's your opinion. If you visit my website you see a little box at bottom left with numbers, e.g. 2230000. It means that it has been downloaded 2.23 million times since I put the box there. Yesterday I had >600 visitors downloading >900 pages, so it looks I am popular.
The most popular page is about the space travel hoax followed by the atomic bomb hoax. So I see no reason to change anything.
poop
-
Heiwi, I'm going to tell you something that's going to sound a little offensive but I promise I'm not trolling you here and you need to hear it. Ready:
Your web site sucks.
Sorry - my web site http://heiwaco.com is very nice and popular. Of course the design is from the past century but the content is up to date 27 October 2016.
This statement is demonstrably false.
First off it looks terrible. Everyone agrees on that.
Second. http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/heiwaco.com Your global rank is 15,869,460. Your site has 1.7 daily page views per visitor.
Let's put those numbers into perspective. This is the alexa ranking of a website called ratemypoo in which you can rate other peoples poo on a scale from 1 to 10 http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ratemypoo.com It has a rank of 370,744. It draw 5.8 daily page views per visitor.
Here are the stats for a site called catsthatlooklikehitler http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/catsthatlooklikehitler.com where you can view pictures of cats that have the unfortunate distinction of looking like feline versions of the notorious WW2 genocidal maniac. It has a rank of 979,433 and 4 daily page views per visitor.
So I can say this without exaggeration since I have the hard numbers to prove it, poop is 3 times more popular than your site and cats that look like hitler are twice as popular as your site.
This is epic....^^^^....I mean really epic...I want to use other words to describe this but just can't...
I mean seriously crutonius...what do you want for Christmas, I will send it...you most certainly deserve it. I surely will be using these facts in the future, and the issuing comparison that blossom from said facts.
Also who wants to bet that one person per day is Anders himself....that actually means he doesn't average even a whole person per day ha ha ha
I was the one visitor per day for a week or so :-/. Actually two or three times per day so I most likely bumped his average up.
Nice work Crutonius.
So I can say this without exaggeration since I have the hard numbers to prove it, poop is 3 times more popular than your site and cats that look like hitler are twice as popular as your site.
Thanks everyone.
Heiwa, your website IS rather lame, I have to agree. I explain how below.
The more I read, the more I felt I was just being led on. I explain the details below.
I kept reading farther and farther down, expecting to see the bombshell, but never saw anything. I explain this in further detail below.
That's what it's like reading your stories.
Well, that's your opinion. If you visit my website you see a little box at bottom left with numbers, e.g. 2230000. It means that it has been downloaded 2.23 million times since I put the box there. Yesterday I had >600 visitors downloading >900 pages, so it looks I am popular.
The most popular page is about the space travel hoax followed by the atomic bomb hoax. So I see no reason to change anything.
poop
pooh
-
Heiwa, your website IS rather lame, I have to agree. I explain how below.
The more I read, the more I felt I was just being led on. I explain the details below.
I kept reading farther and farther down, expecting to see the bombshell, but never saw anything. I explain this in further detail below.
That's what it's like reading your stories.
Well, that's your opinion. If you visit my website you see a little box at bottom left with numbers, e.g. 2230000. It means that it has been downloaded 2.23 million times since I put the box there. Yesterday I had >600 visitors downloading >900 pages, so it looks I am popular.
The most popular page is about the space travel hoax followed by the atomic bomb hoax. So I see no reason to change anything.
Ok, so I read through the nuclear hoax part of your website, FYI people here are right, it's a pretty bad website, things that look like links aren't, there's random colors etc, anyway, you don't actually give any evidence at all it's a hoax.
You simply say it's unbelievable. You point out all the people who say it's true and call them either duped or liars. You even say, if I recall correctly, that the scientists who worked on the fake started to believe their own work and then went on to teach it.
Your four pieces of evidence, as best as I can weed out from your website;
1. Soviets build a bomb. Your explanation here seems to be, it's propaganda and fake. No evidence, just you claiming that you can't believe it.
2. Somebody you knew a little told you not to go into physics and decided he would not work on an atomic weapon for Sweden unless they would publish publicly how to build said nuclear weapon. Understandably they did not want to do this. Notice that you never say he claimed they were fake.
3. Iran claims they don't want to build an a bomb, U.S. claims they do. I don't really see how that's even remotely relevant.
4. Mushroom clouds. Again, this seems to be just you saying you don't understand it so it can't be true. I don't really know anything about nukes but I can think of a couple of possibilities. Like, they are not 100% effecient so they don't produce pure energy, whatever you mean by that. They do create a fireball which burns and forces all of the air out of an area, which pretty quickly rushes back in carrying all the smoke and particulates created on the fringes of the super heated ares. To my mind that would explain a mushroom cloud, but that is only a guess on my part.
The rest of your page on this seems to be mostly you saying it can't happen. No evidence, no math, no physics, just you saying it's not possible. Somehow in your mind that seems to make it a fact.
If I have missed any actual evidence I will be happy to look at it if you will post a more direct link or the evidence itself on here, but honestly it's way too much trouble groping around your website trying to find any actual facts.
-
Heiwa, your website IS rather lame, I have to agree. I explain how below.
The more I read, the more I felt I was just being led on. I explain the details below.
I kept reading farther and farther down, expecting to see the bombshell, but never saw anything. I explain this in further detail below.
That's what it's like reading your stories.
Well, that's your opinion. If you visit my website you see a little box at bottom left with numbers, e.g. 2230000. It means that it has been downloaded 2.23 million times since I put the box there. Yesterday I had >600 visitors downloading >900 pages, so it looks I am popular.
The most popular page is about the space travel hoax followed by the atomic bomb hoax. So I see no reason to change anything.
-cut-
The rest of your page on this seems to be mostly you saying it can't happen. No evidence, no math, no physics, just you saying it's not possible. Somehow in your mind that seems to make it a fact.
If I have missed any actual evidence I will be happy to look at it if you will post a more direct link or the evidence itself on here, but honestly it's way too much trouble groping around your website trying to find any actual facts.
He does use math at some points, like here:
An a-bomb does not work because a nuclear, exponential chain reaction of Uranium 235, U235, resulting in sudden release of pure energy is not possible and against the Laws of Nature. I explain why below.
There were 61 kg (critical mass of a slab of Uranium 235, U235, metal) or about 4x1026 or 400.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 Uranium-235 (U235) atoms, we were told, in the very heavy 4.400 (!) kg Hiroshima a-bomb 1945 (equivalent to 15 kilo ton of TNT), i.e. only 1.4% of the a-bomb was material that could explode.
Only 1.5% of the 1.4% or 6x1024 or 600.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 U235 atoms thus actually fissioned or split releasing energy (equivalent to 15.000 ton of TNT exploding), when the bomb allegedly exploded and released pure energy (and not gas of burnt TNT). Read below of further details of the very, very heavy, US a-bomb with only 61 kg U235 inside and how it allegedly exploded 6 August 1945 and killed mostly civilians and children and destroyed little of military value. Every time an Uranium-235 (U235) atom fissions, there is a small FIREBALL. So when an a-bomb explodes there are 6x1024 FIREBALLS making one big FIREBALL.
Admire also my total weight only 80 kg Björkman's a-bomb (left) that can be hidden in a bag to fool US Department of Homeland Security & Co. I describe it in detail below. You only need 61 kg of U235 to destroy Hiroshima and it is easily accomplished in the bag left. Will it work? Evidently not.
It is suggested that total 600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 U235 atoms in the 1945 US created bomb during some nano-seconds split exponentially 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64,128 (or 1, 3, 9, 27, 81, 243 ...) ... ~300 000 000 000 000 000 000 000, ~600 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 U235 atoms into ~1 200 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 other, smaller atoms (fractions) by free, evil neutrons flying around at 3% of the speed of light and in the process released pure energy producing 6x1024 FIREBALLS making one big FIREBALL killing children and others and destroying all houses at Hiroshima except some - see below. And that the fast free neutrons missed 98.5% of the U235 atoms leaving 394.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 U235 atoms in the bomb not fissioned. All is fantasy!
The above fantasy can be tested in a laboratory!
-
Heiwa, your website IS rather lame, I have to agree. I explain how below.
The more I read, the more I felt I was just being led on. I explain the details below.
I kept reading farther and farther down, expecting to see the bombshell, but never saw anything. I explain this in further detail below.
That's what it's like reading your stories.
Well, that's your opinion. If you visit my website you see a little box at bottom left with numbers, e.g. 2230000. It means that it has been downloaded 2.23 million times since I put the box there. Yesterday I had >600 visitors downloading >900 pages, so it looks I am popular.
The most popular page is about the space travel hoax followed by the atomic bomb hoax. So I see no reason to change anything.
Ok, so I read through the nuclear hoax part of your website, FYI people here are right, it's a pretty bad website, things that look like links aren't, there's random colors etc, anyway, you don't actually give any evidence at all it's a hoax.
You simply say it's unbelievable. You point out all the people who say it's true and call them either duped or liars. You even say, if I recall correctly, that the scientists who worked on the fake started to believe their own work and then went on to teach it.
Your four pieces of evidence, as best as I can weed out from your website;
1. Soviets build a bomb. Your explanation here seems to be, it's propaganda and fake. No evidence, just you claiming that you can't believe it.
2. Somebody you knew a little told you not to go into physics and decided he would not work on an atomic weapon for Sweden unless they would publish publicly how to build said nuclear weapon. Understandably they did not want to do this. Notice that you never say he claimed they were fake.
3. Iran claims they don't want to build an a bomb, U.S. claims they do. I don't really see how that's even remotely relevant.
4. Mushroom clouds. Again, this seems to be just you saying you don't understand it so it can't be true. I don't really know anything about nukes but I can think of a couple of possibilities. Like, they are not 100% effecient so they don't produce pure energy, whatever you mean by that. They do create a fireball which burns and forces all of the air out of an area, which pretty quickly rushes back in carrying all the smoke and particulates created on the fringes of the super heated ares. To my mind that would explain a mushroom cloud, but that is only a guess on my part.
The rest of your page on this seems to be mostly you saying it can't happen. No evidence, no math, no physics, just you saying it's not possible. Somehow in your mind that seems to make it a fact.
If I have missed any actual evidence I will be happy to look at it if you will post a more direct link or the evidence itself on here, but honestly it's way too much trouble groping around your website trying to find any actual facts.
Thanks for visiting my web site http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So what is wrong with:
American and European nuclear scientists say since 1945 that atomic bombs work and media transmit the message. All info about nuclear testing is propaganda! According Wikipedia (before it was modified August 2016) there are two types of nuclear fission: One type produces pure energy (actually steam) at nuclear power plants under moderated conditions and another, very nasty type drives the instantaneous explosion FLASH of a nuclear weapon that lasts some nanoseconds and kills and radiates innocent people
But the second type is pure pseudoscience to scare you and a BIG JOKE explained below.
So are there two types of fission?
One moderated type used in power plants and another not moderated type that transforms metal into energy and a mushroom cloud in a FLASH?
So how do you trigger the second type?
-
What happened to your upside down evil eyed Anders avatar? That was fun
-
What happened to your upside down evil eyed Anders avatar? That was fun
+1
Explained why below.
-
Let's do an experiment. I say
buckeT weapons are fake
If I don't post again, I suppose we might just have to believ Heiwa, especially cobsidering I live in the US.
-
What happened to your upside down evil eyed Anders avatar? That was fun
I'll explain why below.
Hey look a cow!
-
An excellent summary of a terrible website. A couple of additions I would mention:
2. Somebody you knew a little told you not to go into physics and decided he would not work on an atomic weapon for Sweden unless they would publish publicly how to build said nuclear weapon. Understandably they did not want to do this. Notice that you never say he claimed they were fake.[/quote]
To be honest, it is someone he claims he knows (but hasn't proved it) who actually did work on Sweden's nuclear programme at a very high managerial level, but wasn't actually involved in the physics - it wasn't his specialism. There was a general concern in Sweden's academic community about the secrecy involved in the programme. Nowhere have I seen it written that he refused to work on the programme because of that secrecy. I have seen it written that he did not believe such a weapon was possible, but this was before one was actually exploded and as is well documented, he is not a nuclear fission expert.
4. Mushroom clouds. Again, this seems to be just you saying you don't understand it so it can't be true. I don't really know anything about nukes but I can think of a couple of possibilities. Like, they are not 100% effecient so they don't produce pure energy, whatever you mean by that. They do create a fireball which burns and forces all of the air out of an area, which pretty quickly rushes back in carrying all the smoke and particulates created on the fringes of the super heated ares. To my mind that would explain a mushroom cloud, but that is only a guess on my part.
Your summary of how a dirty mushroom cloud is created is exactly correct. The physics involved in generating a mushroom cloud for atomic weapons is exactly the same as for any other explosive. Pretty much any explosion will generate a mushroom cloud under the right circumstances. This is absolutely not the same as saying that conventional explosives are used to simulate an atomic explosion.
-
An excellent summary of a terrible website. A couple of additions I would mention:
2. Somebody you knew a little told you not to go into physics and decided he would not work on an atomic weapon for Sweden unless they would publish publicly how to build said nuclear weapon. Understandably they did not want to do this. Notice that you never say he claimed they were fake.
To be honest, it is someone he claims he knows (but hasn't proved it) who actually did work on Sweden's nuclear programme at a very high managerial level, but wasn't actually involved in the physics - it wasn't his specialism. There was a general concern in Sweden's academic community about the secrecy involved in the programme. Nowhere have I seen it written that he refused to work on the programme because of that secrecy. I have seen it written that he did not believe such a weapon was possible, but this was before one was actually exploded and as is well documented, he is not a nuclear fission expert.
4. Mushroom clouds. Again, this seems to be just you saying you don't understand it so it can't be true. I don't really know anything about nukes but I can think of a couple of possibilities. Like, they are not 100% effecient so they don't produce pure energy, whatever you mean by that. They do create a fireball which burns and forces all of the air out of an area, which pretty quickly rushes back in carrying all the smoke and particulates created on the fringes of the super heated ares. To my mind that would explain a mushroom cloud, but that is only a guess on my part.
Your summary of how a dirty mushroom cloud is created is exactly correct. The physics involved in generating a mushroom cloud for atomic weapons is exactly the same as for any other explosive. Pretty much any explosion will generate a mushroom cloud under the right circumstances. This is absolutely not the same as saying that conventional explosives are used to simulate an atomic explosion.
Manne Siegbahn was Swedish Nobel prize winner physics 1924 and created his own laboratory at Stockholm. Manne was a good friend of my grandfather, their children knew each other and I was a friend of one grandson J living at Manne's house say 1960-64. As I was and am very intelligent, I considered physics as a career 1964 and mentioned it to Manne. Career? Low paid teacher jobs, few jobs in industry according Manne. Only idiots design nuclear weapons and rockets to go into space in Sweden! Look at the physicists at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sthlm, doing that! All eggheads! Do something else, Manne indicated to me.
Later I found out that Manne had been asked by the government to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public. So Manne didn't get the job as it was just nonsense propaganda based on secret lies. He had his own laboratory and was his own boss but got $1M from Rockefeller to shut up. Niels Bohr was another friend of the family and had assisted building the fake US bomb in New Mexico, 1943/5. Poor Niels was considered a war criminal by some of my family. Imagine assisting building a thing that in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds kills 10 000's of onnocent, civilian human beings. And Niels could never explain how the famous FLASH was triggered! Suddenly compressing metal to double density? If he had suggested it 1945/6 he would have been considered a fool! No, Niels was just part of the hoax. He learnt to ski in New Mexico, it was about all. And in the end he could never describe what a uranium atom was and what happened when it fissioned (disovered by Otto Hahn 1938). Or why it would produce a mushroom cloud.
Fission is just an uranium metal atom splitting in two parts releasing neutrons and pure energy. Fission must be moderated to do fission. Without moderation the metal atoms just melt and the fission stops. That a big block of of pure metal uranium can fission and create a FLASH and a mushroom cloud are just stupid propaganda! Invented by FDR and Stalin 1942/5. Both sick persons.
But plenty sick people carry on the lies and the propaganda today. It is big biz. I describe the magic trick at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm , which is against a famous US law about it.
By chance I met 1999 a person that had built Stalin's a-bombs 1946-1958 using uranium produced by Wismut AG in the Soviet occupied zone of Germany. But Wismut AG didn't produce any uranium at all! It was just propaganda to enable Stalin to announce that his bomb produced a FLASH and mushroom cloud April 1949. It was just communist propaganda. Stalin (and USSR) never had any a-bombs!
Just check a sample of Wismut AG uranium ore today! It is pechblende that contains 0.02% uranium oxide. The 99.98% rest is just rocks of various kind, granite, quartz, stone. You couldn't build an a-bomb or anything with it.
-
Yes....fission must be moderated for it to continue. I agree...so would every nuclear designer and scientist. Thus is the name of the game in nuclear bombs. Enrich the shit out of the uranium, pound it together, and try to keep it together as long as possible. Every Nanosecond counts...
That is why designs of the uranium/plutonium core and neutron base kept changing through the years. Why the first "shotgun" design such was used in Japan was so inefficient, also why it was so "dirty".
Also why thermonuclear designs need fission's original compression to even hold a fusion reaction for even a few nanoseconds.
You do understand there is no comparison between weapons grade enriched uranium/plutonium right? Put some 97 percent enriched uranium in a core...watch everyone run for their life and be on the news for a month. Control rods be damned.
I was and am very intelligent
You know 99 percent of people that tell me they are rich...don't have a pot to piss in.
99 percent of people that tell me they are honest are not.
99 percent of people that tell me they are the best, can barely hold a candle to the worst.
99 percent of people that say they are " religious " are just performing mouth service.
You see where I am going here....? Or maybe it will take an "egg head" to figure it out. ::)
-
You know 99 percent of people that tell me they are rich...don't have a pot to piss in.
99 percent of people that tell me they are honest are not.
99 percent of people that tell me they are the best, can barely hold a candle to the worst.
99 percent of people that say they are " religious " are just performing mouth service.
You see where I am going here....? Or maybe it will take an "egg head" to figure it out. ::)
Baby, you are ... a baby! Haven't you understood I belong to the one percent that you say you are in contact with? Why do you talk to and waste your time with the 99 pct poor, pot pissing, dishonest, worst, "religious" people that you socialize with? What do you get in return?
You must be living in some hell of a place! Is it the USA? Texas?
-
An excellent summary of a terrible website. A couple of additions I would mention:
2. Somebody you knew a little told you not to go into physics and decided he would not work on an atomic weapon for Sweden unless they would publish publicly how to build said nuclear weapon. Understandably they did not want to do this. Notice that you never say he claimed they were fake.
To be honest, it is someone he claims he knows (but hasn't proved it) who actually did work on Sweden's nuclear programme at a very high managerial level, but wasn't actually involved in the physics - it wasn't his specialism. There was a general concern in Sweden's academic community about the secrecy involved in the programme. Nowhere have I seen it written that he refused to work on the programme because of that secrecy. I have seen it written that he did not believe such a weapon was possible, but this was before one was actually exploded and as is well documented, he is not a nuclear fission expert.
4. Mushroom clouds. Again, this seems to be just you saying you don't understand it so it can't be true. I don't really know anything about nukes but I can think of a couple of possibilities. Like, they are not 100% effecient so they don't produce pure energy, whatever you mean by that. They do create a fireball which burns and forces all of the air out of an area, which pretty quickly rushes back in carrying all the smoke and particulates created on the fringes of the super heated ares. To my mind that would explain a mushroom cloud, but that is only a guess on my part.
Your summary of how a dirty mushroom cloud is created is exactly correct. The physics involved in generating a mushroom cloud for atomic weapons is exactly the same as for any other explosive. Pretty much any explosion will generate a mushroom cloud under the right circumstances. This is absolutely not the same as saying that conventional explosives are used to simulate an atomic explosion.
Manne Siegbahn was Swedish Nobel prize winner physics 1924 and created his own laboratory at Stockholm. Manne was a good friend of my grandfather, their children knew each other and I was a friend of one grandson J living at Manne's house say 1960-64. As I was and am very intelligent, I considered physics as a career 1964 and mentioned it to Manne. Career? Low paid teacher jobs, few jobs in industry according Manne. Only idiots design nuclear weapons and rockets to go into space in Sweden! Look at the physicists at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sthlm, doing that! All eggheads! Do something else, Manne indicated to me.
Later I found out that Manne had been asked by the government to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public. So Manne didn't get the job as it was just nonsense propaganda based on secret lies. He had his own laboratory and was his own boss but got $1M from Rockefeller to shut up. Niels Bohr was another friend of the family and had assisted building the fake US bomb in New Mexico, 1943/5. Poor Niels was considered a war criminal by some of my family. Imagine assisting building a thing that in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds kills 10 000's of onnocent, civilian human beings. And Niels could never explain how the famous FLASH was triggered! Suddenly compressing metal to double density? If he had suggested it 1945/6 he would have been considered a fool! No, Niels was just part of the hoax. He learnt to ski in New Mexico, it was about all. And in the end he could never describe what a uranium atom was and what happened when it fissioned (disovered by Otto Hahn 1938). Or why it would produce a mushroom cloud.
Fission is just an uranium metal atom splitting in two parts releasing neutrons and pure energy. Fission must be moderated to do fission. Without moderation the metal atoms just melt and the fission stops. That a big block of of pure metal uranium can fission and create a FLASH and a mushroom cloud are just stupid propaganda! Invented by FDR and Stalin 1942/5. Both sick persons.
But plenty sick people carry on the lies and the propaganda today. It is big biz. I describe the magic trick at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm , which is against a famous US law about it.
By chance I met 1999 a person that had built Stalin's a-bombs 1946-1958 using uranium produced by Wismut AG in the Soviet occupied zone of Germany. But Wismut AG didn't produce any uranium at all! It was just propaganda to enable Stalin to announce that his bomb produced a FLASH and mushroom cloud April 1949. It was just communist propaganda. Stalin (and USSR) never had any a-bombs!
Just check a sample of Wismut AG uranium ore today! It is pechblende that contains 0.02% uranium oxide. The 99.98% rest is just rocks of various kind, granite, quartz, stone. You couldn't build an a-bomb or anything with it.
Enough pipe dream talk. Where is the scientific evidence that the bombs don't work?
-
You know 99 percent of people that tell me they are rich...don't have a pot to piss in.
99 percent of people that tell me they are honest are not.
99 percent of people that tell me they are the best, can barely hold a candle to the worst.
99 percent of people that say they are " religious " are just performing mouth service.
You see where I am going here....? Or maybe it will take an "egg head" to figure it out. ::)
Baby, you are ... a baby! Haven't you understood I belong to the one percent that you say you are in contact with? Why do you talk to and waste your time with the 99 pct poor, pot pissing, dishonest, worst, "religious" people that you socialize with? What do you get in return?
You must be living in some hell of a place! Is it the USA? Texas?
If you are as intelligent as you say then you should know I am from Texas, I have been quite clear with that. Yes, my tax bracket would have me in such a place....so? Why do I associate with the "peeons" in your words?
It's because I am one lol...I came from nothing(literally was raised in a mobile home off a nasty lake), built to what I did for my family not me, now that I dont have the family anymore I don't care. Money never mattered a lick to me. As long as I have a bed, food, and clothes I am good. Which is why the shadow of my former self is covered in layers of dust in multiple buildings.
Plus the "one percenters" are in average (not all) a terrible bunch of people I want nothing to do with unless it involves business dealings. I have no interest in their views on life, existence, what they consider the motivating factor of living, moral compass etc.
Also, lying and shitty morals is more prevalent in that social circle than anywhere else. Oh...and fyi, you can have a high income and be broke at the same time. Just ask an old customer of mine, 800k a year, living pay check to paycheck. Usually with maybe a 1000 dollars in his account if he were lucky.
::) At this thread
-
Where is the scientific evidence that the bombs don't work?
Well, I present some at my web site http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . They may not be scientific but plenty people like them. I use common sense and clear thinking.
The scientific evidence that a-bombs work is all top military secrets to protect the security of the USA. There is no peer reviewed scientific report showing how a small amount of metal uranium can be transformed inte a FLASH of pure energy in nano-seconds.
I know FDR did it 1945 and his buddy Stalin did it 1949.
IMHO it seems they just faked it.
Are you a stalinist believing in Stalin?
-
An excellent summary of a terrible website. A couple of additions I would mention:
2. Somebody you knew a little told you not to go into physics and decided he would not work on an atomic weapon for Sweden unless they would publish publicly how to build said nuclear weapon. Understandably they did not want to do this. Notice that you never say he claimed they were fake.
To be honest, it is someone he claims he knows (but hasn't proved it) who actually did work on Sweden's nuclear programme at a very high managerial level, but wasn't actually involved in the physics - it wasn't his specialism. There was a general concern in Sweden's academic community about the secrecy involved in the programme. Nowhere have I seen it written that he refused to work on the programme because of that secrecy. I have seen it written that he did not believe such a weapon was possible, but this was before one was actually exploded and as is well documented, he is not a nuclear fission expert.
4. Mushroom clouds. Again, this seems to be just you saying you don't understand it so it can't be true. I don't really know anything about nukes but I can think of a couple of possibilities. Like, they are not 100% effecient so they don't produce pure energy, whatever you mean by that. They do create a fireball which burns and forces all of the air out of an area, which pretty quickly rushes back in carrying all the smoke and particulates created on the fringes of the super heated ares. To my mind that would explain a mushroom cloud, but that is only a guess on my part.
Your summary of how a dirty mushroom cloud is created is exactly correct. The physics involved in generating a mushroom cloud for atomic weapons is exactly the same as for any other explosive. Pretty much any explosion will generate a mushroom cloud under the right circumstances. This is absolutely not the same as saying that conventional explosives are used to simulate an atomic explosion.
Manne Siegbahn was Swedish Nobel prize winner physics 1924 and created his own laboratory at Stockholm. Manne was a good friend of my grandfather, their children knew each other and I was a friend of one grandson J living at Manne's house say 1960-64. As I was and am very intelligent, I considered physics as a career 1964 and mentioned it to Manne. Career? Low paid teacher jobs, few jobs in industry according Manne. Only idiots design nuclear weapons and rockets to go into space in Sweden! Look at the physicists at the Royal Institute of Technology, Sthlm, doing that! All eggheads! Do something else, Manne indicated to me.
Later I found out that Manne had been asked by the government to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public. So Manne didn't get the job as it was just nonsense propaganda based on secret lies. He had his own laboratory and was his own boss but got $1M from Rockefeller to shut up. Niels Bohr was another friend of the family and had assisted building the fake US bomb in New Mexico, 1943/5. Poor Niels was considered a war criminal by some of my family. Imagine assisting building a thing that in a FLASH that lasts nano-seconds kills 10 000's of onnocent, civilian human beings. And Niels could never explain how the famous FLASH was triggered! Suddenly compressing metal to double density? If he had suggested it 1945/6 he would have been considered a fool! No, Niels was just part of the hoax. He learnt to ski in New Mexico, it was about all. And in the end he could never describe what a uranium atom was and what happened when it fissioned (disovered by Otto Hahn 1938). Or why it would produce a mushroom cloud.
Fission is just an uranium metal atom splitting in two parts releasing neutrons and pure energy. Fission must be moderated to do fission. Without moderation the metal atoms just melt and the fission stops. That a big block of of pure metal uranium can fission and create a FLASH and a mushroom cloud are just stupid propaganda! Invented by FDR and Stalin 1942/5. Both sick persons.
But plenty sick people carry on the lies and the propaganda today. It is big biz. I describe the magic trick at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm , which is against a famous US law about it.
By chance I met 1999 a person that had built Stalin's a-bombs 1946-1958 using uranium produced by Wismut AG in the Soviet occupied zone of Germany. But Wismut AG didn't produce any uranium at all! It was just propaganda to enable Stalin to announce that his bomb produced a FLASH and mushroom cloud April 1949. It was just communist propaganda. Stalin (and USSR) never had any a-bombs!
Just check a sample of Wismut AG uranium ore today! It is pechblende that contains 0.02% uranium oxide. The 99.98% rest is just rocks of various kind, granite, quartz, stone. You couldn't build an a-bomb or anything with it.
But see this is the same thing. You are simply claiming it can't work, nothing more. You point out how even more people are in on the conspiracy. No evidence to actually support what you are saying. You simply claim it's propaganda. Anyone can claim anything.
-
[sarcasm] He doesn't need evidence. He is the infallible Heiwa! Have you seen his website? Anyone that doesn't believe him must be a twerp! By the way he's a really nice guy even though he calls all those that disagree with him names or implies they have mental issues. Have you seen his website? By the way, be sure to check out his website! He must be right because he's been sentenced to death without a trial under a law that references classified information when has had access to none! How does he know he's been sentenced to death? Because he says so! Have you seen his website? [/sarcasm] ::)
-
Don't forget he is also a one percenter who lives in government funded housing.....
He is also brave......oh so brave!
-
Just check a sample of Wismut AG uranium ore today! It is pechblende that contains 0.02% uranium oxide. The 99.98% rest is just rocks of various kind, granite, quartz, stone. You couldn't build an a-bomb or anything with it.
Do you understand the concept of processing, refining and purifying mineral ores? Gold miners would be quote happy to get .02% out of what they dig.
-
Just check a sample of Wismut AG uranium ore today! It is pechblende that contains 0.02% uranium oxide. The 99.98% rest is just rocks of various kind, granite, quartz, stone. You couldn't build an a-bomb or anything with it.
Do you understand the concept of processing, refining and purifying mineral ores? Gold miners would be quote happy to get .02% out of what they dig.
Yes, I know. You crush the ore mechanically into small bits and heat them and treat them with accids, etc, etc, to extract the metal as a salt and treat the salt until you get the pure metal, which you then refine to get some fissile metal (uranium 235) which, if you compress it to double density with a free neutron in between, then it produces this famous brilliant, white FLASH that evaporates people, apart from forming a dirty, black mushroom cloud rising into the stratosphere - to be photographed. And Stalin did it 1945/9? In Siberia! With ore from Erzgebirge, Saxony.
Please, give me a break! You sound like a stalinist!
-
Anyone can claim anything.
Yes, the Manhattan project leaders claimed 1945 that they had exploded or triggered to explode three a-bombs by compressing metal to double density (!) with a neutron in between producing these famous FLASHES we are told have been seen and heard and Stalin claimed he copied it 1949 with Wismut AG ore. I show that it was just war propaganda. According a US law it is restricted info punishable by death if disseminated.
But it is just a joke. LOL!
-
Anyone can claim anything.
Yes, the Manhattan project leaders claimed 1945 that they had exploded or triggered to explode three a-bombs by compressing metal to double density (!) with a neutron in between producing these famous FLASHES we are told have been seen and heard and Stalin claimed he copied it 1949 with Wismut AG ore. I show that it was just war propaganda. According a US law it is restricted info punishable by death if disseminated.
But it is just a joke. LOL!
More lies from Heiwa. You know very well that they are talking about disseminating classified info which you have not had access to. Making a claim that it is fake does not fill that requirement. You only repeatedly make it to make yourself appear more important than you are. That and you're a pathological liar.
-
Hey guys. I am totally still alive. There is no way that we hacked his account or anything like that. See? We don't care about people spreading misinformation.
-
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
We only have ourselves to be mad at.....he announces every post what he is.
You cannot make a turd smell like a rose no matter how much perfume you spray around it.
-
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
We only have ourselves to be mad at.....he announces every post what he is.
You cannot make a turd smell like a rose no matter how much perfume you spray around it.
Well, the quote is by some Swedish government twerps about me after a Swedish daily newspaper published an article of mine 15 August 1996 about the M/S Estonia not sinking due to alleged losing its bow visor. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/disasterinvestigation.htm .
So governments lie about a-bombs, human space travel and re-entries, M/S Estonia and 911 collapses and make ridiculous claims of all kind that are quite easy to reveal as false!
Don't blame me - I just suggest that the music and the musicians are not very good. If you fake something, better use professionals and not government idiots supported by media.
-
Debating with you reminds me of chess with a pigeon.
No matter how well anyone plays, you are gonna knock over the pieces, shit all over the board, and strut around like you won.
-
Debating with you reminds me of chess with a pigeon.
No matter how well anyone plays, you are gonna knock over the pieces, shit all over the board, and strut around like you won.
You are wrong! 1996 I suggested something based on scientific facts and things I knew about - all in good faith - and the government immediately, same day, announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Everyone I know understood what it actually meant. Yes, the government lies but you better shut up or ... . Six months later, (February 1997) the government 'expert' having invented the false visor story and a friend of mine, BS, suddenly died. BS had already, a few months earlier, told me I had destroyed his life. Later more people involved suddenly died. Luckily I was far away in Egypt at the the time.
A little later some skyscrapers at NY collapsed from top down and I suggested something based on scientific facts and things I knew about and 'experts' of another government immediately announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Hadn't I heard it before?
Etc, etc.
-
Debating with you reminds me of chess with a pigeon.
No matter how well anyone plays, you are gonna knock over the pieces, shit all over the board, and strut around like you won.
A little later some skyscrapers at NY collapsed from top down and I suggested something based on scientific facts and things I knew about and 'experts' of another government immediately announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Hadn't I heard it before?
Etc, etc.
The difference is maths, physics and a reaonable percentage of engineers agrees with you on that one, your other two scams, not so much.
9/11 isn't even a conspiracy unless you buy into the holographic planes and or buildings.
Thinking a tower can fall at free fall for 2.75 seconds while still having any structure underneath it is just incorrect.
Stick to reptillians and moon hoaxes please, you are making truthers look stupid by proximity.
-
You are wrong! 1996 I suggested something based on scientific facts and things I knew about - all in good faith - and the government immediately, same day, announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Proof, or it didn't happen. If you search for that phrase in either English or Swedish the only person saying it seems to be you. Your own website implies that it wasn't actually you specifically that was labelled as such, but people in general who share your views about the sinking of the Estonia (not nuclear weapons, not Apollo, just this issue).
So show us that you specifically were named and shamed by the Swedish Government.
I know nothing about ships and engineering, so I am not going to comment on the Estonia. I'd advise you to take the same approach over your other interests, because your lack of understanding and inability to research and grasp simple concepts about those tars your professional reputation on other matters.
-
You are wrong! 1996 I suggested something based on scientific facts and things I knew about - all in good faith - and the government immediately, same day, announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Proof, or it didn't happen. If you search for that phrase in either English or Swedish the only person saying it seems to be you. Your own website implies that it wasn't actually you specifically that was labelled as such, but people in general who share your views about the sinking of the Estonia (not nuclear weapons, not Apollo, just this issue).
So show us that you specifically were named and shamed by the Swedish Government.
I know nothing about ships and engineering, so I am not going to comment on the Estonia. I'd advise you to take the same approach over your other interests, because your lack of understanding and inability to research and grasp simple concepts about those tars your professional reputation on other matters.
Of course it happened! My article was published 15 August 1996 in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN Debatt) with photo/name and all. Same day two government clowns issued a statement via news agency TT (Tidningarnas Telegrambyrà) to the effect that "Mr. Björkman was an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
No Swedish newspapers published this stupid government comment verbally but the gate keepers knew how to handle it.
The only reason that my article was published at all was that the DN gate keeper was on summer vaccation. I describe it in Swedish at my web site.
Re my professional reputation as an engineer/naval architect 1969-2016 it is impeccable. No faults ever! So monkey, your advice is worthless.
-
You are wrong! 1996 I suggested something based on scientific facts and things I knew about - all in good faith - and the government immediately, same day, announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Proof, or it didn't happen. If you search for that phrase in either English or Swedish the only person saying it seems to be you. Your own website implies that it wasn't actually you specifically that was labelled as such, but people in general who share your views about the sinking of the Estonia (not nuclear weapons, not Apollo, just this issue).
So show us that you specifically were named and shamed by the Swedish Government.
I know nothing about ships and engineering, so I am not going to comment on the Estonia. I'd advise you to take the same approach over your other interests, because your lack of understanding and inability to research and grasp simple concepts about those tars your professional reputation on other matters.
Of course it happened! My article was published 15 August 1996 in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter (DN Debatt) with photo/name and all. Same day two government clowns issued a statement via news agency TT (Tidningarnas Telegrambyrà) to the effect that "Mr. Björkman was an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
No Swedish newspapers published this stupid government comment verbally but the gate keepers knew how to handle it.
The only reason that my article was published at all was that the DN gate keeper was on summer vaccation. I describe it in Swedish at my web site.
Nope, all I see is words, I don't see in any proof of actual government involvement. This is the press article:
http://www.dn.se/arkiv/debatt/bogvisir-inte-haveriorsaken-skeppsbyggnadsingenjor-presenterar-ny-teori-om-estonias-forlisning/
I see nothing there about who has responded and with what words. "To the effect..." is not the same as "This is what was said". "Government clowns" doesn't cut it. I see no link to a press release of copies of the words they used, just you expecting people to take your word for it as usual. All it smacks of is the same delusional fantasy that makes you think you are under a death sentence for talking bullshit.
I would also add that, even if your interpretation of events in the sinking of the Estonia is correct and that there is official complicity in hiding it, this does not prove that any of the other conspiracies you accuse people of perpetrating are valid. The ability to determine what makes a boat sink or float does not automatically confer upon you the authority to speak with expertise on other matters - particularly when that expertise is woefully lacking.
That said...
Re my professional reputation as an engineer/naval architect 1969-2016 it is impeccable. No faults ever! So monkey, your advice is worthless.
I question your competency in being able to comment on the existence of nuclear weapons or the apollo missions. It makes me not want to sail on any boat you ever had anything to do with.
-
Anyone can claim anything.
Yes, the Manhattan project leaders claimed 1945 that they had exploded or triggered to explode three a-bombs by compressing metal to double density ... I show that it was just war propaganda. According a US law it is restricted info punishable by death if disseminated.
But it is just a joke. LOL!
But you don't show that. You just claim it. You just make the statement. And no, doing your own research and publishing those results is not punishable by death under US law.
-
Just check a sample of Wismut AG uranium ore today! It is pechblende that contains 0.02% uranium oxide. The 99.98% rest is just rocks of various kind, granite, quartz, stone. You couldn't build an a-bomb or anything with it.
Do you understand the concept of processing, refining and purifying mineral ores? Gold miners would be quote happy to get .02% out of what they dig.
Yes, I know. You crush the ore mechanically into small bits and heat them and treat them with accids, etc, etc, to extract the metal as a salt and treat the salt until you get the pure metal, which you then refine to get some fissile metal (uranium 235) which, if you compress it to double density with a free neutron in between, then it produces this famous brilliant, white FLASH that evaporates people, apart from forming a dirty, black mushroom cloud rising into the stratosphere - to be photographed. And Stalin did it 1945/9? In Siberia! With ore from Erzgebirge, Saxony.
Please, give me a break! You sound like a stalinist!
And you sound someone who has just barely enough brains to be dangerous, but not quite enough to be useful. The goal is not to double the density of the fissile material, but to achieve a critical mass of fissile material which results in a runway chain reaction. The amount of fissile material needed for critical mass can vary quite widely depending on size, shape and purity of the material, among other factors.
-
Anyone can claim anything.
Yes, the Manhattan project leaders claimed 1945 that they had exploded or triggered to explode three a-bombs by compressing metal to double density ... I show that it was just war propaganda. According a US law it is restricted info punishable by death if disseminated.
But it is just a joke. LOL!
But you don't show that. You just claim it. You just make the statement. And no, doing your own research and publishing those results is not punishable by death under US law.
Hm, everything was secret around the Manhattan project 1945. The project leaders made a lot of claims and media just copied/pasted/published what they were told and the public believed anything. A testing tower in the Alamogoredo desert was vaporized, etc, etc, but the ground below was not affected at all and so on. Nobody dared to ask the question how the thing was triggered. And then, later we were told that by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between there will be a FLASH and so on. Pure metal is transformed into pure energy and a mushroom cloud due to fission. LOL!
All restricted data is punished by death if shown to be incorrect.
I describe the hoax in detail at my web site. The Manhattan project leaders invented a fake type of fission 1945 and Stalin copied the idea. Fission does not work like that.
Fission only works in peaceful nuclear power plants.
-
You describe only arguments from incredulity on your website. YOU have not been sentenced to death.
-
And you sound someone who has just barely enough brains to be dangerous, but not quite enough to be useful. The goal is not to double the density of the fissile material, but to achieve a critical mass of fissile material which results in a runway chain reaction. The amount of fissile material needed for critical mass can vary quite widely depending on size, shape and purity of the material, among other factors.
A runway chain reaction! Doesn't exist. It is just an invention by criminal scientists and military as part of the hoax about nuclear weapons. Like all this nonsense about critical masses, etc, etc.
And noone can explain how you trigger it.
Reason is that you cannot trigger it.
-
You describe only arguments from incredulity on your website. YOU have not been sentenced to death.
Hm, if you disseminate restricted information about nuclear weapons you are sentenced to death. I explain more at my web site. It seems US law enforcement agencies are sleeping. All of them. I wonder why. Maybe reason is that nuclear weapons cannot explode?
-
You describe only arguments from incredulity on your website. YOU have not been sentenced to death.
Hm, if you dissiminate restricted information about nuclear weapons you are sentenced to death. I explain more at my web site. It seems US law enforcement agencies are sleeping. All of them. I wonder why. Maybe reason is that nuclear weapons cannot explode?
more lies from Heiwa. You have not disseminated restricted information, nor have you been sentenced to death. You can not point to any court proceeding ending with a sentence for you because it doesn't exist, nor will it ever. You continue to lie just to make yourself look more important. Nobody believes you though. You just end up looking sad and desperate.
-
Hm, everything was secret around the Manhattan project 1945.
There are lots of things that were secret in 1945 that are not secret today. How atomic bombs work is among them.
And you sound someone who has just barely enough brains to be dangerous, but not quite enough to be useful. The goal is not to double the density of the fissile material, but to achieve a critical mass of fissile material which results in a runway chain reaction. The amount of fissile material needed for critical mass can vary quite widely depending on size, shape and purity of the material, among other factors.
A runway chain reaction! Doesn't exist. It is just an invention by criminal scientists and military as part of the hoax about nuclear weapons. Like all this nonsense about critical masses, etc, etc.
Nope. They are things that every nuclear power plant operator needs to be concerned with.
And noone can explain how you trigger it.
Lots of people can explain how to trigger it. You just aren't able to accept the explanations.
Reason is that you cannot trigger it.
That's only because I don't have access to sufficient quantities of highly enriched fissile material.
-
Does any of these sound familiar?
I don't understand nuclear fission, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand gravity, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand the globe, so the earth is flat.
I don't understand satellite orbits, so satellites don't exist.
I don't understand the southern Circumpolar Stars, so they don't exist.
I don't understand space craft re-entry, so it is impossible.
I don't understand the gravity assist maneuver, so it is impossible.
Care to pin a name to any of them.
-
And noone can explain how you trigger it.
Lots of people can explain how to trigger it. You just aren't able to accept the explanations.
Hm, by mechanically compressing two bits of metal to double density with a neutron in between you trigger a runway chain reaction (fission) creating a FLASH and the metal becomes pure energy during some nano-seconds and finally a dity mushroom cloud is developed ... out of nothing.
Correct! I do not accept that nonsense as explanations.
No, fission discovered by Otto Hahn 1938 does not work like that. And there is no other type of fission incl. the runway chain reaction one.
-
Does any of these sound familiar?
I don't understand nuclear fission, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand gravity, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand the globe, so the earth is flat.
I don't understand satellite orbits, so satellites don't exist.
I don't understand the southern Circumpolar Stars, so they don't exist.
I don't understand space craft re-entry, so it is impossible.
I don't understand the gravity assist maneuver, so it is impossible.
Care to pin a name to any of them.
Heiwa understands nuclear fission discovered by Otto Hahn 1938.
Heiwa understands gravity as explained by Newton about 300 years ago.
Heiwa understands that planet Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun.
Heiwa understands that the Moon is a satellite orbiting Earth.
Heiwa is a shareholder of Airbus NV sending up satellites orbiting Earth.
Heiwa knows all about high speed space craft and satellite re-entries ending in all objects burning up.
Heiwa knows all about gravity assist maneuvers and that no space craft can be maneuvered close to a planet and be kicked anywhere.
Heiwa lives since 1980 in a luxurious flat owned by him. The flat overlooks the Mediterranean Sea.
Heiwa is intelligent and good looking and loves good jokes, good food and good wine.
-
й Heiwa не понимает русский, и я думаю, что он может быть тщеславным.
-
Does any of these sound familiar?
I don't understand nuclear fission, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand gravity, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand the globe, so the earth is flat.
I don't understand satellite orbits, so satellites don't exist.
I don't understand the southern Circumpolar Stars, so they don't exist.
I don't understand space craft re-entry, so it is impossible.
I don't understand the gravity assist maneuver, so it is impossible.
Care to pin a name to any of them.
Heiwa understands nuclear fission discovered by Otto Hahn 1938.
Heiwa understands gravity as explained by Newton about 300 years ago.
Heiwa understands that planet Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun.
Heiwa understands that the Moon is a satellite orbiting Earth.
Heiwa is a shareholder of Airbus NV sending up satellites orbiting Earth.
Heiwa knows all about high speed space craft and satellite re-entries ending in all objects burning up.
Heiwa knows all about gravity assist maneuvers and that no space craft can be maneuvered close to a planet and be kicked anywhere.
Keep telling yourself that man, we have a special thread to speak about yourself in third person.
Heiwa lives since 1980 in a luxurious flat owned by him. The flat overlooks the Mediterranean Sea.
Post a picture of your apartment and or view.
Not my place but a nice day overlooking the river, takes two seconds to upload.
Pity about the road works, also note the flat earth. just kidding the earth is an oblate spheroid yo.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/117cvad.jpg)
Heiwa is intelligent and good looking and loves good jokes, good food and good wine.
Tell us a joke?
-
Does any of these sound familiar?
I don't understand nuclear fission, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand gravity, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand the globe, so the earth is flat.
I don't understand satellite orbits, so satellites don't exist.
I don't understand the southern Circumpolar Stars, so they don't exist.
I don't understand space craft re-entry, so it is impossible.
I don't understand the gravity assist maneuver, so it is impossible.
Care to pin a name to any of them.
Heiwa understands nuclear fission discovered by Otto Hahn 1938.
Heiwa understands gravity as explained by Newton about 300 years ago.
Heiwa understands that planet Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun.
Heiwa understands that the Moon is a satellite orbiting Earth.
Heiwa is a shareholder of Airbus NV sending up satellites orbiting Earth.
Heiwa knows all about high speed space craft and satellite re-entries ending in all objects burning up.
Heiwa knows all about gravity assist maneuvers and that no space craft can be maneuvered close to a planet and be kicked anywhere.
Keep telling yourself that man, we have a special thread to speak about yourself in third person.
Heiwa lives since 1980 in a luxurious flat owned by him. The flat overlooks the Mediterranean Sea.
Post a picture of your apartment and or view.
Not my place but a nice day overlooking the river, takes two seconds to upload.
Pity about the road works, also note the flat earth. just kidding the earth is an oblate spheroid yo.
(http://i67.tinypic.com/117cvad.jpg)
Heiwa is intelligent and good looking and loves good jokes, good food and good wine.
Tell us a joke?
Well the road outside not your place really looks strange with a tree in the middle, etc. - it must be a joke. LOL. Today's wine here at my place at noon was two glasses of Clos la Gaffalière, 2014, St Emilion grand cru. Great stuff! I am not joking.
-
Hm, by mechanically compressing two bits of metal to double density with a neutron in between you trigger a runway chain reaction (fission) creating a FLASH and the metal becomes pure energy during some nano-seconds and finally a dity mushroom cloud is developed ... out of nothing.
Correct! I do not accept that nonsense as explanations.
That's because your explanation is wrong.
No, fission discovered by Otto Hahn 1938 does not work like that. And there is no other type of fission incl. the runway chain reaction one.
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
-
Lame
Edit, who doesn't hate trees?
-
(http://i67.tinypic.com/117cvad.jpg)
Heiwa is intelligent and good looking and loves good jokes, good food and good wine.
Tell us a joke?
Well the road outside not your place really looks strange with a tree in the middle, etc. - it must be a joke. LOL. Today's wine here at my place at noon was two glasses of Clos la Gaffalière, 2014, St Emilion grand cru. Great stuff! I am not joking.
It is official. Heiwa has never seen a sidewalk before. Do they ever let you out of that government housing or are you on house arrest?
-
Does any of these sound familiar?
I don't understand nuclear fission, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand gravity, so it doesn't exist.
I don't understand the globe, so the earth is flat.
I don't understand satellite orbits, so satellites don't exist.
I don't understand the southern Circumpolar Stars, so they don't exist.
I don't understand space craft re-entry, so it is impossible.
I don't understand the gravity assist maneuver, so it is impossible.
Care to pin a name to any of them.
Heiwa understands nuclear fission discovered by Otto Hahn 1938.
Heiwa understands gravity as explained by Newton about 300 years ago.
Heiwa understands that planet Earth is a globe orbiting the Sun.
Heiwa understands that the Moon is a satellite orbiting Earth.
Heiwa is a shareholder of Airbus NV sending up satellites orbiting Earth.
Heiwa knows all about high speed space craft and satellite re-entries ending in all objects burning up.
Heiwa knows all about gravity assist maneuvers and that no space craft can be maneuvered close to a planet and be kicked anywhere.
Heiwa lives since 1980 in a luxurious flat owned by him. The flat overlooks the Mediterranean Sea.
Heiwa is intelligent and good looking and loves good jokes, good food and good wine.
Lol
-
Otto Hahn contemplated suicide when he realised the implications of his research and its military uses. He was similarly depressed when he learned of the atomic explosions in Japan and felt responsible for the Japanese deaths. He discovered fission with Lisa Meitner.
You may remember her, she was the person employed by the Nobel prize winner Heiwa is so fond of name dropping.
Heiwa does not understand as much as he thinks as he does, and should maybe drink less wine.
-
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
He did it late 1938. Otto took a piece of uranium (it is a metal) left around somewhere and bombarded it with fast neutrons using a neutron gun that he found in the street to produce barium. BANG, BANG. The result was not a big FLASH and a mushroom cloud but something else - not barium - that Otto called fission. He immediately wrote an article about it that, without peer review, was published January 1939.
Hitler read the article and decided to start WWII. Luckily FDR and Stalin also read the article and thought they could build an a-bomb using Hahn's findings to stop Hitler ... and there we are.
Didn't you go to school? Haven't you learnt anything?
-
Says the guy that can't recognise a sidewalk.
-
Says the guy that can't recognise a sidewalk.
The sidewalk is at the side of the tree. The tree is on the other side, i.e. close to the road. And no flowers anywhere. What a fucking place.
-
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
He did it late 1938. Otto took a piece of uranium (it is a metal) left around somewhere and bombarded it with fast neutrons using a neutron gun that he found in the street to produce barium. BANG, BANG. The result was not a big FLASH and a mushroom cloud but something else - not barium - that Otto called fission. He immediately wrote an article about it that, without peer review, was published January 1939.
Hitler read the article and decided to start WWII. Luckily FDR and Stalin also read the article and thought they could build an a-bomb using Hahn's findings to stop Hitler ... and there we are.
Didn't you go to school? Haven't you learnt anything?
For a rowboat maker you sure never go into anything technical. I'm going to ask again:
Going into scientific detail, why do you think nuclear bombs are fake?
-
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
He did it late 1938. Otto took a piece of uranium (it is a metal) left around somewhere and bombarded it with fast neutrons using a neutron gun that he found in the street to produce barium. BANG, BANG. The result was not a big FLASH and a mushroom cloud but something else - not barium - that Otto called fission. He immediately wrote an article about it that, without peer review, was published January 1939.
Hitler read the article and decided to start WWII. Luckily FDR and Stalin also read the article and thought they could build an a-bomb using Hahn's findings to stop Hitler ... and there we are.
Didn't you go to school? Haven't you learnt anything?
For a rowboat maker you sure never go into anything technical. I'm going to ask again:
Going into scientific detail, why do you think nuclear bombs are fake?
Thanks for asking.
Nuclear bombs are difficult to trigger. It seems you must use a free neutron to start the runway (sic) exponential reaction that in nano-seconds - neutrons are very fast - transforms a compressed to double density critical mass of solid metal into a FLASH and a mushroom cloud vaporizing people. It is not science!
No, it looks more like Hollywood to me. You know FLASHES and clouds (and some romance, champagne, South Pacific, etc).
Re South Pacific it was a popular vaccation area 1943/5 for plenty furture POTUSes. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm .
-
apparently, in addition to not know what sidewalks look like, Heiwa also doesn't understand the term "scientific detail"
-
apparently, in addition to not know what sidewalks look like, Heiwa also doesn't understand the term "scientific detail"
Nobody is perfect ... except me. Here - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm - I offer anyone since 2012 €1M to show that they are more clever than I and what is the result? No takers!
Only losers and twerps continue since many years to demonstrate how stupid they are. Like you.
-
й Heiwa, очевидно, тролль!
-
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
He did it late 1938. Otto took a piece of uranium (it is a metal) left around somewhere and bombarded it with fast neutrons using a neutron gun that he found in the street to produce barium. BANG, BANG. The result was not a big FLASH and a mushroom cloud but something else - not barium - that Otto called fission. He immediately wrote an article about it that, without peer review, was published January 1939.
Hitler read the article and decided to start WWII. Luckily FDR and Stalin also read the article and thought they could build an a-bomb using Hahn's findings to stop Hitler ... and there we are.
Didn't you go to school? Haven't you learnt anything?
For a rowboat maker you sure never go into anything technical. I'm going to ask again:
Going into scientific detail, why do you think nuclear bombs are fake?
Thanks for asking.
Nuclear bombs are difficult to trigger. It seems you must use a free neutron to start the runway (sic) exponential reaction that in nano-seconds - neutrons are very fast - transforms a compressed to double density critical mass of solid metal into a FLASH and a mushroom cloud vaporizing people. It is not science!
No, it looks more like Hollywood to me. You know FLASHES and clouds (and some romance, champagne, South Pacific, etc).
Re South Pacific it was a popular vaccation area 1943/5 for plenty furture POTUSes. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/vk12.htm .
Ok so once again you admit to having nothing. Got it.
-
apparently, in addition to not know what sidewalks look like, Heiwa also doesn't understand the term "scientific detail"
Nobody is perfect ... except me. Here - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm - I offer anyone since 2012 €1M to show that they are more clever than I and what is the result? No takers!
Only losers and twerps continue since many years to demonstrate how stupid they are. Like you.
Translation: Crap! they realized I don't have any scientific detail! Better toss some insults around to distract them!
you're so predictable Heiwa. When your lies don't work you resort to insults.
-
I really wanna see Scepti & Heiwa debate over nuclear power plants.
-
Old atomic bomb required (supposedly) cordite explosives to detonate inside the casing to send a supposedly enriched uranium/plutonium bullet into a set of uranium/plutonium rings at the other end of the bomb and bang, your city is destroyed, allegedly.
I'd like to know how it was achieved inside of this supposed bomb, because the cordite would have blown the bomb apart before propelling any bullet into a set of rings at the other end.
Luckily in fiction, this can all happen and it can happen any time and with any mishaps or lucky breaks, or whatever.
The beauty about fiction is, you can make anything work.
I can make my spillium scepti nusella tintenic sea evaporator bomb work. I could explain how it all works but none of you will know the elements involved so it will go over your heads.
I bet you think I've made that up.
-
I can make my spillium scepti nusella tintenic sea evaporator bomb work.
none of you will know the elements involved so it will go over your heads.
I was worried we were going to our heads blown off for a bit there. It's comforting to know it will go over our heads.
-
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
He did it late 1938. Otto took a piece of uranium (it is a metal) left around somewhere and bombarded it with fast neutrons using a neutron gun that he found in the street to produce barium. BANG, BANG. The result was not a big FLASH and a mushroom cloud but something else - not barium - that Otto called fission. He immediately wrote an article about it that, without peer review, was published January 1939.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what I asked you. I asked you how does Otto Hahn explain fission. That is, how does an atom split into smaller atoms and what is the result of that process?
Hitler read the article and decided to start WWII. Luckily FDR and Stalin also read the article and thought they could build an a-bomb using Hahn's findings to stop Hitler ... and there we are.
Didn't you go to school? Haven't you learnt anything?
Yes, I'm sure that Hitler, FDR and Stalin kept up to date on all of the latest scientific journals. ::)
-
Says the guy that can't recognise a sidewalk.
The sidewalk is at the side of the tree. The tree is on the other side, i.e. close to the road. And no flowers anywhere. What a fucking place.
Incorrect, they are parking spots.
Nice try.
-
Old atomic bomb required (supposedly) cordite explosives to detonate inside the casing to send a supposedly enriched uranium/plutonium bullet into a set of uranium/plutonium rings at the other end of the bomb and bang, your city is destroyed, allegedly.
This is one type. There are others.
I'd like to know how it was achieved inside of this supposed bomb, because the cordite would have blown the bomb apart before propelling any bullet into a set of rings at the other end.
Do bullets break apart?
Try this too.
Luckily in fiction, this can all happen and it can happen any time and with any mishaps or lucky breaks, or whatever.
The beauty about fiction is, you can make anything work.
I can make my spillium scepti nusella tintenic sea evaporator bomb work. I could explain how it all works but none of you will know the elements involved so it will go over your heads.
I bet you think I've made that up.
How's your made up millions going?
-
Says the guy that can't recognise a sidewalk.
The sidewalk is at the side of the tree. The tree is on the other side, i.e. close to the road. And no flowers anywhere. What a fucking place.
Incorrect, they are parking spots.
Nice try.
It's hard to recognize basic features of a road when they won't let you out your government housing for the safety of others.
-
It's hard to recognize basic features of a road when they won't let you out your government housing for the safety of others.
His mind is so twisted he more than likely can't make it out to the parking lot. Fortunately in France, housing under the protection sociale can include state funded care takers. So he is in good hands
-
Anyone can claim anything.
Yes, the Manhattan project leaders claimed 1945 that they had exploded or triggered to explode three a-bombs by compressing metal to double density ... I show that it was just war propaganda. According a US law it is restricted info punishable by death if disseminated.
But it is just a joke. LOL!
But you don't show that. You just claim it. You just make the statement. And no, doing your own research and publishing those results is not punishable by death under US law.
Hm, everything was secret around the Manhattan project 1945. The project leaders made a lot of claims and media just copied/pasted/published what they were told and the public believed anything. A testing tower in the Alamogoredo desert was vaporized, etc, etc, but the ground below was not affected at all and so on. Nobody dared to ask the question how the thing was triggered. And then, later we were told that by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between there will be a FLASH and so on. Pure metal is transformed into pure energy and a mushroom cloud due to fission. LOL!
All restricted data is punished by death if shown to be incorrect.
I describe the hoax in detail at my web site. The Manhattan project leaders invented a fake type of fission 1945 and Stalin copied the idea. Fission does not work like that.
Fission only works in peaceful nuclear power plants.
Again you just say it's fake with no evidence. I actually know people who have worked at Los Alamos labs, and Sandra Labs involving nuclear weapons. While I don't pretend to know the math and physics behind it, they certainly did, and in once case the engineering involved in making it work. These people, experts in their fields, certainly believed that it worked that way, and had I been able to understand the math would have been happy to show me how it worked.
But you just make the statement, it doesn't work. You admit you are not a physicist but you seem sure you are better informed on the subject than the actual experts. But you do nothing to,back up such statements. I have read your website and I certainly don't see anything there even remotely resembling evidence.
Oh, and no, it is not punishable by death to do and publish your own research in this area. That's pure fantasy on your part.
-
Posted this before but Heiwa, if they wanted you they would come and take you.
Potential for preventive detention: detention for named individuals. Without evidence and without criminal involvement the detainee may be interrogated by Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Disclosing that an individual has been so detained or interrogated is, in almost all circumstances, a crime.
Control orders: Potential for restrictions on named individuals including; freedom of movement, freedom of association (including one's lawyer), banning the performing of named actions and owning named items, unlimited requirements to be (or not to be) at specified places at any or all times of the day and week, wear a tracking device, encouragement to submit to re-education. These restrictions are referred to as "control orders", and may be granted for a period of one year before review.
Significant restrictions on the right of any citizen to express certain opinions, including; criticism, or "urging disaffection", of the sovereign, the constitution, the government, the law, or 'different groups'. Exemptions may exist where the target of criticism is agreed to be 'in error'. Exemptions appear to exist where the claim is that a feature of a group of people is in some way offensive to the mainstream of society. Onus of proof is on the defendant, the presumption is not of innocence.
To recklessly provide funds to a potential terrorist is a criminal offence. Funds include money and equivalents and also assets. It is not necessary that the culprit know the receiver is a terrorist, only that they are reckless about the possibility. It is not necessary that the receiver be a terrorist, only that the first person is reckless about the possibility that they might be.
Police can request information from any source about any named person: any information about the person's travel, residence, telephone calls, financial transactions amongst other information; professional privilege does not apply. It can be an offence to disclose that such documents have been obtained.
A legislative provision for 'hoax offences' created a more serious charge for people who cause chaos for the public and emergency services by dreaming up devastating terrorist-inspired hoaxes.
The "shoot to kill" clause Edit
The "Shoot to kill" clause instructs police to treat people wanted under detention orders in the same way that an equivalent clause in the current law treats wanted suspects.
The clause in particular has raised the concern of some state premiers, the so-called "Shoot to kill" clause, where police may use lethal force if they perceive a threat to life. The clause was not put to the premiers in the original discussions between the States and Federal Governments.[11]
Law Council of Australia president John North, suggested that such powers were designed to protect police in the event of a mistaken fatal shooting such as that of Jean Charles de Menezes.[12]
Australian laws but I am sure yours are similar.
-
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
He did it late 1938. Otto took a piece of uranium (it is a metal) left around somewhere and bombarded it with fast neutrons using a neutron gun that he found in the street to produce barium. BANG, BANG. The result was not a big FLASH and a mushroom cloud but something else - not barium - that Otto called fission. He immediately wrote an article about it that, without peer review, was published January 1939.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what I asked you. I asked you how does Otto Hahn explain fission. That is, how does an atom split into smaller atoms and what is the result of that process?
Otto Hahn only discovered fission 1938 but could not explain how one uranium atom could split into two other atoms. Niels Bohr tried to explain it 1939 but failed.
In the meantime a third 'expert' or 'scientist' thought that the mysterious reaction could be used for military purposes - the runway (sic) exponential one ending in a FLASH - and there we are today. All was made secret for national security purposes.
Noone has been able to explain how to trigger the runway (sic) one.
-
Anyone can claim anything.
Yes, the Manhattan project leaders claimed 1945 that they had exploded or triggered to explode three a-bombs by compressing metal to double density ... I show that it was just war propaganda. According a US law it is restricted info punishable by death if disseminated.
But it is just a joke. LOL!
But you don't show that. You just claim it. You just make the statement. And no, doing your own research and publishing those results is not punishable by death under US law.
Hm, everything was secret around the Manhattan project 1945. The project leaders made a lot of claims and media just copied/pasted/published what they were told and the public believed anything. A testing tower in the Alamogoredo desert was vaporized, etc, etc, but the ground below was not affected at all and so on. Nobody dared to ask the question how the thing was triggered. And then, later we were told that by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between there will be a FLASH and so on. Pure metal is transformed into pure energy and a mushroom cloud due to fission. LOL!
All restricted data is punished by death if shown to be incorrect.
I describe the hoax in detail at my web site. The Manhattan project leaders invented a fake type of fission 1945 and Stalin copied the idea. Fission does not work like that.
Fission only works in peaceful nuclear power plants.
Again you just say it's fake with no evidence. I actually know people who have worked at Los Alamos labs, and Sandra Labs involving nuclear weapons. While I don't pretend to know the math and physics behind it, they certainly did, and in once case the engineering involved in making it work. These people, experts in their fields, certainly believed that it worked that way, and had I been able to understand the math would have been happy to show me how it worked.
But you just make the statement, it doesn't work. You admit you are not a physicist but you seem sure you are better informed on the subject than the actual experts. But you do nothing to,back up such statements. I have read your website and I certainly don't see anything there even remotely resembling evidence.
Oh, and no, it is not punishable by death to do and publish your own research in this area. That's pure fantasy on your part.
A friend of mine lives at Santa Fé, NM, and when I visit him I also encounter plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter working for Sandra and Los Alamos labs. I consider them all twerps wasting their time at hot air balloons and similar.
Thanks for visiting my website why nuclear bombs do not work. The evidences are my observations around the propaganda and secrecies of it. The scientific (sic) papers published by the Los Alamos' staff that I list are ridiclulous including the one how to trigger the thing. Also the resulting damages at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with the famous FLASH vaporizing everyone. That Stalin then managed to copy the US effort 1945/9 and producing a USSR FLASH 1949 is unlikely. Anyone living in USSR at that time know that Stalin had gone gaga, decided everything himself and that they couldn't even get the tractors and harvest machinery working causing starvation. I mention two persons I met involved in the 1945/9 show! One was asked to build a Swedish bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public! The other produced the uranium ore for the Stalin bomb 1946/58. It didn't contain any uranium!
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
-
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
and you misinterpret it deliberately to make yourself look more important. Sounds like something a twerp would do.
-
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
He did it late 1938. Otto took a piece of uranium (it is a metal) left around somewhere and bombarded it with fast neutrons using a neutron gun that he found in the street to produce barium. BANG, BANG. The result was not a big FLASH and a mushroom cloud but something else - not barium - that Otto called fission. He immediately wrote an article about it that, without peer review, was published January 1939.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what I asked you. I asked you how does Otto Hahn explain fission. That is, how does an atom split into smaller atoms and what is the result of that process?
Otto Hahn only discovered fission 1938 but could not explain how one uranium atom could split into two other atoms. Niels Bohr tried to explain it 1939 but failed.
Then how do you think that one uranium atom can split into smaller atoms?
In the meantime a third 'expert' or 'scientist' thought that the mysterious reaction could be used for military purposes - the runway (sic) exponential one ending in a FLASH - and there we are today. All was made secret for national security purposes.
Noone has been able to explain how to trigger the runway (sic) one.
Do you agree that when a fast neutron hits a U235 nucleus, the nucleus splits into 2 smaller nuclei plus 3 neutrons?
Do you agree that when U235 is enriched to a high purity, the U235 atoms are closer together than they would be in a less pure state?
Do you agree that the 3 neutrons released by U235 fission would have a better chance of hitting and splitting other U235 nuclei in a highly enriched sample than a less enriched sample?
Do you agree that the U235 could be enriched to the point where the number of neutrons released by the U235 atoms could hit enough other U235 atoms, causing them to release even more neutrons to split even more U235 atoms, and so on, that a great deal of energy could be released in a very short period of time. Maybe even in a FLASH?
-
How does Otto Hahn explain fission?
He did it late 1938. Otto took a piece of uranium (it is a metal) left around somewhere and bombarded it with fast neutrons using a neutron gun that he found in the street to produce barium. BANG, BANG. The result was not a big FLASH and a mushroom cloud but something else - not barium - that Otto called fission. He immediately wrote an article about it that, without peer review, was published January 1939.
I'm sorry, but that isn't what I asked you. I asked you how does Otto Hahn explain fission. That is, how does an atom split into smaller atoms and what is the result of that process?
Otto Hahn only discovered fission 1938 but could not explain how one uranium atom could split into two other atoms. Niels Bohr tried to explain it 1939 but failed.
Then how do you think that one uranium atom can split into smaller atoms?
In the meantime a third 'expert' or 'scientist' thought that the mysterious reaction could be used for military purposes - the runway (sic) exponential one ending in a FLASH - and there we are today. All was made secret for national security purposes.
Noone has been able to explain how to trigger the runway (sic) one.
Do you agree that when a fast neutron hits a U235 nucleus, the nucleus splits into 2 smaller nuclei plus 3 neutrons?
Do you agree that when U235 is enriched to a high purity, the U235 atoms are closer together than they would be in a less pure state?
Do you agree that the 3 neutrons released by U235 fission would have a better chance of hitting and splitting other U235 nuclei in a highly enriched sample than a less enriched sample?
Do you agree that the U235 could be enriched to the point where the number of neutrons released by the U235 atoms could hit enough other U235 atoms, causing them to release even more neutrons to split even more U235 atoms, and so on, that a great deal of energy could be released in a very short period of time. Maybe even in a FLASH?
It seems that only moderated, slow speed neutrons can produce fission, i.e. split an atom into two other, smaller atoms releasing energy (heat) and more neutrons in the process.
Normal neutrons flying around at high speed (almost of light) cannot produce fission and they die after a while, i.e. become other subatomic particles.
To suggest that a critical mass of uranium 235 that you can carry in a bag can suddenly - in nano-seconds!! - become pure energy corresponding to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding is ... stupid, crazy, abnormal, sick. They got away with that nonsense 1945 and it is taught at MIT, Stanford & bla, bla.
But fission does not work like that. Fission only works in safe nuclear power plants of which I am also a recent share holder. EDF! I just bought 5000 shares at €10. I assume they will quadruple in value after Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is elected POTUS!
You see, it doesn't matter who wins the POTUS show. It is just a magic play to keep poor people poor.
Fission on the other hand is just fission. No FLASHES!
-
A friend of mine lives at Santa Fé, NM, and when I visit him I also encounter plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter working for Sandra and Los Alamos labs. I consider them all twerps wasting their time at hot air balloons and similar.
Thanks for visiting my website why nuclear bombs do not work. The evidences are my observations around the propaganda and secrecies of it. The scientific (sic) papers published by the Los Alamos' staff that I list are ridiclulous including the one how to trigger the thing. Also the resulting damages at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with the famous FLASH vaporizing everyone. That Stalin then managed to copy the US effort 1945/9 and producing a USSR FLASH 1949 is unlikely. Anyone living in USSR at that time know that Stalin had gone gaga, decided everything himself and that they couldn't even get the tractors and harvest machinery working causing starvation. I mention two persons I met involved in the 1945/9 show! One was asked to build a Swedish bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public! The other produced the uranium ore for the Stalin bomb 1946/58. It didn't contain any uranium!
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
Ok, like here. You don't actually dispute what those scientists say you just throw out insults. Again, you offer no evidence. Oh and I made a typo, it's sandia labs not Sandra. Auto correct I guess. It is interesting that you didn't catch that. Also I thought you said you were under a death sentence and could not come to the US.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were survivors. It was no carpet bombing but one large explosion. Unless you are going to say all eyewitnesses are lying
-
A friend of mine lives at Santa Fé, NM, and when I visit him I also encounter plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter working for Sandra and Los Alamos labs. I consider them all twerps wasting their time at hot air balloons and similar.
Thanks for visiting my website why nuclear bombs do not work. The evidences are my observations around the propaganda and secrecies of it. The scientific (sic) papers published by the Los Alamos' staff that I list are ridiclulous including the one how to trigger the thing. Also the resulting damages at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with the famous FLASH vaporizing everyone. That Stalin then managed to copy the US effort 1945/9 and producing a USSR FLASH 1949 is unlikely. Anyone living in USSR at that time know that Stalin had gone gaga, decided everything himself and that they couldn't even get the tractors and harvest machinery working causing starvation. I mention two persons I met involved in the 1945/9 show! One was asked to build a Swedish bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public! The other produced the uranium ore for the Stalin bomb 1946/58. It didn't contain any uranium!
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
Ok, like here. You don't actually dispute what those scientists say you just throw out insults. Again, you offer no evidence. Oh and I made a typo, it's sandia labs not Sandra. Auto correct I guess. It is interesting that you didn't catch that. Also I thought you said you were under a death sentence and could not come to the US.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were survivors. It was no carpet bombing but one large explosion. Unless you are going to say all eyewitnesses are lying
The Sandia lab an AFB is way out in the desert south of Albuquerque. Full of useless PhDs. I met some of them. It remains a fact that according US law the penalty is death, when disseminating restricted info about a-bombs. The law is not applied as FBI is not very effective. At least at Albuquerque. I had a chat with the SAC at ABQ, when I was there. She didn't sound very bright. But Albuquerque is just a poor stupid town in the middle of nowhere. Not a decents restaurant anywhere. Nothing of interest ... except the federal a-bomb museum in an outskirt. Full of lies and propaganda. LOL!
When I worked in Japan May 1972 to November 1976 two friends of mine had been children at Nagasaki and Hiroshima 1945 and none of them recalled any FLASH vaporizing the towns in nano-seconds. They just lived on after the fires. But they told me about US censorship and occupation and that you better agreed with everything US authorities decided then. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
It seems that only moderated, slow speed neutrons can produce fission, i.e. split an atom into two other, smaller atoms releasing energy (heat) and more neutrons in the process.
Are you saying that fast neutrons are not able to split U235 atoms at all? Is so, then why not?
Normal neutrons flying around at high speed (almost of light) cannot produce fission and they die after a while, i.e. become other subatomic particles.
If there are enough U235 atoms close enough, then why couldn't a fast neutron split a U235 nucleus and release more fast neutrons?
To suggest that a critical mass of uranium 235 that you can carry in a bag can suddenly - in nano-seconds!! - become pure energy corresponding to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding is ... stupid, crazy, abnormal, sick. They got away with that nonsense 1945 and it is taught at MIT, Stanford & bla, bla.
First of all, the amount of U235 (or any other fissile material) depends on several factors, not the least of which being the size, shape and purity of the material. Secondly, only a relatively small percentage of the U235 actually gets split and releases its energy in a flash.
But fission does not work like that. Fission only works in safe nuclear power plants of which I am also a recent share holder. EDF! I just bought 5000 shares at €10. I assume they will quadruple in value after Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is elected POTUS!
You do understand that nuclear power plants tend to use the more common and less enriched (usually less than 20%) U238, while nuclear weapons use highly enriched (generally 90% or more) U235, don't you? They really don't work quite the same way, so it isn't a very useful comparison.
Fission on the other hand is just fission. No FLASHES!
Please stop emphasizing the word "flash". It's really annoying and doesn't help your argument at all (and trust me, your argument can use all the help it can get).
-
It seems that only moderated, slow speed neutrons can produce fission, i.e. split an atom into two other, smaller atoms releasing energy (heat) and more neutrons in the process.
Are you saying that fast neutrons are not able to split U235 atoms at all? Is so, then why not?
Fission on the other hand is just fission. No FLASHES!
Please stop emphasizing the word "flash". It's really annoying and doesn't help your argument at all (and trust me, your argument can use all the help it can get).
I suggest that fission is only possible by moderated, slow neutrons, e.g. in nuclear power plants and shipboard steam generators.
Runway (sic) fission by fast neutrons resulting in a critical mass of metal becoming energy in some nano-seconds resulting in a FLASH is just Hollywood propaganda.
When the first a-bomb detonated July 1945 at Alamogordo, NM, we were told that a FLASH was seen in the night very far away. When the second and third a-bombs detonated in August, we were told again by eyewitnesses that they all noticed a big FLASH in the morning sky - and then the towns were vaporized and disappeared. Only the brave eyewitnesses survived. But it only happens in Hollywood and SKY news.
-
It seems that only moderated, slow speed neutrons can produce fission, i.e. split an atom into two other, smaller atoms releasing energy (heat) and more neutrons in the process.
Are you saying that fast neutrons are not able to split U235 atoms at all? Is so, then why not?
Fission on the other hand is just fission. No FLASHES!
Please stop emphasizing the word "flash". It's really annoying and doesn't help your argument at all (and trust me, your argument can use all the help it can get).
I suggest that fission is only possible by moderated, slow neutrons, e.g. in nuclear power plants and shipboard steam generators.
And just about every single nuclear physicist in the world would disagree with you. Why should I believe you over a nuclear physicist?
Runway (sic) fission by fast neutrons resulting in a critical mass of metal becoming energy in some nano-seconds resulting in a FLASH is just Hollywood propaganda.
The survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings would disagree with you. Why should I believe you over a Hiroshima or Nagasaki survivor?
When the first a-bomb detonated July 1945 at Alamogordo, NM, we were told that a FLASH was seen in the night very far away. When the second and third a-bombs detonated in August, we were told again by eyewitnesses that they all noticed a big FLASH in the morning sky - and then the towns were vaporized and disappeared. Only the brave eyewitnesses survived. But it only happens in Hollywood and SKY news.
Umm... No. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not vaporized and did not disappear. I don't know why you insist that they were.
Compare fire bomb damage vs. atomic bomb damage:
(http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Tokyo-and-Hiroshima-1945.jpg)
The ruins of 1945: Tokyo, left, and Hiroshima, right.
-
It seems that only moderated, slow speed neutrons can produce fission, i.e. split an atom into two other, smaller atoms releasing energy (heat) and more neutrons in the process.
Are you saying that fast neutrons are not able to split U235 atoms at all? Is so, then why not?
Fission on the other hand is just fission. No FLASHES!
Please stop emphasizing the word "flash". It's really annoying and doesn't help your argument at all (and trust me, your argument can use all the help it can get).
I suggest that fission is only possible by moderated, slow neutrons, e.g. in nuclear power plants and shipboard steam generators.
And just about every single nuclear physicist in the world would disagree with you. Why should I believe you over a nuclear physicist?
Hm, 'just about every single nuclear physicist in the world would disagree' with me!?
I pay you and every single, nuclear physicist in the world friends of you €1 million, if you prove me wrong. Just visit http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm for the details.
-
It seems that only moderated, slow speed neutrons can produce fission, i.e. split an atom into two other, smaller atoms releasing energy (heat) and more neutrons in the process.
Are you saying that fast neutrons are not able to split U235 atoms at all? Is so, then why not?
Fission on the other hand is just fission. No FLASHES!
Please stop emphasizing the word "flash". It's really annoying and doesn't help your argument at all (and trust me, your argument can use all the help it can get).
I suggest that fission is only possible by moderated, slow neutrons, e.g. in nuclear power plants and shipboard steam generators.
And just about every single nuclear physicist in the world would disagree with you. Why should I believe you over a nuclear physicist?
Hm, 'just about every single nuclear physicist in the world would disagree' with me!?
I pay you and every single, nuclear physicist in the world friends of you €1 million, if you prove me wrong. Just visit http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm for the details.
Nobody believes you have the money and everybody believes the judge is corrupt and a pathological liar.
-
It seems that only moderated, slow speed neutrons can produce fission, i.e. split an atom into two other, smaller atoms releasing energy (heat) and more neutrons in the process.
Are you saying that fast neutrons are not able to split U235 atoms at all? Is so, then why not?
Fission on the other hand is just fission. No FLASHES!
Please stop emphasizing the word "flash". It's really annoying and doesn't help your argument at all (and trust me, your argument can use all the help it can get).
I suggest that fission is only possible by moderated, slow neutrons, e.g. in nuclear power plants and shipboard steam generators.
And just about every single nuclear physicist in the world would disagree with you. Why should I believe you over a nuclear physicist?
Hm, 'just about every single nuclear physicist in the world would disagree' with me!?
I pay you and every single, nuclear physicist in the world friends of you €1 million, if you prove me wrong. Just visit http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm for the details.
I didn't ask why you should believe a nuclear physicist, because I know that you never would anyway. I asked why I should believe you over a nuclear physicist. Do you not understand the difference?
-
A friend of mine lives at Santa Fé, NM, and when I visit him I also encounter plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter working for Sandra and Los Alamos labs. I consider them all twerps wasting their time at hot air balloons and similar.
Thanks for visiting my website why nuclear bombs do not work. The evidences are my observations around the propaganda and secrecies of it. The scientific (sic) papers published by the Los Alamos' staff that I list are ridiclulous including the one how to trigger the thing. Also the resulting damages at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with the famous FLASH vaporizing everyone. That Stalin then managed to copy the US effort 1945/9 and producing a USSR FLASH 1949 is unlikely. Anyone living in USSR at that time know that Stalin had gone gaga, decided everything himself and that they couldn't even get the tractors and harvest machinery working causing starvation. I mention two persons I met involved in the 1945/9 show! One was asked to build a Swedish bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public! The other produced the uranium ore for the Stalin bomb 1946/58. It didn't contain any uranium!
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
Ok, like here. You don't actually dispute what those scientists say you just throw out insults. Again, you offer no evidence. Oh and I made a typo, it's sandia labs not Sandra. Auto correct I guess. It is interesting that you didn't catch that. Also I thought you said you were under a death sentence and could not come to the US.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were survivors. It was no carpet bombing but one large explosion. Unless you are going to say all eyewitnesses are lying
The Sandia lab an AFB is way out in the desert south of Albuquerque. Full of useless PhDs. I met some of them. It remains a fact that according US law the penalty is death, when disseminating restricted info about a-bombs. The law is not applied as FBI is not very effective. At least at Albuquerque. I had a chat with the SAC at ABQ, when I was there. She didn't sound very bright. But Albuquerque is just a poor stupid town in the middle of nowhere. Not a decents restaurant anywhere. Nothing of interest ... except the federal a-bomb museum in an outskirt. Full of lies and propaganda. LOL!
When I worked in Japan May 1972 to November 1976 two friends of mine had been children at Nagasaki and Hiroshima 1945 and none of them recalled any FLASH vaporizing the towns in nano-seconds. They just lived on after the fires. But they told me about US censorship and occupation and that you better agreed with everything US authorities decided then. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Ok so this kind of proves you're lying. The Air Force base, and labs are right there at the edge of the city, not way off anywhere in the desert, literally you can walk onto the base from the main street of the city. Unless they moved it in the last fifteen years, which seems unlikely.
There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagisaki. You are claiming they all lied. You are claiming all scientists who study this field are lying or stupid. It seems that you are basically making an argument of incredulity but it involves so many people lying, so many people being stupid that your theory itself call for the same argument.
-
It remains a fact that according US law the penalty is death, when disseminating restricted info about a-bombs. The law is not applied as FBI is not very effective.
The fact is you have not had access to restricted info nor have you disseminated any. An OPINION about whether they work or not is NOT restricted info and that is all you have. You continually LIE about this subject to make yourself seem more important. In reality it just makes you look sad.
-
It's very simple frenat ....everyone is a liar but heiwa.
There are also alot of criminals that say all the witnesses and evidence is a lie. Usually doesn't help their case much
-
A friend of mine lives at Santa Fé, NM, and when I visit him I also encounter plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter working for Sandra and Los Alamos labs. I consider them all twerps wasting their time at hot air balloons and similar.
Thanks for visiting my website why nuclear bombs do not work. The evidences are my observations around the propaganda and secrecies of it. The scientific (sic) papers published by the Los Alamos' staff that I list are ridiclulous including the one how to trigger the thing. Also the resulting damages at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with the famous FLASH vaporizing everyone. That Stalin then managed to copy the US effort 1945/9 and producing a USSR FLASH 1949 is unlikely. Anyone living in USSR at that time know that Stalin had gone gaga, decided everything himself and that they couldn't even get the tractors and harvest machinery working causing starvation. I mention two persons I met involved in the 1945/9 show! One was asked to build a Swedish bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public! The other produced the uranium ore for the Stalin bomb 1946/58. It didn't contain any uranium!
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
Ok, like here. You don't actually dispute what those scientists say you just throw out insults. Again, you offer no evidence. Oh and I made a typo, it's sandia labs not Sandra. Auto correct I guess. It is interesting that you didn't catch that. Also I thought you said you were under a death sentence and could not come to the US.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were survivors. It was no carpet bombing but one large explosion. Unless you are going to say all eyewitnesses are lying
The Sandia lab an AFB is way out in the desert south of Albuquerque. Full of useless PhDs. I met some of them. It remains a fact that according US law the penalty is death, when disseminating restricted info about a-bombs. The law is not applied as FBI is not very effective. At least at Albuquerque. I had a chat with the SAC at ABQ, when I was there. She didn't sound very bright. But Albuquerque is just a poor stupid town in the middle of nowhere. Not a decents restaurant anywhere. Nothing of interest ... except the federal a-bomb museum in an outskirt. Full of lies and propaganda. LOL!
When I worked in Japan May 1972 to November 1976 two friends of mine had been children at Nagasaki and Hiroshima 1945 and none of them recalled any FLASH vaporizing the towns in nano-seconds. They just lived on after the fires. But they told me about US censorship and occupation and that you better agreed with everything US authorities decided then. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Ok so this kind of proves you're lying. The Air Force base, and labs are right there at the edge of the city, not way off anywhere in the desert, literally you can walk onto the base from the main street of the city. Unless they moved it in the last fifteen years, which seems unlikely.
There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagisaki. You are claiming they all lied. You are claiming all scientists who study this field are lying or stupid. It seems that you are basically making an argument of incredulity but it involves so many people lying, so many people being stupid that your theory itself call for the same argument.
Ok, Albuquerque is a big city with plenty streets and an empty, dead downtown with some churches and the Sandia lab and AFB are just outside in the desert. Sandia is the place where they develop the modifications to the latest version (#12) of the B61 Silverbullet a-bomb. It is a billion $$ joke! I describe it at my web site! Plenty useless PhDs on location. They fake anything!
Re eyewitnesses of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki they are all invented by US occupation forces and censorship 1945/52. The towns were simply carpet bombed using napalm. I describe it also at my web site.
The scientists inventing the a-bomb just did that! They invented it. And to trigger it, they had to mechanically compress metal to double density. Try it your self.
And I pay you €1M if you prove me wrong!
-
A friend of mine lives at Santa Fé, NM, and when I visit him I also encounter plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter working for Sandra and Los Alamos labs. I consider them all twerps wasting their time at hot air balloons and similar.
Thanks for visiting my website why nuclear bombs do not work. The evidences are my observations around the propaganda and secrecies of it. The scientific (sic) papers published by the Los Alamos' staff that I list are ridiclulous including the one how to trigger the thing. Also the resulting damages at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with the famous FLASH vaporizing everyone. That Stalin then managed to copy the US effort 1945/9 and producing a USSR FLASH 1949 is unlikely. Anyone living in USSR at that time know that Stalin had gone gaga, decided everything himself and that they couldn't even get the tractors and harvest machinery working causing starvation. I mention two persons I met involved in the 1945/9 show! One was asked to build a Swedish bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public! The other produced the uranium ore for the Stalin bomb 1946/58. It didn't contain any uranium!
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
Ok, like here. You don't actually dispute what those scientists say you just throw out insults. Again, you offer no evidence. Oh and I made a typo, it's sandia labs not Sandra. Auto correct I guess. It is interesting that you didn't catch that. Also I thought you said you were under a death sentence and could not come to the US.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were survivors. It was no carpet bombing but one large explosion. Unless you are going to say all eyewitnesses are lying
The Sandia lab an AFB is way out in the desert south of Albuquerque. Full of useless PhDs. I met some of them. It remains a fact that according US law the penalty is death, when disseminating restricted info about a-bombs. The law is not applied as FBI is not very effective. At least at Albuquerque. I had a chat with the SAC at ABQ, when I was there. She didn't sound very bright. But Albuquerque is just a poor stupid town in the middle of nowhere. Not a decents restaurant anywhere. Nothing of interest ... except the federal a-bomb museum in an outskirt. Full of lies and propaganda. LOL!
When I worked in Japan May 1972 to November 1976 two friends of mine had been children at Nagasaki and Hiroshima 1945 and none of them recalled any FLASH vaporizing the towns in nano-seconds. They just lived on after the fires. But they told me about US censorship and occupation and that you better agreed with everything US authorities decided then. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Ok so this kind of proves you're lying. The Air Force base, and labs are right there at the edge of the city, not way off anywhere in the desert, literally you can walk onto the base from the main street of the city. Unless they moved it in the last fifteen years, which seems unlikely.
There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagisaki. You are claiming they all lied. You are claiming all scientists who study this field are lying or stupid. It seems that you are basically making an argument of incredulity but it involves so many people lying, so many people being stupid that your theory itself call for the same argument.
Ok, Albuquerque is a big city with plenty streets and an empty, dead downtown with some churches and the Sandia lab and AFB are just outside in the desert. Sandia is the place where they develop the modifications to the latest version (#12) of the B61 Silverbullet a-bomb. It is a billion $$ joke! I describe it at my web site! Plenty useless PhDs on location. They fake anything!
Re eyewitnesses of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki they are all invented by US occupation forces and censorship 1945/52. The towns were simply carpet bombed using napalm. I describe it also at my web site.
The scientists inventing the a-bomb just did that! They invented it. And to trigger it, they had to mechanically compress metal to double density. Try it your self.
And I pay you €1M if you prove me wrong!
Ok so now you are changing your story. First the base and labs were way to south in the desert now they aren't. You really don't know what you are talking about here do you? I lived there and virtually nothing you said was accurate. You've never been there you just made it all up. As for your website, yeah, you make lots of claims with zero evidence to support them. Again, all made up. Your challenge is a joke. Essentially to meet the challenge someone has to build a nuke and then demonstrate it its force to you. You don't understand the math and will accept nothing but your own eyewitness account of it. Then you will simply claim it was just tons and tons of TNT designed specifically to fool you.
You are a fake, pure and simple and your website offers no actual evidence only your opinion that you don't u derstand it so it can't be real.
-
FLASH
Ok I get it, that was kinda fun.
-
A friend of mine lives at Santa Fé, NM, and when I visit him I also encounter plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter working for Sandra and Los Alamos labs. I consider them all twerps wasting their time at hot air balloons and similar.
Thanks for visiting my website why nuclear bombs do not work. The evidences are my observations around the propaganda and secrecies of it. The scientific (sic) papers published by the Los Alamos' staff that I list are ridiclulous including the one how to trigger the thing. Also the resulting damages at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with the famous FLASH vaporizing everyone. That Stalin then managed to copy the US effort 1945/9 and producing a USSR FLASH 1949 is unlikely. Anyone living in USSR at that time know that Stalin had gone gaga, decided everything himself and that they couldn't even get the tractors and harvest machinery working causing starvation. I mention two persons I met involved in the 1945/9 show! One was asked to build a Swedish bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public! The other produced the uranium ore for the Stalin bomb 1946/58. It didn't contain any uranium!
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
Ok, like here. You don't actually dispute what those scientists say you just throw out insults. Again, you offer no evidence. Oh and I made a typo, it's sandia labs not Sandra. Auto correct I guess. It is interesting that you didn't catch that. Also I thought you said you were under a death sentence and could not come to the US.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were survivors. It was no carpet bombing but one large explosion. Unless you are going to say all eyewitnesses are lying
The Sandia lab an AFB is way out in the desert south of Albuquerque. Full of useless PhDs. I met some of them. It remains a fact that according US law the penalty is death, when disseminating restricted info about a-bombs. The law is not applied as FBI is not very effective. At least at Albuquerque. I had a chat with the SAC at ABQ, when I was there. She didn't sound very bright. But Albuquerque is just a poor stupid town in the middle of nowhere. Not a decents restaurant anywhere. Nothing of interest ... except the federal a-bomb museum in an outskirt. Full of lies and propaganda. LOL!
When I worked in Japan May 1972 to November 1976 two friends of mine had been children at Nagasaki and Hiroshima 1945 and none of them recalled any FLASH vaporizing the towns in nano-seconds. They just lived on after the fires. But they told me about US censorship and occupation and that you better agreed with everything US authorities decided then. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Ok so this kind of proves you're lying. The Air Force base, and labs are right there at the edge of the city, not way off anywhere in the desert, literally you can walk onto the base from the main street of the city. Unless they moved it in the last fifteen years, which seems unlikely.
There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagisaki. You are claiming they all lied. You are claiming all scientists who study this field are lying or stupid. It seems that you are basically making an argument of incredulity but it involves so many people lying, so many people being stupid that your theory itself call for the same argument.
Ok, Albuquerque is a big city with plenty streets and an empty, dead downtown with some churches and the Sandia lab and AFB are just outside in the desert. Sandia is the place where they develop the modifications to the latest version (#12) of the B61 Silverbullet a-bomb. It is a billion $$ joke! I describe it at my web site! Plenty useless PhDs on location. They fake anything!
Re eyewitnesses of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki they are all invented by US occupation forces and censorship 1945/52. The towns were simply carpet bombed using napalm. I describe it also at my web site.
The scientists inventing the a-bomb just did that! They invented it. And to trigger it, they had to mechanically compress metal to double density. Try it your self.
And I pay you €1M if you prove me wrong!
Ok so now you are changing your story. First the base and labs were way to south in the desert now they aren't. You really don't know what you are talking about here do you? I lived there and virtually nothing you said was accurate. You've never been there you just made it all up. As for your website, yeah, you make lots of claims with zero evidence to support them. Again, all made up. Your challenge is a joke. Essentially to meet the challenge someone has to build a nuke and then demonstrate it its force to you. You don't understand the math and will accept nothing but your own eyewitness account of it. Then you will simply claim it was just tons and tons of TNT designed specifically to fool you.
You are a fake, pure and simple and your website offers no actual evidence only your opinion that you don't u derstand it so it can't be real.
Albuquerque is a desert in itself and it is difficult to see where the (ghost) town ends and the desert starts. But there are plenty PhDs there employed by Sandia & Co.
Now, explain how you double the density of a metal by compressing it? To trigger a fake US a-bomb you have to do it.
But no Albuquerque PhD has managed to explain to me how you do it. You have the chance now!
-
A friend of mine lives at Santa Fé, NM, and when I visit him I also encounter plenty PhDs living in the Rio Grande gutter working for Sandra and Los Alamos labs. I consider them all twerps wasting their time at hot air balloons and similar.
Thanks for visiting my website why nuclear bombs do not work. The evidences are my observations around the propaganda and secrecies of it. The scientific (sic) papers published by the Los Alamos' staff that I list are ridiclulous including the one how to trigger the thing. Also the resulting damages at Hiroshima and Nagasaki have nothing to do with the famous FLASH vaporizing everyone. That Stalin then managed to copy the US effort 1945/9 and producing a USSR FLASH 1949 is unlikely. Anyone living in USSR at that time know that Stalin had gone gaga, decided everything himself and that they couldn't even get the tractors and harvest machinery working causing starvation. I mention two persons I met involved in the 1945/9 show! One was asked to build a Swedish bomb 1945 and agreed ... subject to all being public! The other produced the uranium ore for the Stalin bomb 1946/58. It didn't contain any uranium!
The US 1946 law about nuclear bombs declares that all info is restricted and cannot be disseminated. If you do, the penalty is death. I didn't make that law. I just quote it.
Ok, like here. You don't actually dispute what those scientists say you just throw out insults. Again, you offer no evidence. Oh and I made a typo, it's sandia labs not Sandra. Auto correct I guess. It is interesting that you didn't catch that. Also I thought you said you were under a death sentence and could not come to the US.
As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there were survivors. It was no carpet bombing but one large explosion. Unless you are going to say all eyewitnesses are lying
The Sandia lab an AFB is way out in the desert south of Albuquerque. Full of useless PhDs. I met some of them. It remains a fact that according US law the penalty is death, when disseminating restricted info about a-bombs. The law is not applied as FBI is not very effective. At least at Albuquerque. I had a chat with the SAC at ABQ, when I was there. She didn't sound very bright. But Albuquerque is just a poor stupid town in the middle of nowhere. Not a decents restaurant anywhere. Nothing of interest ... except the federal a-bomb museum in an outskirt. Full of lies and propaganda. LOL!
When I worked in Japan May 1972 to November 1976 two friends of mine had been children at Nagasaki and Hiroshima 1945 and none of them recalled any FLASH vaporizing the towns in nano-seconds. They just lived on after the fires. But they told me about US censorship and occupation and that you better agreed with everything US authorities decided then. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Ok so this kind of proves you're lying. The Air Force base, and labs are right there at the edge of the city, not way off anywhere in the desert, literally you can walk onto the base from the main street of the city. Unless they moved it in the last fifteen years, which seems unlikely.
There are numerous eyewitness accounts of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagisaki. You are claiming they all lied. You are claiming all scientists who study this field are lying or stupid. It seems that you are basically making an argument of incredulity but it involves so many people lying, so many people being stupid that your theory itself call for the same argument.
Ok, Albuquerque is a big city with plenty streets and an empty, dead downtown with some churches and the Sandia lab and AFB are just outside in the desert. Sandia is the place where they develop the modifications to the latest version (#12) of the B61 Silverbullet a-bomb. It is a billion $$ joke! I describe it at my web site! Plenty useless PhDs on location. They fake anything!
Re eyewitnesses of the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki they are all invented by US occupation forces and censorship 1945/52. The towns were simply carpet bombed using napalm. I describe it also at my web site.
The scientists inventing the a-bomb just did that! They invented it. And to trigger it, they had to mechanically compress metal to double density. Try it your self.
And I pay you €1M if you prove me wrong!
Ok so now you are changing your story. First the base and labs were way to south in the desert now they aren't. You really don't know what you are talking about here do you? I lived there and virtually nothing you said was accurate. You've never been there you just made it all up. As for your website, yeah, you make lots of claims with zero evidence to support them. Again, all made up. Your challenge is a joke. Essentially to meet the challenge someone has to build a nuke and then demonstrate it its force to you. You don't understand the math and will accept nothing but your own eyewitness account of it. Then you will simply claim it was just tons and tons of TNT designed specifically to fool you.
You are a fake, pure and simple and your website offers no actual evidence only your opinion that you don't u derstand it so it can't be real.
Albuquerque is a desert in itself and it is difficult to see where the (ghost) town ends and the desert starts. But there are plenty PhDs there employed by Sandia & Co.
Now, explain how you double the density of a metal by compressing it? To trigger a fake US a-bomb you have to do it.
But no Albuquerque PhD has managed to explain to me how you do it. You have the chance now!
No it really isn't difficult to see at all and if you had ever been there you would know that. I cannot explain why you are incapable of understanding nuclear explosions. Other than you you simply insulting people who are clearly more qualified in this field than you are. And your challenge is a joke. You are basically asking for someone to produce a working nuclear device and then set it off for you, at which point you will simply say they faked it. I'm sorry but you have shown nothing, not one shred of evidence, to support your claims. You just call everyone else a liar or stupid. You have clearly demonstrated that you have lied about visiting Albuquerque and Santa Fe, Los alamos, etc. you are, at this point simply making things up that fit your narrative.
-
No it really isn't difficult to see at all and if you had ever been there you would know that. I cannot explain why you are incapable of understanding nuclear explosions. Other than you you simply insulting people who are clearly more qualified in this field than you are. And your challenge is a joke. You are basically asking for someone to produce a working nuclear device and then set it off for you, at which point you will simply say they faked it. I'm sorry but you have shown nothing, not one shred of evidence, to support your claims. You just call everyone else a liar or stupid. You have clearly demonstrated that you have lied about visiting Albuquerque and Santa Fe, Los alamos, etc. you are, at this point simply making things up that fit your narrative.
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding is suddenly ignited up in the sky 600 or 30 meters above ground - it takes a few nano-seconds - and the first sign of it is this FLASH everyone is talking about.
It hits you at the speed of light. And then there is a high pressure, high temperature shockwave that destroys everything and it arrives a little later, so you have time to take cover not to be vaporized, so that you can come forwards as an eyewitness.
It sounds like a Disney fantasy. One part of my Challenge is to explain this FLASH in more detail and how anyone can survive witnessing it. Why is it white and not some other color? Pink?
The evidence that there is no flash at all is provided at my website. You really have to study it in more detail. People witnessing nuclear FLASHES are simply lying.
-
FLASH
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding is suddenly ignited up in the sky 600 or 30 meters above ground - it takes a few nano-seconds - and the first sign of it is this FLASH everyone is talking about.
It hits you at the speed of light. And then there is a high pressure, high temperature shockwave that destroys everything and it arrives a little later, so you have time to take cover not to be vaporized, so that you can come forwards as an eyewitness.
It sounds like a Disney fantasy. One part of my Challengeis to explain this FLASH in more detail and how anyone can survive witnessing it. Why is it white and not some other color? Pink?
The evidence that there is no flash at all is provided at my website. You really have to study it in more detail. People witnessing nuclear FLASHES are simply lying.
Heiwa, you are a liar, a fraud, a deluded self-obsessed fantasist and an attention whoring troll. Just putting it out there.
Why is the flash white? Because it's white light. Just like sunlight.
Are all these people liars, or just you?
http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/backs-blast/clip3/
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2016/06/video-australias-first-atomic-bomb-test,-1952
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/5451465/Britains-atomic-test-veterans-win-right-to-sue-for-compensation.html
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/guinea-pigs
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-31/news/mn-40807_1_federal-benefits
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/21/south-pacific-nuclear-veterans-sue
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding is suddenly ignited up in the sky 600 or 30 meters above ground - it takes a few nano-seconds - and the first sign of it is this FLASH everyone is talking about.
It hits you at the speed of light. And then there is a high pressure, high temperature shockwave that destroys everything and it arrives a little later, so you have time to take cover not to be vaporized, so that you can come forwards as an eyewitness.
It sounds like a Disney fantasy. One part of my Challengeis to explain this FLASH in more detail and how anyone can survive witnessing it. Why is it white and not some other color? Pink?
The evidence that there is no flash at all is provided at my website. You really have to study it in more detail. People witnessing nuclear FLASHES are simply lying.
Heiwa, you are a liar, a fraud, a deluded self-obsessed fantasist and an attention whoring troll. Just putting it out there.
Why is the flash white? Because it's white light. Just like sunlight.
Are all these people liars, or just you?
http://aso.gov.au/titles/documentaries/backs-blast/clip3/
http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/history-culture/2016/06/video-australias-first-atomic-bomb-test,-1952
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/5451465/Britains-atomic-test-veterans-win-right-to-sue-for-compensation.html
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/guinea-pigs
http://articles.latimes.com/1995-08-31/news/mn-40807_1_federal-benefits
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/jan/21/south-pacific-nuclear-veterans-sue
Thanks for the links - most of them not working.
In order to fake an a-bomb you evidently chose a remote desert or island in an ocean (e.g. western Australia/Indian ocean) for the show and then you can invent anything, bla, bla. ... all starting with a FLASH!
But not to forget is the black, dirty, hot, high pressure mushroom cloud that rises into the stratosphere at 20 000 - 50 000 m altitude. Very impressive. Never seen of course!
How heating up clean air with pure energy at low altitude becomes a dirty cloud has never really been explained.
-
Every link worked for me.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You aren't getting any mushroom cloud from a few clumps of metal smashed together, no matter how you try to dress it up for people who have common sense, to believe.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You aren't getting any mushroom cloud from a few clumps of metal smashed together, no matter how you try to dress it up for people who have common sense, to believe.
Again, a response of incredulity with nothing to support it. That seems to be the limit of the arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons. No facts just, nope, I don't understand it so it can't be real.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You did? I did? Please remind me. How does heating pure air during nano-seconds become a dirty mushroom cloud?
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You did? I did? Please remind me. How does heating pure air during nano-seconds become a dirty mushroom cloud?
It's on this thread. Basically, and I am no expert at all, it seems that after the explosion the surrounding air comes rushing back in carrying smoke and particulates with it. This can happen with many types of explosions, not just nuclear.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You did? I did? Please remind me. How does heating pure air during nano-seconds become a dirty mushroom cloud?
It's on this thread. Basically, and I am no expert at all, it seems that after the explosion the surrounding air comes rushing back in carrying smoke and particulates with it. This can happen with many types of explosions, not just nuclear.
Air comes rushing back in carrying smoke and particulars with it after a nuclear explosion in fresh air over an Australian desert or an island in the Indian Ocean?
This cannot happen under any circumstances. Why do you invent fantasies like that?
-
News flash
Hot air rises.
-
Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor 1938 hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor. Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor 1939 hodor hodor.
Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor 'hodor' ' hodor 'hodor' hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor - hodor hodor(hodor) hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor FLASH - hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor. Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor .
Hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor hodor(hodor) hodor.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You aren't getting any mushroom cloud from a few clumps of metal smashed together, no matter how you try to dress it up for people who have common sense, to believe.
Again, a response of incredulity with nothing to support it. That seems to be the limit of the arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons. No facts just, nope, I don't understand it so it can't be real.
It's exactly the same limit you have for their existence.
All you can do is cite films of supposed nuclear blasts and basic propaganda.
Obviously you get the odd one's that try to argue emotion and also those who have a fathers fiend's uncle's cousin's granddad who seen it all first hand.
You have no proof that any of it exists.
Of course I'm sure you'll argue the toss.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You aren't getting any mushroom cloud from a few clumps of metal smashed together, no matter how you try to dress it up for people who have common sense, to believe.
Again, a response of incredulity with nothing to support it. That seems to be the limit of the arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons. No facts just, nope, I don't understand it so it can't be real.
It's exactly the same limit you have for their existence.
All you can do is cite films of supposed nuclear blasts and basic propaganda.
Obviously you get the odd one's that try to argue emotion and also those who have a fathers fiend's uncle's cousin's granddad who seen it all first hand.
You have no proof that any of it exists.
Of course I'm sure you'll argue the toss.
As I've pointed out before you can't prove anything beyond your own existence. It's a question of evidence. All evidence including eyewitness accounts supports nuclear power and weapons. No one here has presented any to dispute they simply say everyone is lying about. Common sense says they must be real.
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
What does being popular have to do with being taken seriously? ???
-
I am quite popular!
Just like a child that doesn't understand the difference between good attention and bad attention. Just....please....look at me!!
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
What does being popular have to do with being taken seriously? ???
People send me serious fan e-mails. They have read and understood what I say and they appreciate it. They are not like plenty anonymous posters here.
-
People send me serious fan e-mails. They have read and understood what I say and they appreciate it.
I can just only laugh at this....shows the magnitude of the delusions. Also the same guy that calls himself brave and good looking....not to mention with very good humor.
Do you not remember crutonius proving literally rating ones poop has twice as much popularity than your website. Even kittens that look like Hitler is more popular....
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
So you keep saying but it seems only you say it.
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
What does being popular have to do with being taken seriously? ???
People send me serious fan e-mails. They have read and understood what I say and they appreciate it. They are not like plenty anonymous posters here.
So in other words, you don't understand sarcasm.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You aren't getting any mushroom cloud from a few clumps of metal smashed together, no matter how you try to dress it up for people who have common sense, to believe.
Again, a response of incredulity with nothing to support it. That seems to be the limit of the arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons. No facts just, nope, I don't understand it so it can't be real.
It's exactly the same limit you have for their existence.
All you can do is cite films of supposed nuclear blasts and basic propaganda.
Obviously you get the odd one's that try to argue emotion and also those who have a fathers fiend's uncle's cousin's granddad who seen it all first hand.
You have no proof that any of it exists.
Of course I'm sure you'll argue the toss.
As I've pointed out before you can't prove anything beyond your own existence. It's a question of evidence. All evidence including eyewitness accounts supports nuclear power and weapons. No one here has presented any to dispute they simply say everyone is lying about. Common sense says they must be real.
No it doesn't. Common sense tells anyone who takes notice of the constant stream of bullshit we've had to endure for however many decades upon decades or even centuries, that we should logically question what APPEARS to be given out as a common sense energy/weaponry.
Mass indoctrinated opinion supports nuclear weapons and energy, nothing else.
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
What does being popular have to do with being taken seriously? ???
People send me serious fan e-mails. They have read and understood what I say and they appreciate it. They are not like plenty anonymous posters here.
So in other words, you don't understand sarcasm.
I don't like sarcasm. Satire is my style. Many twerps do not understand it.
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
What does being popular have to do with being taken seriously? ???
People send me serious fan e-mails. They have read and understood what I say and they appreciate it. They are not like plenty anonymous posters here.
So in other words, you don't understand sarcasm.
I don't like sarcasm. Satire is my style. Many twerps do not understand it.
so you're saying you don't understand satire either. thought so.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You aren't getting any mushroom cloud from a few clumps of metal smashed together, no matter how you try to dress it up for people who have common sense, to believe.
Again, a response of incredulity with nothing to support it. That seems to be the limit of the arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons. No facts just, nope, I don't understand it so it can't be real.
It's exactly the same limit you have for their existence.
All you can do is cite films of supposed nuclear blasts and basic propaganda.
Obviously you get the odd one's that try to argue emotion and also those who have a fathers fiend's uncle's cousin's granddad who seen it all first hand.
You have no proof that any of it exists.
Of course I'm sure you'll argue the toss.
Agreed, just like the United States doesn't exist. I've never seen anything but films and pictures of it. People that say they're from the USA are just trolls or shills on the internet in Australia. It's a conspiracy I tell you, there are even people inside a machine like the matrix that think they're in the USA but they're not, they're actually at Pine Gap in the Australia Outback. There is no evidence at all that the USA actually exists.
-
Agreed, just like the United States doesn't exist. I've never seen anything but films and pictures of it. People that say they're from the USA are just trolls or shills on the internet in Australia. It's a conspiracy I tell you, there are even people inside a machine like the matrix that think they're in the USA but they're not, they're actually at Pine Gap in the Australia Outback. There is no evidence at all that the USA actually exists.
Can you prove the USA exists as much as you can prove nuclear power exists?
If so then tell me all about it.
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
What does being popular have to do with being taken seriously? ???
People send me serious fan e-mails. They have read and understood what I say and they appreciate it. They are not like plenty anonymous posters here.
So in other words, you don't understand sarcasm.
I don't like sarcasm. Satire is my style. Many twerps do not understand it.
so you're saying you don't understand satire either. thought so.
I think I treat the US military handling nuclear bombs that cannot explode in a fair manner at my web site. Let them play with their toys while they add stars and bars to their uniforms.
-
Agreed, just like the United States doesn't exist. I've never seen anything but films and pictures of it. People that say they're from the USA are just trolls or shills on the internet in Australia. It's a conspiracy I tell you, there are even people inside a machine like the matrix that think they're in the USA but they're not, they're actually at Pine Gap in the Australia Outback. There is no evidence at all that the USA actually exists.
Can you prove the USA exists as much as you can prove nuclear power exists?
If so then tell me all about it.
I have no proof either exists, you cannot prove either exists, therefore neither exists. Actually I don't think you exist either, I've never seen you, you're probably a bot.
-
Agreed, just like the United States doesn't exist. I've never seen anything but films and pictures of it. People that say they're from the USA are just trolls or shills on the internet in Australia. It's a conspiracy I tell you, there are even people inside a machine like the matrix that think they're in the USA but they're not, they're actually at Pine Gap in the Australia Outback. There is no evidence at all that the USA actually exists.
Can you prove the USA exists as much as you can prove nuclear power exists?
If so then tell me all about it.
I have no proof either exists, you cannot prove either exists, therefore neither exists. Actually I don't think you exist either, I've never seen you, you're probably a bot.
Exactly. We both cannot prove the existence of nuclear weapons or energy. It comes down to acceptance of mass opinion borne from the tools of the media that are used as the mass manipulator of the masses by the few who think up this crap.
So basically we are down to you saying it exists and me questioning it's existence.
The top and bottom of it all is, we are being asked to continue believing that Santa Claus and the tooth fairy are real, even into adulthood, then ridiculed if we dare question the logic of it all.
-
Oh, come on! A nuclear bomb corresponding to 2 000 000 kilograms of TNT (dynamite) exploding...
Anders, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't even know the difference between TNT (trinitrotoluene) and dynamite (nitroglycerin)?
Don't worry. Plenty people take me seriously. I am quite popular!
What does being popular have to do with being taken seriously? ???
People send me serious fan e-mails. They have read and understood what I say and they appreciate it. They are not like plenty anonymous posters here.
So in other words, you don't understand sarcasm.
I don't like sarcasm. Satire is my style. Many twerps do not understand it.
so you're saying you don't understand satire either. thought so.
I think I treat the US military handling nuclear bombs that cannot explode in a fair manner at my web site. Let them play with their toys while they add stars and bars to their uniforms.
typical Heiwa, can't actually respond to posts.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You aren't getting any mushroom cloud from a few clumps of metal smashed together, no matter how you try to dress it up for people who have common sense, to believe.
Again, a response of incredulity with nothing to support it. That seems to be the limit of the arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons. No facts just, nope, I don't understand it so it can't be real.
It's exactly the same limit you have for their existence.
All you can do is cite films of supposed nuclear blasts and basic propaganda.
Obviously you get the odd one's that try to argue emotion and also those who have a fathers fiend's uncle's cousin's granddad who seen it all first hand.
You have no proof that any of it exists.
Of course I'm sure you'll argue the toss.
As I've pointed out before you can't prove anything beyond your own existence. It's a question of evidence. All evidence including eyewitness accounts supports nuclear power and weapons. No one here has presented any to dispute they simply say everyone is lying about. Common sense says they must be real.
No it doesn't. Common sense tells anyone who takes notice of the constant stream of bullshit we've had to endure for however many decades upon decades or even centuries, that we should logically question what APPEARS to be given out as a common sense energy/weaponry.
Mass indoctrinated opinion supports nuclear weapons and energy, nothing else.
Once again you fail to forth anything to support your position. I think you may not understand the concept of common sense, or logic. You seem to think it makes more sense that thousands of people are lying, that there is some vast conspiracy for some unknown reason than that these things actually do exist. Seriously that position makes no sense. It really seems to come down to, you don't understand it so it can't be real.
-
Once again you fail to forth anything to support your position. I think you may not understand the concept of common sense, or logic. You seem to think it makes more sense that thousands of people are lying, that there is some vast conspiracy for some unknown reason than that these things actually do exist. Seriously that position makes no sense. It really seems to come down to, you don't understand it so it can't be real.
Nah, I'm not failing. You are failing to grasp what's being said because you're so indoctrinated just like many others, which is the crux of the issue.
You see, I don't think most people are lying. I have told you time and time again that people are simply brainwashed into a belief system borne out of media manipulation of their minds, orchestrated from the top 1% of people who are party to making this crap up.
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
-
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
What does it say about a "free thinker" who refuses to take a physics course or visit a nuclear power plant to see for themselves if nuclear power is real or not?
-
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
What does it say about a "free thinker" who refuses to take a physics course or visit a nuclear power plant to see for themselves if nuclear power is real or not?
There are no real physics courses for something that doesn't exist. There's fiction courses for those that want to embrace the fantasy of it all.
-
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
What does it say about a "free thinker" who refuses to take a physics course or visit a nuclear power plant to see for themselves if nuclear power is real or not?
There are no real physics courses for something that doesn't exist. There's fiction courses for those that want to embrace the fantasy of it all.
Have you ever taken a nuclear physics course to determine if the physics are real or won't your prejudice allow that?
-
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
What does it say about a "free thinker" who refuses to take a physics course or visit a nuclear power plant to see for themselves if nuclear power is real or not?
There are no real physics courses for something that doesn't exist. There's fiction courses for those that want to embrace the fantasy of it all.
Have you ever taken a nuclear physics course to determine if the physics are real or won't your prejudice allow that?
Common sense and simple basic logic won't stretch to getting a course in fictional energy/weaponry.
-
Once again you fail to forth anything to support your position. I think you may not understand the concept of common sense, or logic. You seem to think it makes more sense that thousands of people are lying, that there is some vast conspiracy for some unknown reason than that these things actually do exist. Seriously that position makes no sense. It really seems to come down to, you don't understand it so it can't be real.
Nah, I'm not failing. You are failing to grasp what's being said because you're so indoctrinated just like many others, which is the crux of the issue.
You see, I don't think most people are lying. I have told you time and time again that people are simply brainwashed into a belief system borne out of media manipulation of their minds, orchestrated from the top 1% of people who are party to making this crap up.
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
You really have failed though. There is a mountain of evidence. I have personally known people who work in nuclear power plants. Including on a sub. You can do the research yourself. Yes, it would require thousands of people to be lying. I get the thing about people just accepting what they're told, sure. But if you look into it at all you can find first hand accounts, you can find scientific papers. You can actually talk to people who work in those fields.
That's evidence. And the only way you can dismiss it is if all of those people are lying. thats where your common sense and logic falls apart.
-
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
What does it say about a "free thinker" who refuses to take a physics course or visit a nuclear power plant to see for themselves if nuclear power is real or not?
There are no real physics courses for something that doesn't exist. There's fiction courses for those that want to embrace the fantasy of it all.
Have you ever taken a nuclear physics course to determine if the physics are real or won't your prejudice allow that?
Common sense and simple basic logic won't stretch to getting a course in fictional energy/weaponry.
Is that what pretend millions say?
Lol keep ignoring me, clown.
-
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
What does it say about a "free thinker" who refuses to take a physics course or visit a nuclear power plant to see for themselves if nuclear power is real or not?
There are no real physics courses for something that doesn't exist. There's fiction courses for those that want to embrace the fantasy of it all.
Have you ever taken a nuclear physics course to determine if the physics are real or won't your prejudice allow that?
Common sense and simple basic logic won't stretch to getting a course in fictional energy/weaponry.
Is that what pretend millions say?
Lol keep ignoring me, clown.
Scepti a millionaire? Really? Maybe HE should make a challenge. Somebody prove to him metal pellets can boil water for a decade in a clap trap.
-
Does this ring a bell.
Free thinker: Hey I'm not scared about nukes, they're not real.
Street kids: Yeah well you're a nutter because if the siren goes off you'll get 4 minutes to live.
Free thinker: How do you know that it's all real?
Street kids: Everyone knows they're real. It's on the news and in papers and in films and stuff. It shows you the damage they do.
Free thinker: Ahhh so you don't actually know if they're real, you just accept what's been said?
Street kids: Let's beat this nutter to a pulp.
What does it say about a "free thinker" who refuses to take a physics course or visit a nuclear power plant to see for themselves if nuclear power is real or not?
There are no real physics courses for something that doesn't exist. There's fiction courses for those that want to embrace the fantasy of it all.
Have you ever taken a nuclear physics course to determine if the physics are real or won't your prejudice allow that?
Common sense and simple basic logic won't stretch to getting a course in fictional energy/weaponry.
It seems that your version of "common sense" is nothing more than your prejudice against mainstream physics.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You did? I did? Please remind me. How does heating pure air during nano-seconds become a dirty mushroom cloud?
It's on this thread. Basically, and I am no expert at all, it seems that after the explosion the surrounding air comes rushing back in carrying smoke and particulates with it. This can happen with many types of explosions, not just nuclear.
But we discuss nuclear weapons.
They apparently transform pure metal (e.g. uranium) into pure energy (e.g. heat) taking nano-seconds - BOOM - when being mechanically compressed to double density with a neutron in between - runway exponential fission.
How it works is a military secret though!
And then there is this dirty, black mushroom cloud. Where does it come from? Heating air? Becoming a dirty cloud? What kind of basic physics is it?
Why waste nuclear energy producing a dirty mushroom cloud?
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You did? I did? Please remind me. How does heating pure air during nano-seconds become a dirty mushroom cloud?
It's on this thread. Basically, and I am no expert at all, it seems that after the explosion the surrounding air comes rushing back in carrying smoke and particulates with it. This can happen with many types of explosions, not just nuclear.
But we discuss nuclear weapons.
They apparently transform pure metal (e.g. uranium) into pure energy (e.g. heat) taking nano-seconds - BOOM - when being mechanically compressed to double density with a neutron in between - runway exponential fission.
How it works is a military secret though!
And then there is this dirty, black mushroom cloud. Where does it come from? Heating air? Becoming a dirty cloud? What kind of basic physics is it?
Why waste nuclear energy producing a dirty mushroom cloud?
See above. I just explained it to you. Also common sense and logic do not lead to the idea of a massive conspiracy or that everyone who is a physicist or works in nuclear fields is lying.
-
Every link worked for me.
What about the hot, dirty air mushroom cloud slowly rising to 50 000 m altitude. Where did it come from? Pure energy heating air?
No, all those small mushroom clouds photoshopped into various explosion footages are caused be by carbon chemicals of all kind.
Actually I explained the mushroom clouds to you. You ignored it.
You did? I did? Please remind me. How does heating pure air during nano-seconds become a dirty mushroom cloud?
It's on this thread. Basically, and I am no expert at all, it seems that after the explosion the surrounding air comes rushing back in carrying smoke and particulates with it. This can happen with many types of explosions, not just nuclear.
But we discuss nuclear weapons.
They apparently transform pure metal (e.g. uranium) into pure energy (e.g. heat) taking nano-seconds - BOOM - when being mechanically compressed to double density with a neutron in between - runway exponential fission.
How it works is a military secret though!
And then there is this dirty, black mushroom cloud. Where does it come from? Heating air? Becoming a dirty cloud? What kind of basic physics is it?
Why waste nuclear energy producing a dirty mushroom cloud?
See above. I just explained it to you. Also common sense and logic do not lead to the idea of a massive conspiracy or that everyone who is a physicist or works in nuclear fields is lying.
Where you explain about nuclear weapons explosions producing dirty mushroom clouds?
IMO a mushroom cloud is not a massive conspiracy. It is a simple Hollywood trick to add action to impossible feats. Like fire balls. Noise!
-
Where you explain about nuclear weapons explosions producing dirty mushroom clouds?
You've had it explained to you by at least two separate people, and you could even do something crazy like read a book or search the internet and find out why they happen.
IMO a mushroom cloud is not a massive conspiracy. It is a simple Hollywood trick to add action to impossible feats. Like fire balls. Noise!
There is no trick, it's really really really basic physics.
-
Where you explain about nuclear weapons explosions producing dirty mushroom clouds?
You've had it explained to you by at least two separate people, and you could even do something crazy like read a book or search the internet and find out why they happen.
IMO a mushroom cloud is not a massive conspiracy. It is a simple Hollywood trick to add action to impossible feats. Like fire balls. Noise!
There is no trick, it's really really really basic physics.
Hm! Moderated fission takes place inside a nuclear power plant. Only heat is produced in amounts that you can control. There is no smoke! Everyone agrees on that (except scepti).
Runway, exponential, military fission takes place in an atomic bomb. Enormous amount of heat is suddenly produced during some nano-seconds - that's the explosion we are told - and there is smoke!
Where does the smoke come from? It shouldn't be there ... unless it is added Hollywood style.
-
Any sufficiently large explosion can create a mushroom cloud.
For example the force of my facepalm after reading your posts often creates a mushroom cloud type effect.
the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. This instability is well known in physics and, in general, describes the merging between two different substances (mainly liquids and gases) that have different densities and are subjected to acceleration. In the case of an atomic bomb, the acceleration, and the hotter gases creating the differing densities of material, are caused by the explosion.
From this, you might have guessed you don’t necessarily need an atomic bomb to create a mushroom cloud. All you need is enough energy delivered rapidly (in this case an explosion) that creates a pocket of differing densities of material (in this case, heated gases).
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/nuclear-bombs-create-mushroom-cloud/
Nice simple website and explanation.
Edit found out something cool check it out.
Wow.
-
Agreed, just like the United States doesn't exist. I've never seen anything but films and pictures of it. People that say they're from the USA are just trolls or shills on the internet in Australia. It's a conspiracy I tell you, there are even people inside a machine like the matrix that think they're in the USA but they're not, they're actually at Pine Gap in the Australia Outback. There is no evidence at all that the USA actually exists.
Can you prove the USA exists as much as you can prove nuclear power exists?
If so then tell me all about it.
...I've never seen you, you're probably a bot.
Exactly......
Figures.
-
Any sufficiently large explosion can create a mushroom cloud.
For example the force of my facepalm after reading your posts often creates a mushroom cloud type effect.
the Rayleigh-Taylor instability. This instability is well known in physics and, in general, describes the merging between two different substances (mainly liquids and gases) that have different densities and are subjected to acceleration. In the case of an atomic bomb, the acceleration, and the hotter gases creating the differing densities of material, are caused by the explosion.
From this, you might have guessed you don’t necessarily need an atomic bomb to create a mushroom cloud. All you need is enough energy delivered rapidly (in this case an explosion) that creates a pocket of differing densities of material (in this case, heated gases).
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/11/nuclear-bombs-create-mushroom-cloud/
Nice simple website and explanation.
Well, it doesn't explain why the cloud is dirty, black.
When the critical mass - 3-4 litres volume - of uranium is converted in nano-seconds into pure energy the temperature rises to 100 000 000°C (the FLASH) and the local pressure is 100 000 000 Pa, we are told.
So we have 3-4 litres of what is left of the uranium and it mixes with the surrounding air and becomes quickly a dirty cloud that slowly rises into the stratosphere.
At Alamogordo the first nuke (the Manhattan project) exploded at 30 meters altitude above the desert, vaporized the steel tower it was positioned on (we are told) but didn't blow away the desert sand into which the tower was built. We are told that the desert sand melted and later became solid but I would expect the melted sand to blow away forming a crater. No crater at Alamogordo. No sand blowing away anywhere!
So where did the dirty cloud come from. Mixing hot and cold air? Pls, give me a break.
-
You really have failed though. There is a mountain of evidence.
Failed at what? Failed at questioning?
You are failing miserably at convincing me that I'm failing.
I have personally known people who work in nuclear power plants. Including on a sub.
Yeah people work in power plants and on subs. They do not know what they are working with as regards the energy to propel them, except the basics, as is supposed back up generators.
It would take nothing to fool people into believing they are operating a nuclear plant because it's all shrouded in security and mystery inside.
Think about a control room. Opening and closing valves. It would tell nobody anything about fission of anything, except to see supposed buttons telling them this and that.
You can do the research yourself.
You can do research on the running of the star ship enterprise. Does that make it real?
Yes, it would require thousands of people to be lying. I get the thing about people just accepting what they're told, sure. But if you look into it at all you can find first hand accounts, you can find scientific papers.
First hand accounts of what?
You can find scientific papers for almost anything and everything. You get told on a daily basis that certain foods cause this and that. You get told this because many scientists studied the effects over many years and documented it all as part of scientific papers.
Now we're told that the bad things that were hazardous to health may actually be beneficial.
Do you see how easy it is to play with the minds of the public?
Stop being so gullible.
You can actually talk to people who work in those fields.
As above. Compartmentalised is the name of the game. Peter doesn't know what Paul is doing and Betty doesn't know what Brenda is doing.
That's evidence. And the only way you can dismiss it is if all of those people are lying. thats where your common sense and logic falls apart.
I can't dismiss it outright because I have no physical proof. However, I also do not have any physical proof that any of it is real and I have to use logic and common sense to decipher the truth from the fiction.
To my thoughts it's strongly leaning into fiction.
It's just a tool to amaze us and scare us into submission. It's a clever ruse but that's all it is. Unfortunately for the people, those at the top know how easily we are to manipulate and pacify and scare and amaze and dupe and control, as and when required.
-
Hm! Moderated fission takes place inside a nuclear power plant. Only heat is produced in amounts that you can control. There is no smoke! Everyone agrees on that (except scepti).
You do understand that moderation slows down the nuclear chain reaction, don't you?
Runway, exponential, military fission takes place in an atomic bomb. Enormous amount of heat is suddenly produced during some nano-seconds - that's the explosion we are told - and there is smoke!
Where does the smoke come from? It shouldn't be there ... unless it is added Hollywood style.
The smoke is not from the fission itself. The smoke is a byproduct of the enormous of energies released into the environment.
The Mushroom Cloud
As the fireball increases in size and cools, the vapors condense to form a cloud containing
solid particles of the weapon debris, as well as many small drops of water derived from
the air sucked into the rising fireball.
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE12.jpg)
Depending on the height of burst, a strong updraft with inflowing winds, called
"afterwinds," are produced. These afterwinds can cause varying amounts of dirt and
debris to be sucked up from the earth's surface into the cloud. In an air burst with a
moderate (or small) amount of dirt and debris drawn up into the cloud, only a relatively
small proportion become contaminated with radioactivity. For a burst near the ground,
however, large amounts of dirt and debris are drawn into the cloud during formation.
-
Hm! Moderated fission takes place inside a nuclear power plant. Only heat is produced in amounts that you can control. There is no smoke! Everyone agrees on that (except scepti).
You do understand that moderation slows down the nuclear chain reaction, don't you?
Runway, exponential, military fission takes place in an atomic bomb. Enormous amount of heat is suddenly produced during some nano-seconds - that's the explosion we are told - and there is smoke!
Where does the smoke come from? It shouldn't be there ... unless it is added Hollywood style.
The smoke is not from the fission itself. The smoke is a byproduct of the enormous of energies released into the environment.
The Mushroom Cloud
As the fireball increases in size and cools, the vapors condense to form a cloud containing
solid particles of the weapon debris, as well as many small drops of water derived from
the air sucked into the rising fireball.
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE12.jpg)
Depending on the height of burst, a strong updraft with inflowing winds, called
"afterwinds," are produced. These afterwinds can cause varying amounts of dirt and
debris to be sucked up from the earth's surface into the cloud. In an air burst with a
moderate (or small) amount of dirt and debris drawn up into the cloud, only a relatively
small proportion become contaminated with radioactivity. For a burst near the ground,
however, large amounts of dirt and debris are drawn into the cloud during formation.
So you say that a byproduct of most of the pure energy released by runway exponential nuclear explosion becomes a dirty, black mushroom cloud?
What kind of byproduct are you talking about? Hollywood?
-
Hm! Moderated fission takes place inside a nuclear power plant. Only heat is produced in amounts that you can control. There is no smoke! Everyone agrees on that (except scepti).
You do understand that moderation slows down the nuclear chain reaction, don't you?
Runway, exponential, military fission takes place in an atomic bomb. Enormous amount of heat is suddenly produced during some nano-seconds - that's the explosion we are told - and there is smoke!
Where does the smoke come from? It shouldn't be there ... unless it is added Hollywood style.
The smoke is not from the fission itself. The smoke is a byproduct of the enormous of energies released into the environment.
The Mushroom Cloud
As the fireball increases in size and cools, the vapors condense to form a cloud containing
solid particles of the weapon debris, as well as many small drops of water derived from
the air sucked into the rising fireball.
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE12.jpg)
Depending on the height of burst, a strong updraft with inflowing winds, called
"afterwinds," are produced. These afterwinds can cause varying amounts of dirt and
debris to be sucked up from the earth's surface into the cloud. In an air burst with a
moderate (or small) amount of dirt and debris drawn up into the cloud, only a relatively
small proportion become contaminated with radioactivity. For a burst near the ground,
however, large amounts of dirt and debris are drawn into the cloud during formation.
So you say that a byproduct of most of the pure energy released by runway exponential nuclear explosion becomes a dirty, black mushroom cloud?
What kind of byproduct are you talking about? Hollywood?
Anders, I am beginning to have serious concerns about your literacy level. You seem to be incapable of reading and/or understanding the explanations provided to you, let alone following links or doing your own bloody research.
-
Hm! Moderated fission takes place inside a nuclear power plant. Only heat is produced in amounts that you can control. There is no smoke! Everyone agrees on that (except scepti).
You do understand that moderation slows down the nuclear chain reaction, don't you?
Runway, exponential, military fission takes place in an atomic bomb. Enormous amount of heat is suddenly produced during some nano-seconds - that's the explosion we are told - and there is smoke!
Where does the smoke come from? It shouldn't be there ... unless it is added Hollywood style.
The smoke is not from the fission itself. The smoke is a byproduct of the enormous of energies released into the environment.
The Mushroom Cloud
As the fireball increases in size and cools, the vapors condense to form a cloud containing
solid particles of the weapon debris, as well as many small drops of water derived from
the air sucked into the rising fireball.
(http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/Images/WE12.jpg)
Depending on the height of burst, a strong updraft with inflowing winds, called
"afterwinds," are produced. These afterwinds can cause varying amounts of dirt and
debris to be sucked up from the earth's surface into the cloud. In an air burst with a
moderate (or small) amount of dirt and debris drawn up into the cloud, only a relatively
small proportion become contaminated with radioactivity. For a burst near the ground,
however, large amounts of dirt and debris are drawn into the cloud during formation.
So you say that a byproduct of most of the pure energy released by runway exponential nuclear explosion becomes a dirty, black mushroom cloud?
What kind of byproduct are you talking about? Hollywood?
Anders, I am beginning to have serious concerns about your literacy level. You seem to be incapable of reading and/or understanding the explanations provided to you, let alone following links or doing your own bloody research.
No, I can read and understand but your explanations why nuclear explosions produce mushroom clouds are beyond me. Look at the photo you provide. A nuclear bomb has exploded above ground in the middle of a dark night somewhere and there is only a bright mushroom cloud to watch. There is smoke/dust clouds on the ground and above it is this funny mushroom cloud, but how they could vaporize Hiroshima are beyond me. 20 000 000 kgs of TNT dynamite has exploded just before the photo is taken and ... there is only a stupid mushroom cloud. Sorry, markjo. You don't convince me with your nonsense.
-
If nuclear weapons are not real, then why all the fuss between rival countries? If we, the US, know Russia doesn't really have them, and Russia knows we don't really have them, then why the tension?
If Pakistan knows India doesn't have them, and vice versa, again, why the tension?
Israel / Iran - why the tension?
Why do we pander to a spoiled brat in North Korea when he threatens with nukes?
You mean to tell me all these World Powers are just fooling everyone but Heiwa and Scepti?
-
If nuclear weapons are not real, then why all the fuss between rival countries? If we, the US, know Russia doesn't really have them, and Russia knows we don't really have them, then why the tension?
If Pakistan knows India doesn't have them, and vice versa, again, why the tension?
Israel / Iran - why the tension?
Why do we pander to a spoiled brat in North Korea when he threatens with nukes?
You mean to tell me all these World Powers are just fooling everyone but Heiwa and Scepti?
Yes IonSpen. It is just nuke biz that no biz I know. Great! Keeps super and midget powers bizi and you can hang medals on them 24 hrs a day.
-
Anders, I am beginning to have serious concerns about your literacy level. You seem to be incapable of reading and/or understanding the explanations provided to you, let alone following links or doing your own bloody research.
No, I can read and understand but your explanations why nuclear explosions produce mushroom clouds are beyond me.
If the explanations are beyond you, then evidently you do not understand.
Look at the photo you provide. A nuclear bomb has exploded above ground in the middle of a dark night somewhere and there is only a bright mushroom cloud to watch. There is smoke/dust clouds on the ground and above it is this funny mushroom cloud, but how they could vaporize Hiroshima are beyond me. 20 000 000 kgs of TNT dynamite has exploded just before the photo is taken and ... there is only a stupid mushroom cloud. Sorry, markjo. You don't convince me with your nonsense.
Yet again, you demonstrate your inability to understand what you're talking about.
First of all, the explosion in that picture is not the Hiroshima bomb.
Secondly, Hiroshima was not vaporized.
Thirdly, the Hiroshima bomb was equivalent to about 15,000 tons of TNT, not 20,000 tonnes.
Fourthly, TNT is the standard explosive measure. Kg for kg, dynamite has a lower explosive yield than TNT, so the two are not interchangeable.
Anders, I would strongly suggest that you have your family doctor refer you for testing for Alzheimer's or other such neurological diseases. Your inability to assimilate new information is truly concerning.
-
First of all, the explosion in that picture is not the Hiroshima bomb.
...
Anders, I would strongly suggest that you have your family doctor refer you for testing for Alzheimer's or other such neurological diseases. Your inability to assimilate new information is truly concerning.
I know! It was the 20 000 ton TNT Alamogordo #1 a-bomb triggered during the night just as a test to flash up the desert. It only vaporized the tower keeping it in place 30 meters above ground. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It was a joke, though. But media reported that it was true.
You sound sick. What does your doctor say about you? It is OT. I don't care what your doctor thinks about you. Only you should.
-
First of all, the explosion in that picture is not the Hiroshima bomb.
...
Anders, I would strongly suggest that you have your family doctor refer you for testing for Alzheimer's or other such neurological diseases. Your inability to assimilate new information is truly concerning.
I know! It was the 20 000 ton TNT Alamogordo #1 a-bomb triggered during the night just as a test to flash up the desert. It only vaporized the tower keeping it in place 30 meters above ground. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It was a joke, though. But media reported that it was true.
Nope. That photo was the Fizeau test from Operation Plumbbob on Sept. 14, 1957. It was mere 11,000 ton explosion.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/503346#List_of_test_blasts
-
First of all, the explosion in that picture is not the Hiroshima bomb.
...
Anders, I would strongly suggest that you have your family doctor refer you for testing for Alzheimer's or other such neurological diseases. Your inability to assimilate new information is truly concerning.
I know! It was the 20 000 ton TNT Alamogordo #1 a-bomb triggered during the night just as a test to flash up the desert. It only vaporized the tower keeping it in place 30 meters above ground. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It was a joke, though. But media reported that it was true.
Nope. That photo was the Fizeau test from Operation Plumbbob on Sept. 14, 1957. It was mere 11,000 ton explosion.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/503346#List_of_test_blasts
Hm, the photo looks fake. Do you have any evidence that the photo is real?
-
First of all, the explosion in that picture is not the Hiroshima bomb.
...
Anders, I would strongly suggest that you have your family doctor refer you for testing for Alzheimer's or other such neurological diseases. Your inability to assimilate new information is truly concerning.
I know! It was the 20 000 ton TNT Alamogordo #1 a-bomb triggered during the night just as a test to flash up the desert. It only vaporized the tower keeping it in place 30 meters above ground. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It was a joke, though. But media reported that it was true.
Nope. That photo was the Fizeau test from Operation Plumbbob on Sept. 14, 1957. It was mere 11,000 ton explosion.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/503346#List_of_test_blasts
Hm, the photo looks fake. Do you have any evidence that the photo is real?
Do you mean other than the links that I provided?
-
First of all, the explosion in that picture is not the Hiroshima bomb.
...
Anders, I would strongly suggest that you have your family doctor refer you for testing for Alzheimer's or other such neurological diseases. Your inability to assimilate new information is truly concerning.
I know! It was the 20 000 ton TNT Alamogordo #1 a-bomb triggered during the night just as a test to flash up the desert. It only vaporized the tower keeping it in place 30 meters above ground. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It was a joke, though. But media reported that it was true.
Nope. That photo was the Fizeau test from Operation Plumbbob on Sept. 14, 1957. It was mere 11,000 ton explosion.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/503346#List_of_test_blasts
Hm, the photo looks fake. Do you have any evidence that the photo is real?
Do you mean other than the links that I provided?
No, I mean the photos. It seems the only evidences supporters of a-bombs vaporizing civilians provide are photos taken from far away of alleged explosions and big dirty clouds. Just Hollywood nonsense, IMHO.
-
First of all, the explosion in that picture is not the Hiroshima bomb.
...
Anders, I would strongly suggest that you have your family doctor refer you for testing for Alzheimer's or other such neurological diseases. Your inability to assimilate new information is truly concerning.
I know! It was the 20 000 ton TNT Alamogordo #1 a-bomb triggered during the night just as a test to flash up the desert. It only vaporized the tower keeping it in place 30 meters above ground. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It was a joke, though. But media reported that it was true.
Nope. That photo was the Fizeau test from Operation Plumbbob on Sept. 14, 1957. It was mere 11,000 ton explosion.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/503346#List_of_test_blasts
Hm, the photo looks fake. Do you have any evidence that the photo is real?
Do you mean other than the links that I provided?
No, I mean the photos. It seems the only evidences supporters of a-bombs vaporizing civilians provide are photos taken from far away of alleged explosions and big dirty clouds. Just Hollywood nonsense, IMHO.
Someone who claims to be a safety expert wants up close photographs of nuclear explosions? ??? :o
-
First of all, the explosion in that picture is not the Hiroshima bomb.
...
Anders, I would strongly suggest that you have your family doctor refer you for testing for Alzheimer's or other such neurological diseases. Your inability to assimilate new information is truly concerning.
I know! It was the 20 000 ton TNT Alamogordo #1 a-bomb triggered during the night just as a test to flash up the desert. It only vaporized the tower keeping it in place 30 meters above ground. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It was a joke, though. But media reported that it was true.
Nope. That photo was the Fizeau test from Operation Plumbbob on Sept. 14, 1957. It was mere 11,000 ton explosion.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Plumbob.html
http://en.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/503346#List_of_test_blasts
Hm, the photo looks fake. Do you have any evidence that the photo is real?
Do you mean other than the links that I provided?
No, I mean the photos. It seems the only evidences supporters of a-bombs vaporizing civilians provide are photos taken from far away of alleged explosions and big dirty clouds. Just Hollywood nonsense, IMHO.
Someone who claims to be a safety expert wants up close photographs of nuclear explosions? ??? :o
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
Sorry, nothing is wrong on my web site. All facts and findings are fully documented. It upsets many persons suffering from cognitive dissonance. I offer anyone €1M to prove me wrong since many years and there are no takers for obvious reasons.
-
I offer anyone €1M to prove me wrong since many years and there are no takers for obvious reasons.
Now now, you are lying to yourself.
-
I offer anyone €1M to prove me wrong since many years and there are no takers for obvious reasons.
Now now, you are lying to yourself.
Well, pretty much everyone really.
-
I offer anyone €1M to prove me wrong since many years and there are no takers for obvious reasons.
Now now, you are lying to yourself.
No, it is the truth! See http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ! >2 240 000 visitors so far.
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
Sorry, nothing is wrong on my web site. All facts and findings are fully documented.
Sorry, but your personal incredulity doesn't count as fact or documentation.
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
Sorry, nothing is wrong on my web site. All facts and findings are fully documented.
Sorry, but your personal incredulity doesn't count as fact or documentation.
Well, I have plenty visitors, >2 240 000, and most of them are happy. Only rarely I receive criticism and it is always anonymous. My facts and findings show that nuclear weapons exist but don't work. Reason is the fission is not instantaneous and cannot produce a FLASH! Fission is always moderated. As I always say - prove me wrong and collect €1M!
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
Sorry, nothing is wrong on my web site. All facts and findings are fully documented.
Sorry, but your personal incredulity doesn't count as fact or documentation.
Well, I have plenty visitors, >2 240 000, and most of them are happy. Only rarely I receive criticism and it is always anonymous. My facts and findings show that nuclear weapons exist but don't work. Reason is the fission is not instantaneous and cannot produce a FLASH! Fission is always moderated. As I always say - prove me wrong and collect €1M!
But that's it. It's just a claim. You don't publish a paper or do experiments or deal in actual evidence. You just claim it can't work. As for your contest, basically you are saying that someone would have to build a nuclear weapon and set it off for you in order to win.
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
Sorry, nothing is wrong on my web site. All facts and findings are fully documented.
Sorry, but your personal incredulity doesn't count as fact or documentation.
Well, I have plenty visitors, >2 240 000, and most of them are happy. Only rarely I receive criticism and it is always anonymous. My facts and findings show that nuclear weapons exist but don't work. Reason is the fission is not instantaneous and cannot produce a FLASH! Fission is always moderated. As I always say - prove me wrong and collect €1M!
I think that it's pointless to argue with someone who doesn't seem to understand that moderation is used to slow fission down, not to speed it up, or that nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs used different isotopes of Uranium that have different properties.
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
Sorry, nothing is wrong on my web site. All facts and findings are fully documented.
Sorry, but your personal incredulity doesn't count as fact or documentation.
Well, I have plenty visitors, >2 240 000, and most of them are happy. Only rarely I receive criticism and it is always anonymous. My facts and findings show that nuclear weapons exist but don't work. Reason is the fission is not instantaneous and cannot produce a FLASH! Fission is always moderated. As I always say - prove me wrong and collect €1M!
I think that it's pointless to argue with someone who doesn't seem to understand that moderation is used to slow fission down, not to speed it up, or that nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs used different isotopes of Uranium that have different properties.
It seems we agree that fission exists and works, e.g. in a nuclear power plant producing steam/electricity under moderated conditions. Fission was first observed 1938.
What I consider false and a lie is this very unusual fission invented 1942/5 taking place after having compressed two pieces of metal to double density (!) with a neutron in between. LOL!
I remember asking Niels Bohr about it. How do you compress any solid to double density ... with a neutron in between? He couldn't answer.
So I conclude that, even if nuclear weapons exist, they do not work. Prove me wrong and collect €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
-
I'd like to know how someone could split a so called atom in those days when they didn't even know what an atom was, visually, to split it.
The stories are good little stories of fiction to control the masses but fiction is all they will ever be.
-
I'd like to know how someone could split a so called atom in those days when they didn't even know what an atom was, visually, to split it.
The stories are good little stories of fiction to control the masses but fiction is all they will ever be.
Well, according to the Eggheads of the Manhattan project 1942/5 there were two possibilities, at least.
Einstein suggested that all the metals (uranium!) atoms with mass m just became pure energy, i.e. the increased relativistic mass m of the atom came from the energy of motion of the atom— that is, its kinetic energy E — divided by the speed of light c squared, c². This equation expressed the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entities and can be changed into each other when an atomic bomb explodes in a FLASH.
Niels Bohr on the other hand suggested that all the metals (uranium!) atoms with mass m just split up 44/54 into other, harmless metals and that only 2% became pure energy of some sort a - FLASH -? to wipe out ... EVERYONE!
And some free neutrons!
That are still flying around.
If anyone survived the first FLASH they should be wiped out then.
People believed this nonsense in the 1950's. Plenty Russians believed in Stalin also. If they didn't, the were shot! And the Americans adored FDR/Truman wiping out the Jap yellow monkies 1945.
Then I was born 1946 to put things right again!
http://heiwaco.com
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
Sorry, nothing is wrong on my web site. All facts and findings are fully documented.
Sorry, but your personal incredulity doesn't count as fact or documentation.
Well, I have plenty visitors, >2 240 000, and most of them are happy. Only rarely I receive criticism and it is always anonymous. My facts and findings show that nuclear weapons exist but don't work. Reason is the fission is not instantaneous and cannot produce a FLASH! Fission is always moderated. As I always say - prove me wrong and collect €1M!
I think that it's pointless to argue with someone who doesn't seem to understand that moderation is used to slow fission down, not to speed it up, or that nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs used different isotopes of Uranium that have different properties.
It seems we agree that fission exists and works, e.g. in a nuclear power plant producing steam/electricity under moderated conditions. Fission was first observed 1938.
What I consider false and a lie is this very unusual fission invented 1942/5 taking place after having compressed two pieces of metal to double density (!) with a neutron in between. LOL!
I remember asking Niels Bohr about it. How do you compress any solid to double density ... with a neutron in between? He couldn't answer.
So I conclude that, even if nuclear weapons exist, they do not work. Prove me wrong and collect €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr.
-
Well, what I claim at my web site is that runway, instantanious fission that transforms metal, compressed to double density, into pure energy in a nanoseconds FLASH doesn't work.
So pictures of such FLASHES surounded by dirty smoke does not impress me.
Well, a lot of the things that you claim on your web site are wrong, so citing those wrong claims does not impress me either.
Sorry, nothing is wrong on my web site. All facts and findings are fully documented.
Sorry, but your personal incredulity doesn't count as fact or documentation.
Well, I have plenty visitors, >2 240 000, and most of them are happy. Only rarely I receive criticism and it is always anonymous. My facts and findings show that nuclear weapons exist but don't work. Reason is the fission is not instantaneous and cannot produce a FLASH! Fission is always moderated. As I always say - prove me wrong and collect €1M!
I think that it's pointless to argue with someone who doesn't seem to understand that moderation is used to slow fission down, not to speed it up, or that nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs used different isotopes of Uranium that have different properties.
It seems we agree that fission exists and works, e.g. in a nuclear power plant producing steam/electricity under moderated conditions. Fission was first observed 1938.
What I consider false and a lie is this very unusual fission invented 1942/5 taking place after having compressed two pieces of metal to double density (!) with a neutron in between. LOL!
I remember asking Niels Bohr about it. How do you compress any solid to double density ... with a neutron in between? He couldn't answer.
So I conclude that, even if nuclear weapons exist, they do not work. Prove me wrong and collect €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr.
Well, Niels was a good friend of the family until he died 1962. Bohr developed a model of the atom already 1913 and my grandfather helped Niels with the mathematics. 1939 Niels thought that the same atoms could break apart and that it explained fission discovered the year before. In spite of this Niels could never really explan fission and that you could start one by compressing metal to double density. Niels actually slept in my mothers bed for a couple of weeks 1942 before flying off to Los Alamos, NM, inventing the atomic bomb. My mother had evacuated the bed already 1939 to study at Lund.
Imagine that an inventor of the a-bomb slept in my mother's bed. I have also slept in it visiting my grandparents. Anyway, the good news are that a-bombs do not work! There is no way to start an exponential fission that a few nanoseconds later produces a great FLASH! Compressing metal to double density is not possible either. Only fools think otherwise. Like Niels!
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
-
More lies from Heiwa. You've offered no proof of your claim to have talked to him. And you've been proven to have lied repeatedly in the past. All this looks like is a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
-
More lies from Heiwa. You've offered no proof of your claim to have talked to him. And you've been proven to have lied repeatedly in the past. All this looks like is a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
You just talk nonsense, frenat. Are you sick? Are you paid to produce shit? Who are you? Why do you waste your time at FESF?
-
More lies from Heiwa. You've offered no proof of your claim to have talked to him. And you've been proven to have lied repeatedly in the past. All this looks like is a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
You just talk nonsense, frenat. Are you sick? Are you paid to produce shit? Who are you? Why do you waste your time at FESF?
Projecting now? One could ask the same of you. Why do you repeatedly post lies when you know nobody falls for your shit?
For the record, no I am not sick nor am I paid to produce "shit". I am not paid to post here or anywhere else. I don't feel my time spent here is a waste but nice to know your feelings about this site.
-
More lies from Heiwa. You've offered no proof of your claim to have talked to him. And you've been proven to have lied repeatedly in the past. All this looks like is a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
You just talk nonsense, frenat. Are you sick? Are you paid to produce shit? Who are you? Why do you waste your time at FESF?
Projecting now? One could ask the same of you. Why do you repeatedly post lies when you know nobody falls for your shit?
For the record, no I am not sick nor am I paid to produce "shit". I am not paid to post here or anywhere else. I don't feel my time spent here is a waste but nice to know your feelings about this site.
Sorry. I post under my own name what I consider true facts at http://heiwaco.com .
And you? No! I don't know you. You hide like all other internet shills. Thus you and your opinions are shit.
-
More lies from Heiwa. You've offered no proof of your claim to have talked to him. And you've been proven to have lied repeatedly in the past. All this looks like is a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
You just talk nonsense, frenat. Are you sick? Are you paid to produce shit? Who are you? Why do you waste your time at FESF?
Projecting now? One could ask the same of you. Why do you repeatedly post lies when you know nobody falls for your shit?
For the record, no I am not sick nor am I paid to produce "shit". I am not paid to post here or anywhere else. I don't feel my time spent here is a waste but nice to know your feelings about this site.
Sorry. I post under my own name what I consider true facts at http://heiwaco.com .
And you? No! I don't know you. You hide like all other internet shills. Thus you and your opinions are shit.
Typical Heiwa. People don't believe his lies so he resorts to insults instead. At least you're predictable.
-
Compressing metal to double density is not possible either. Only fools think otherwise. Like Niels!
Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that the Uranium is compressed to double its density, except for you. I suppose that makes you the fool.
-
Compressing metal to double density is not possible either. Only fools think otherwise. Like Niels!
Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that the Uranium is compressed to double its density, except for you. I suppose that makes you the fool.
?? According US secrets the only way to trigger or get an a-bomb to explode is to compress uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between. Then fission starts and the metal becomes a FLASH!
I agree it sounds foolish but that's how it works and it is a reason that nuclear weapons exist but do not work.
-
Compressing metal to double density is not possible either. Only fools think otherwise. Like Niels!
Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that the Uranium is compressed to double its density, except for you. I suppose that makes you the fool.
?? According US secrets the only way to trigger or get an a-bomb to explode is to compress uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between.
Nope. What's needed is a critical mass of fissile material, which varies with the specific isotope, purity, temperature, etc.
Then fission starts and the metal becomes a FLASH!
No. The energy released from the fission produces a flash. The fissile material itself becomes other lighter elements.
I agree it sounds foolish but that's how it works and it is a reason that nuclear weapons exist but do not work.
It only sounds foolish because you have the whole process so hopelessly wrong.
-
Compressing metal to double density is not possible either. Only fools think otherwise. Like Niels!
Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that the Uranium is compressed to double its density, except for you. I suppose that makes you the fool.
?? According US secrets the only way to trigger or get an a-bomb to explode is to compress uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between.
Nope. What's needed is a critical mass of fissile material, which varies with the specific isotope, purity, temperature, etc.
Then fission starts and the metal becomes a FLASH!
No. The energy released from the fission produces a flash. The fissile material itself becomes other lighter elements.
I agree it sounds foolish but that's how it works and it is a reason that nuclear weapons exist but do not work.
It only sounds foolish because you have the whole process so hopelessly wrong.
Hm, maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Suggest you discuss with your family doctor. You really sound sick or mentally ill.
Pls tell me what the doctor says.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
-
Compressing metal to double density is not possible either. Only fools think otherwise. Like Niels!
Then it's a good thing that no one is claiming that the Uranium is compressed to double its density, except for you. I suppose that makes you the fool.
?? According US secrets the only way to trigger or get an a-bomb to explode is to compress uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between.
Nope. What's needed is a critical mass of fissile material, which varies with the specific isotope, purity, temperature, etc.
Then fission starts and the metal becomes a FLASH!
No. The energy released from the fission produces a flash. The fissile material itself becomes other lighter elements.
I agree it sounds foolish but that's how it works and it is a reason that nuclear weapons exist but do not work.
It only sounds foolish because you have the whole process so hopelessly wrong.
Hm, maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Suggest you discuss with your family doctor. You really sound sick or mentally ill.
Pls tell me what the doctor says.
Why would you think that I have a problem? How do you know that you aren't the one suffering from cognitive dissonance? After all, you're the one who can't seem to reconcile how nuclear bombs work, despite all the evidence and attempts to explain them to you. It sounds to me like you may have even made a complete break with reality. Then again, I suppose that I can't really blame you. I've always thought that reality was highly overrated.
-
I agree, Heiwa you need help, I dont mean this in a derogatory sense, but you don't want to end up like Katsung.
Delusional disorders are treatable if the patient is brave enough to seek help, and or has a support network of people that will help.
I only rip on you for your dishonesty but I am starting to think that in your mind you only ever tell the truth.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
The argument from incredulity is apparently a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
It does not apply to my findings about A. How to trigger an a-bomb, and B. Where did the uranium for the Stalin a-bomb come from.
Re A it is suggested by US experts that to trigger an a-bomb you suddenly compress metal uranium to double density (!) with a free neutron in between and - FLASH - runway fission takes place and the metal becomes energy/heat and other things that in nanoseconds vaporizes cities. In my understanding fission is something completely different.
Re B we are told that Wismut AG produced the uranium for the Stalin a-bomb between 1945/9 but checking records available today shows that Wismut AG didn't produce anything at all during that time except drilling holes in Erzgebirge and transporting away stone! Wismut AG was just a slave labour camp where the slaves were given diplomas, when they had slaved for 10 years ... for the PEACE. And the picture of the Stalin a-bomb exploding 1949 is a joke. Not even a FLASH! Just plenty smoke.
With findings like that I conclude a-bombs do not work and that the whole thing is a hoax invented by FDR and Stalin 1942/5. Prove me wrong and collect €1M!
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
The argument from incredulity is apparently a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
...snip self-promoting nonsense...
At least you know what it is (or can use a dictionary). Too bad you don't realize that your entire site is NOTHING BUT argument from incredulity. That is no exaggeration. It is very apparent that you don't understand it therefore it couldn't work, therefore prove you wrong and win imaginary €1M.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
The argument from incredulity is apparently a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
...snip self-promoting nonsense...
At least you know what it is (or can use a dictionary). Too bad you don't realize that your entire site is NOTHING BUT argument from incredulity. That is no exaggeration. It is very apparent that you don't understand it therefore it couldn't work, therefore prove you wrong and win imaginary €1M.
Hm, you sound like serious case of cognitive dissonance, i.e. you have been told that something happened 70+ years ago ... and you believe it today. Without any evidence what so ever.
Only sick people believe in a-bombs anyway. They dream of pushing a button and wipe out civilisations. Or they are plain stupid.
What are you?
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
The argument from incredulity is apparently a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
...snip self-promoting nonsense...
At least you know what it is (or can use a dictionary). Too bad you don't realize that your entire site is NOTHING BUT argument from incredulity. That is no exaggeration. It is very apparent that you don't understand it therefore it couldn't work, therefore prove you wrong and win imaginary €1M.
Hm, you sound like serious case of cognitive dissonance, i.e. you have been told that something happened 70+ years ago ... and you believe it today. Without any evidence what so ever.
Only sick people believe in a-bombs anyway. They dream of pushing a button and wipe out civilisations. Or they are plain stupid.
What are you?
Typical Heiwa. Get cornered and start calling names. You are so predictable. Your constant accusing your detractors of having mental issues just makes you look more like a joke. How's that government housing working for you?
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
The argument from incredulity is apparently a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
...snip self-promoting nonsense...
At least you know what it is (or can use a dictionary). Too bad you don't realize that your entire site is NOTHING BUT argument from incredulity. That is no exaggeration. It is very apparent that you don't understand it therefore it couldn't work, therefore prove you wrong and win imaginary €1M.
Hm, you sound like serious case of cognitive dissonance, i.e. you have been told that something happened 70+ years ago ... and you believe it today. Without any evidence what so ever.
Only sick people believe in a-bombs anyway. They dream of pushing a button and wipe out civilisations. Or they are plain stupid.
What are you?
Typical Heiwa. Get cornered and start calling names. You are so predictable. How's that government housing working for you?
I am OK. You sound sick, though.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
The argument from incredulity is apparently a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
...snip self-promoting nonsense...
At least you know what it is (or can use a dictionary). Too bad you don't realize that your entire site is NOTHING BUT argument from incredulity. That is no exaggeration. It is very apparent that you don't understand it therefore it couldn't work, therefore prove you wrong and win imaginary €1M.
Hm, you sound like serious case of cognitive dissonance, i.e. you have been told that something happened 70+ years ago ... and you believe it today. Without any evidence what so ever.
Only sick people believe in a-bombs anyway. They dream of pushing a button and wipe out civilisations. Or they are plain stupid.
What are you?
Typical Heiwa. Get cornered and start calling names. You are so predictable. How's that government housing working for you?
I am OK. You sound sick, though.
You sound like someone repeatedly talking about subjects well out of their knowledgebase. You are not a doctor yet you accuse all your detractors of mental illness. You do not have a nuclear physics background yet you seem to think you know everything about nuclear weapons. I get the impression that when the shipping community didn't accept your patent that something broke inside of you and you've been trying to recover ever since. That would explain the constant need to validate yourself via your website and your fraudulent challenges. It would also explain the constant lying. How sad for you.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
That's just it. There is no evidence there. It is only you saying it's not possible. That's not evidence.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
The argument from incredulity is apparently a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
...snip self-promoting nonsense...
At least you know what it is (or can use a dictionary). Too bad you don't realize that your entire site is NOTHING BUT argument from incredulity. That is no exaggeration. It is very apparent that you don't understand it therefore it couldn't work, therefore prove you wrong and win imaginary €1M.
Hm, you sound like serious case of cognitive dissonance, i.e. you have been told that something happened 70+ years ago ... and you believe it today. Without any evidence what so ever.
Only sick people believe in a-bombs anyway. They dream of pushing a button and wipe out civilisations. Or they are plain stupid.
What are you?
Typical Heiwa. Get cornered and start calling names. You are so predictable. How's that government housing working for you?
I am OK. You sound sick, though.
People with dementia always think that they're okay and everyone else is sick.
-
More lies from Heiwa. Nobody believes you've ever talked to Niels Bohr. This is just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important.
Well, I (b.46) was a small boy at the time and scared to death of USSR a-bombs going off at Novaya Zemlya up north with radiation dropping down on us at Stockholm. My grandfather was really pissed off that his friend Niels Bohr had gone to USA 1942 to build them and also told Stalin how to do it. Imagine having an a-bomb designer as a friend that had killed 100 000's with his bombs. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
Wait, you were a small boy when you spoke to him? And you're surprised he couldn't explain the physics of a nuclear bomb to a child?
But he was a Nobel prize winner apart from an a-bomb designer and mass murderer! He should be able to explain anything.
Luckily there was nothing to explain. It was all a hoax. A-bombs do not work.
Which seems difficult to explain today.
But I try!
He should have been able to explain advanced physics to a child?
The reason you find it difficult to explain why nukes don't work is because you have no evidence to support your position.
The evidence Arguments from incredulity that a-bombs do not work are at my web site http://heiwaco.com . Just to trigger them by compressing metal to double density with a neutron in between is a joke. And then there is the Uncle Joe (Stalin) bomb that was quickly built 1945/9 in Siberia with uranium by Wismut AG, Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, GDR. The latter was another joke. And then the French glorious a-bombs. De Gaulle really fooled everyone with them in the 1960's.
The only evidence a-bomb lovers can produce is photos of FLASHES + a lot of smoke. ROTFL.
fixed that for you.
The argument from incredulity is apparently a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.
...snip self-promoting nonsense...
At least you know what it is (or can use a dictionary). Too bad you don't realize that your entire site is NOTHING BUT argument from incredulity. That is no exaggeration. It is very apparent that you don't understand it therefore it couldn't work, therefore prove you wrong and win imaginary €1M.
Hm, you sound like serious case of cognitive dissonance, i.e. you have been told that something happened 70+ years ago ... and you believe it today. Without any evidence what so ever.
Only sick people believe in a-bombs anyway. They dream of pushing a button and wipe out civilisations. Or they are plain stupid.
What are you?
Typical Heiwa. Get cornered and start calling names. You are so predictable. How's that government housing working for you?
I am OK. You sound sick, though.
People with dementia always think that they're okay and everyone else is sick.
Hm, so how do you trigger an a-bomb? Do you compress metal to double density with a free neutron in between?
-
The exact way to build an atomic bomb isn't even freely available, the governments are well aware of the people who do know how to make them, for good reason.
Heiwa I'm done ripping on you, but please go get help, for yourself and your quality of life going into the future.
-
The exact way to build an atomic bomb isn't even freely available, the governments are well aware of the people who do know how to make them, for good reason.
Heiwa I'm done ripping on you, but please go get help, for yourself and your quality of life going into the future.
Well, the problem remains how to trigger an a-bomb. It must be done at the extact right time and loaction. Not too early, not too late, etc, etc. It seems you must suddenly compress the uranium to double density and then runway fission starts that in nanoseconds converts the compressed uranium into energy and heat producing a FLASH!
Only sick people can invent such nonsense. I feel sorry for them.
My life is brilliant and nice! Good health, good economy, good social life. I only got inte this biz 1994 when a passengership sank killing 1000 persons. Some government clown immediately announced it was all the fault of stupid seafarers in combination with badly designed ships by your undersigned. But it was just an invention to hide a crime. I wrote some books about it, which wasn't popular. http://heiwaco.com/news.htm . And life just goes on. Don't tell me how to handle this old shit.
-
Hm, so how do you trigger an a-bomb? Do you compress metal to double density with a free neutron in between?
No. You bring enough fissile material together to achieve critical mass.
Here is some top secret information that might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
-
Hm, so how do you trigger an a-bomb? Do you compress metal to double density with a free neutron in between?
No. You bring enough fissile material together to achieve critical mass.
Here is some top secret information that might help:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
The links are just nonsense. Critical mass! So you suddenly bring two bits of metal together which together make up a critical mass, compress them to double density with a neutron in between and - FLASH!. Runway fission takes place and the metal becomes pure energy/heat.
If the two bits do not make up a critical mass, there is no FLASH, even if you compress them to trebble density. LOL!
It is called pseudoscience. Just a fairy tale to impress twerps.
Imagine that "Until detonation is desired, a nuclear weapon must be kept subcritical. In the case of a uranium bomb, this can be achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size either because they are too small or unfavorably shaped. To produce detonation, the pieces of uranium are brought together rapidly".
And also to be compressed to double density ... with a neutron in between!
-
The links are just nonsense. Critical mass! So you suddenly bring two bits of metal together which together make up a critical mass, compress them to double density with a neutron in between and - FLASH!. Runway fission takes place and the metal becomes pure energy/heat.
If the two bits do not make up a critical mass, there is no FLASH, even if you compress them to trebble density. LOL!
It is called pseudoscience. Just a fairy tale to impress twerps.
(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-049.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)
-
The links are just nonsense. Critical mass! So you suddenly bring two bits of metal together which together make up a critical mass, compress them to double density with a neutron in between and - FLASH!. Runway fission takes place and the metal becomes pure energy/heat.
If the two bits do not make up a critical mass, there is no FLASH, even if you compress them to trebble density. LOL!
It is called pseudoscience. Just a fairy tale to impress twerps.
(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/lol-049.gif) (http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html)
I agree! Imagine putting one piece of metal on top of another piece of metal, so that the two pieces of metal suddenly come into contact with each other and make up one critical mass and ... that then this critcal mass starts a runway fission ... and detonates in your face.
Is this nuclear science?
OK, there must be a neutron between the two masses ... and then it detonates.
No?
OK, you must compress the two masses, so they really know they are in contact. Then they detonate.
ROTFL!
There is no science like military nuclear science I know!
-
The silliest part of nuclear energy is the supposed meltdown scenario.
It starts off with rods of pellets that somehow don't fission within themselves and yet dip them in water with supposed control rods to absorb the pinging atoms just firing out from them towards another rod and all is fine. Lift the control, rods up and wahooo, away we go with super heated water that just boils and boils for decades and yet if the water runs dry, the rods go super hot and melt into a big blob of molten mass then carry on melting into the ground.
Those jumping atoms just keep on jumping about in that molten mass and get hotter and hotter and hotter as it eats its way into the Earth, never cooling even if it hits water.
It's so frigging silly that it should be resigned to a good old fiction book, clearly labelled FICTION.
-
I hope Sceppy realizes there is more than one reactor design. He is also leaving out many details. A simplified explanation is not always enough of an answer.
-
I hope Sceppy realizes there is more than one reactor design. He is also leaving out many details. A simplified explanation is not always enough of an answer.
Well, topic is runway aggressive - kill everyone - military nuclear bomb design och not peaceful nuclear reactor design. The first is pure, stupid pseudoscience and that other is real.
The military twerps believe in instantanous FLASH fission - a-bombs work for PEACE - and suggest it happens when peaceful nuclear reactors overheat due to operational incompetence.
I still pay anyone €1M to demonstrate that a-bombs work since many years. There are no takers.
I know why!
-
Let's get back to this shit...
Starting with this mental teenage prayer to a fake bullshit Death-God:
I wish they were not real.
I wish they were not real.
Please do not exist...
Please do not exist...
But I am afraid... they do.
Each drop
Each launch
Each display of power...
Beings unimaginable horror to multiply generations.
Why do nuclear weapons exist?
Did you come in your pants after writing that?
Why are you wanking over fear-porn?
Wtf is wrong with you?
-
You bumped the thread with that shitpost? Get banned again so you can't shit this place up.
-
You bumped the thread with that shitpost? Get banned again so you can't shit this place up.
Says the bot...
Let's get back to this shit...
Starting with this mental teenage prayer to a fake bullshit Death-God:
I wish they were not real.
I wish they were not real.
Please do not exist...
Please do not exist...
But I am afraid... they do.
Each drop
Each launch
Each display of power...
Beings unimaginable horror to multiply generations.
Why do nuclear weapons exist?
Did you come in your pants after writing that?
Why are you wanking over fear-porn?
Wtf is wrong with you?
-
You bumped the thread with that shitpost? Get banned again so you can't shit this place up.
Says the bot...
Let's get back to this shit...
Starting with this mental teenage prayer to a fake bullshit Death-God:
(https://s30.postimg.org/4k0wdamnl/death_note_ryuk_wallpaper_2.jpg)
-
I hope Sceppy realizes there is more than one reactor design. He is also leaving out many details. A simplified explanation is not always enough of an answer.
Apparently so but I'm dealing with the result I just mentioned about meltdown.
Basically it's poppycock.
-
You bumped the thread with that shitpost? Get banned again so you can't shit this place up.
Says the bot...
Let's get back to this shit...
Starting with this mental teenage prayer to a fake bullshit Death-God:
I wish they were not real.
I wish they were not real.
Please do not exist...
Please do not exist...
But I am afraid... they do.
Each drop
Each launch
Each display of power...
Beings unimaginable horror to multiply generations.
Why do nuclear weapons exist?
Did you come in your pants after writing that?
Why are you wanking over fear-porn?
Wtf is wrong with you?
Are you seriously Afraid of Heiwa?
....
ALL HAIL HEIWA!
(http://img09.deviantart.net/a8c9/i/2009/011/a/4/alucard__s_symbol__download__by_maskofvirtue.gif)(https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/avr/avatar_1461089_1481289873.png)(http://img09.deviantart.net/a8c9/i/2009/011/a/4/alucard__s_symbol__download__by_maskofvirtue.gif)
-
^Obvious automated bot shitpost.
-
^Obvious automated bot shitpost.
-
And the point of that was what?
'NO U'?
It is easily proven that nuclear weapons are impossible...
And you know I can do so.
Which is why you just shitpost instead of even attempting to 'debate'...
Everyone can see this btw; except for the mods, somehow.
Now say NO U!!! again or whatever your minimal programming dictates.
-
And the point of that was what?
'NO U'?
It is easily proven that nuclear weapons are impossible...
And you know I can do so.
Which is why you just shitpost instead of even attempting to 'debate'...
Everyone can see this btw; except for the mods, somehow.
Now say NO U!!! again or whatever your minimal programming dictates.
I fully agree. A-bombs cannot explode as runway, exponential fission of metal uranium atoms is not possible transforming them into pure energy in a big FLASH vaporizing towns and people.
Fission must be moderated to produce pure energy and it only happens in nuclear power plants.
Nuclear weapons are just toys for military generals and crazy politicians. Luckily they nuclear bombs do not work. Hopefully Donald Trump will understand and just scrap them.
Donald seems, IMHO, to be crazy enough to do so. Anyway, it will be a great show with Donald in charge. I will describe it at my web site.
-
Nonsense.
It's all fake, & easily proven to be so...
But guess what?
Yup; this is the last post so just turn the page & carry on shitposting!
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
-
Nonsense.
It's all fake, & easily proven to be so...
But guess what?
Yup; this is the last post so just turn the page & carry on shitposting!
Ok go ahead and prove it. So far all I have seen is you guys saying it's not possible. That seems to be the extent. You and heiwa don't understand it so it can't be true.
-
You and heiwa don't understand it so it can't be true.
Incorrect.
I do understand it so it can't be true.
Thanks for using the most hackneyed shill-phrase in existence though...
Does your credibility a power of good, eh?
Toodle-pip, Team Retard!
-
You and heiwa don't understand it so it can't be true.
Incorrect.
I do understand it so it can't be true.
Thanks for using the most hackneyed shill-phrase in existence though...
Does your credibility a power of good, eh?
Toodle-pip, Team Retard!
And still you offer no proof, which you claim you have. Just the statement that it can't work.
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
They did??? An a-bomb is very simple. According top secret info it consists of only two pieces of metal uranium, each half a crticial mass big! If you bring them in contact with each other, they make up one critical mass and ... FLASH ... they explode and become pure energy/heat and vaporize any observer. A little neutron starts a runaway exponential fission reaction and the metal uranium atoms split at the speed of light.
So if you find metal uranium pieces in your neighborhood, please do not bring them in contact with each other.
-
And still you offer no proof, which you claim you have. Just the statement that it can't work.
Sounding kinda like 'frenat' there, dickhead...
Anyhoo; just because you don't understand that I have proof that nuclear power is fake doesn't mean it's not true!
See how it works, dickhead?
Like I'd waste a single second offering twats like you anything but the deepest contempt & derision I can muster.
Now say 'NO U!!!' or whatever your Team Retard programming dictates...
-
And still you offer no proof, which you claim you have. Just the statement that it can't work.
Sounding kinda like 'frenat' there, dickhead...
Anyhoo; just because you don't understand that I have proof that nuclear power is fake doesn't mean it's not true!
See how it works, dickhead?
Like I'd waste a single second offering twats like you anything but the deepest contempt & derision I can muster.
Now say 'NO U!!!' or whatever your Team Retard programming dictates...
I'm sorry but you are the one that said you could prove it, I'm just asking you to support your statement. Instead you simply throw around insults. I won't get into an ad hominem battle with you. Simply asking you to support a statement you made in technology forum. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
-
I'm sorry but you are the one that said you could prove it, I'm just asking you to support your statement. Instead you simply throw around insults. I won't get into an ad hominem battle with you. Simply asking you to support a statement you made in technology forum. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yeah, could you sound any MORE like fucking frenat you twat?
And could I give any LESS of a flying fuck what you think about anything anyway?
That seems pretty reasonable to me...
Now; do you need a proper job?
If so I may be able to help.
-
I'm sorry but you are the one that said you could prove it, I'm just asking you to support your statement. Instead you simply throw around insults. I won't get into an ad hominem battle with you. Simply asking you to support a statement you made in technology forum. That seems pretty reasonable to me.
Yeah, could you sound any MORE like fucking frenat you twat?
And could I give any LESS of a flying fuck what you think about anything anyway?
That seems pretty reasonable to me...
Now; do you need a proper job?
If so I may be able to help.
So you come on a technology forum, claim you can prove something, someone says, ok go ahead, and you are instantly reduced to throwing fits and handing out insults. Does that sum up your level of discussion skills?
Don't worry, it never occurred to me that you could actually prove it, I just thought I would give you the chance.
Take care now.
-
So you come on a technology forum, claim you can prove something, someone says, ok go ahead, and you are instantly reduced to throwing fits and handing out insults. Does that sum up your level of discussion skills?
Don't worry, it never occurred to me that you could actually prove it, I just thought I would give you the chance.
Take care now.
Yeah; it sucks when people don't take your shit-forum shit-b8 & allow you energy-vampire dickheads to waste hour after hour of their valuable fucking time by saying 'NO NO NO NO NO!' to every single fucking thing they write, don't it, frenat?
Fact is I've already disproved all this horseshit on another forum where twats like you aren't allowed...
The info's there for those willing to look.
Idgaf about those who ain't.
Seems you're not interested in getting a proper job either...
What a surprise!
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
But that's the thing. You don't provide any evidence, you just say over and over again, it can't work. You ignore any evidence given to you that it does. You ignore eyewitness accounts, you ignore scientific data, you ignore the fact that it would take a conspiracy of epic proportions, you just claim it can't work. Same with the space travel, you have been shown over and over again how it can work but you ignore. You don't understand it so it can't be possible.
You even have to go so far as straight up lying about NASA claims. Like, you claim NASA says it's easy, but your links show them saying it is possible but very difficult. When you get called out on this you run away. Despite your claims you have never once shown an actual quote of NASA experts saying space flight is easy. You simply lied about that.
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
But that's the thing. You don't provide any evidence, you just say over and over again, it can't work. You ignore any evidence given to you that it does. You ignore eyewitness accounts, you ignore scientific data, you ignore the fact that it would take a conspiracy of epic proportions, you just claim it can't work. Same with the space travel, you have been shown over and over again how it can work but you ignore. You don't understand it so it can't be possible.
You even have to go so far as straight up lying about NASA claims. Like, you claim NASA says it's easy, but your links show them saying it is possible but very difficult. When you get called out on this you run away. Despite your claims you have never once shown an actual quote of NASA experts saying space flight is easy. You simply lied about that.
Hm, I provide plenty information at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm that nuclear weapons do not work. They are just 1945 war propaganda to scare you invented by some Americans. Fission cannot produce an explosion. To scare people with lies, I don't like. Why do you suggest a-bombs work? Are you working for US Department of War and Destruction?
Re NASA - same thing. In the 1950's they said human space flight was easy and people believed them and funds were made available to make it happen. But as it was impossible, NASA faked everything and stole the money. The trips to the Moon were just funny, great Hollywood shows. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Didn't harm anyone, though. The Americans thought the astronuts were heroes! Actually the hoax was of communist origin. Gagarin was the first man in space and he was a Hero of the Sovietunion. 100% fake, of course.
You sound like believing in Santa Claus. But it is next week!
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
Sorry, your arguments are very clearly rat excrement. Please learn what evidence is and come back with some. No one gives a shit about your opinion on the matter.
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
Sorry, your arguments are very clearly rat excrement. Please learn what evidence is and come back with some. No one gives a shit about your opinion on the matter.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68331.msg1848770#msg1848770
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
But that's the thing. You don't provide any evidence, you just say over and over again, it can't work. You ignore any evidence given to you that it does. You ignore eyewitness accounts, you ignore scientific data, you ignore the fact that it would take a conspiracy of epic proportions, you just claim it can't work. Same with the space travel, you have been shown over and over again how it can work but you ignore. You don't understand it so it can't be possible.
You even have to go so far as straight up lying about NASA claims. Like, you claim NASA says it's easy, but your links show them saying it is possible but very difficult. When you get called out on this you run away. Despite your claims you have never once shown an actual quote of NASA experts saying space flight is easy. You simply lied about that.
Hm, I provide plenty information at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm that nuclear weapons do not work. They are just 1945 war propaganda to scare you invented by some Americans. Fission cannot produce an explosion. To scare people with lies, I don't like. Why do you suggest a-bombs work? Are you working for US Department of War and Destruction?
Re NASA - same thing. In the 1950's they said human space flight was easy and people believed them and funds were made available to make it happen. But as it was impossible, NASA faked everything and stole the money. The trips to the Moon were just funny, great Hollywood shows. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Didn't harm anyone, though. The Americans thought the astronuts were heroes! Actually the hoax was of communist origin. Gagarin was the first man in space and he was a Hero of the Sovietunion. 100% fake, of course.
You sound like believing in Santa Claus. But it is next week!
Once again, you just say they can't work. You provide nothing, either on this forum or your website to actually prove that.
Once again you have failed to back up your statement about them saying it is easy. You have been asked several times and you keep repeating the statement but refuse to show a quote here, on this forum, where you made the statement, supporting it.
It's really pretty simple. Show the quote, with a link, to NASA experts saying human space flight is easy. You claim it's true so you must have that quote, just show it. You wouldn't lie about it I'm sure, so, just link to the quotes.
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
But that's the thing. You don't provide any evidence, you just say over and over again, it can't work. You ignore any evidence given to you that it does. You ignore eyewitness accounts, you ignore scientific data, you ignore the fact that it would take a conspiracy of epic proportions, you just claim it can't work. Same with the space travel, you have been shown over and over again how it can work but you ignore. You don't understand it so it can't be possible.
You even have to go so far as straight up lying about NASA claims. Like, you claim NASA says it's easy, but your links show them saying it is possible but very difficult. When you get called out on this you run away. Despite your claims you have never once shown an actual quote of NASA experts saying space flight is easy. You simply lied about that.
Hm, I provide plenty information at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm that nuclear weapons do not work. They are just 1945 war propaganda to scare you invented by some Americans. Fission cannot produce an explosion. To scare people with lies, I don't like. Why do you suggest a-bombs work? Are you working for US Department of War and Destruction?
Re NASA - same thing. In the 1950's they said human space flight was easy and people believed them and funds were made available to make it happen. But as it was impossible, NASA faked everything and stole the money. The trips to the Moon were just funny, great Hollywood shows. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Didn't harm anyone, though. The Americans thought the astronuts were heroes! Actually the hoax was of communist origin. Gagarin was the first man in space and he was a Hero of the Sovietunion. 100% fake, of course.
You sound like believing in Santa Claus. But it is next week!
Once again, you just say they can't work. You provide nothing, either on this forum or your website to actually prove that.
?? You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again ! Do you really Stalin built an a-bomb 1945/9 with uranium from Wismut AG?
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
But that's the thing. You don't provide any evidence, you just say over and over again, it can't work. You ignore any evidence given to you that it does. You ignore eyewitness accounts, you ignore scientific data, you ignore the fact that it would take a conspiracy of epic proportions, you just claim it can't work. Same with the space travel, you have been shown over and over again how it can work but you ignore. You don't understand it so it can't be possible.
You even have to go so far as straight up lying about NASA claims. Like, you claim NASA says it's easy, but your links show them saying it is possible but very difficult. When you get called out on this you run away. Despite your claims you have never once shown an actual quote of NASA experts saying space flight is easy. You simply lied about that.
Hm, I provide plenty information at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm that nuclear weapons do not work. They are just 1945 war propaganda to scare you invented by some Americans. Fission cannot produce an explosion. To scare people with lies, I don't like. Why do you suggest a-bombs work? Are you working for US Department of War and Destruction?
Re NASA - same thing. In the 1950's they said human space flight was easy and people believed them and funds were made available to make it happen. But as it was impossible, NASA faked everything and stole the money. The trips to the Moon were just funny, great Hollywood shows. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Didn't harm anyone, though. The Americans thought the astronuts were heroes! Actually the hoax was of communist origin. Gagarin was the first man in space and he was a Hero of the Sovietunion. 100% fake, of course.
You sound like believing in Santa Claus. But it is next week!
Once again, you just say they can't work. You provide nothing, either on this forum or your website to actually prove that.
?? You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again ! Do you really Stalin built an a-bomb 1945/9 with uranium from Wismut AG?
I love how you edited my post so you didn't have to deal with the whole claim that NASA experts say human space flight is easy. Where are the quotes? Why won't you post links here? You keep saying it but refuse to back it up.
I have looked at your website and all of your arguments are pretty much like your response here.
"Do you really think that's possible?" "As if that could actually happen!" "Of course such things are laughable."
Incredulity is not an argument.
So where are those quotes again? You claim you have then, of course, as predicted you ran away from that statement when asked to support. Even editing my response to you.
-
This thread is a fucking embrassment. Heiwa, you are incapable of making an actual argument of substance. Papa Legba, ditto.
Please stop for humanities sake.
Sorry, my argument is very clear. Runway fission doesn't work. Fission doesn't work like that. Solid uranium metal or plutonium cannot suddenly - a FLASH - become pure energy, when two pieces making up a critical mass are making contact.
Haven't you understood that FDR ordered this fairy tale to become reality? The a-bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki never exploded! Stalin liked the idea a lot and built his own fake a-bomb. With uranium produced by Wismut AG of (East) Germany! What a joke! But Wismut AG never produced any uranium at all!
You really have to study the evidence I provide.
A-bombs are 100% pseudoscience! Just inventions to scare you!
But that's the thing. You don't provide any evidence, you just say over and over again, it can't work. You ignore any evidence given to you that it does. You ignore eyewitness accounts, you ignore scientific data, you ignore the fact that it would take a conspiracy of epic proportions, you just claim it can't work. Same with the space travel, you have been shown over and over again how it can work but you ignore. You don't understand it so it can't be possible.
You even have to go so far as straight up lying about NASA claims. Like, you claim NASA says it's easy, but your links show them saying it is possible but very difficult. When you get called out on this you run away. Despite your claims you have never once shown an actual quote of NASA experts saying space flight is easy. You simply lied about that.
Hm, I provide plenty information at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm that nuclear weapons do not work. They are just 1945 war propaganda to scare you invented by some Americans. Fission cannot produce an explosion. To scare people with lies, I don't like. Why do you suggest a-bombs work? Are you working for US Department of War and Destruction?
Re NASA - same thing. In the 1950's they said human space flight was easy and people believed them and funds were made available to make it happen. But as it was impossible, NASA faked everything and stole the money. The trips to the Moon were just funny, great Hollywood shows. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Didn't harm anyone, though. The Americans thought the astronuts were heroes! Actually the hoax was of communist origin. Gagarin was the first man in space and he was a Hero of the Sovietunion. 100% fake, of course.
You sound like believing in Santa Claus. But it is next week!
Once again, you just say they can't work. You provide nothing, either on this forum or your website to actually prove that.
?? You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again ! Do you really Stalin built an a-bomb 1945/9 with uranium from Wismut AG?
I love how you edited my post so you didn't have to deal with the whole claim that NASA experts say human space flight is easy. Where are the quotes? Why won't you post links here? You keep saying it but refuse to back it up.
I have looked at your website and all of your arguments are pretty much like your response here.
"Do you really think that's possible?" "As if that could actually happen!" "Of course such things are laughable."
Incredulity is not an argument.
So where are those quotes again? You claim you have then, of course, as predicted you ran away from that statement when asked to support. Even editing my response to you.
Well, you have to study and read, not just look at, my website, where I describe the NASA manned space travel joke/hoax - call it was you like. It is great fun!
Fact remains that noone at NASA, ESA, various universities, etc, etc, specialized at human space travel can describe in detail simple trips to Moon and Mars, fuel consumed and toilets used!
Example - just how to start applying a force to get out of orbit around Earth? How, when, where do you apply it? What is the force and how much fuel is required for it? Nobody knows. There is no software to do the calculations!
Assuming that you do the calculations and apply the force and you are on your way. What happens then? Well Earth gravity force pulls you back - reduces your speed and changes your cours/direction. Every second. How do you calculate it? Nobody knows. Plenty tattooed clowns say it can be done - but how? Silence.
Imagine working in such a place, where nobody knows nothing, and being the boss there, planning fake programs all the time. It is the European Space Agency, CEO Jan Wörner. Contact him and how he gets his astroclowns into space and back and how he sends spacecrafts to comets using gravity assisted kicks. He never replies. Maybe he doesn't exist? Have a try!
-
Heiwa, just keep from the quote section getting so long I started over.
Ok still dodging the whole NASA says it's easy claim you made I see. Why is that? It should be such a simple thing for you to back up your statement. Why do you run away from it and even edit my replies so it looks like I didn't ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet)
That link will describe show you the space toilet.
And this one will give you a brief overview of when and how long they burn each engine.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html)
And just for fun this one debunks your nonsense about the challenger astronauts still being alive
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp)
Now, how about those quotes from NASA saying space flight is easy?
-
Heiwa, just keep from the quote section getting so long I started over.
Ok still dodging the whole NASA says it's easy claim you made I see. Why is that? It should be such a simple thing for you to back up your statement. Why do you run away from it and even edit my replies so it looks like I didn't ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet)
That link will describe show you the space toilet.
And this one will give you a brief overview of when and how long they burn each engine.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html)
And just for fun this one debunks your nonsense about the challenger astronauts still being alive
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp)
Now, how about those quotes from NASA saying space flight is easy?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html
-
Well, you have to study and read, not just look at, my website, where I describe the NASA manned space travel joke/hoax - call it was you like. It is great fun!
Oh it's hilarious alright.
Fact remains that noone at NASA, ESA, various universities, etc, etc, specialized at human space travel can describe in detail simple trips to Moon and Mars, fuel consumed and toilets used!
This is a lie.
Example - just how to start applying a force to get out of orbit around Earth? How, when, where do you apply it? What is the force and how much fuel is required for it? Nobody knows. There is no software to do the calculations!
This is a lie.
Assuming that you do the calculations and apply the force and you are on your way. What happens then? Well Earth gravity force pulls you back - reduces your speed and changes your cours/direction. Every second. How do you calculate it? Nobody knows. Plenty tattooed clowns say it can be done - but how? Silence.
This is a lie.
Imagine working in such a place, where nobody knows nothing, and being the boss there, planning fake programs all the time. It is the European Space Agency, CEO Jan Wörner. Contact him and how he gets his astroclowns into space and back and how he sends spacecrafts to comets using gravity assisted kicks. He never replies. Maybe he doesn't exist? Have a try!
Gee I wonder why no-one replies to your crackpot quacking?
-
Fact remains that noone at NASA, ESA, various universities, etc, etc, specialized at human space travel can describe in detail simple trips to Moon and Mars, fuel consumed and toilets used!
That may be due to the fact that these people have better things to do than answer to (honestly) quite stupid questions. The fact that the NASA/ESA etc. does not have a "know-it-all" person but seperate people with seperate responisbilities might also play a role (the guy planning the trajectories does not worry about the properties of space-toilets and vice-versa).
Example - just how to start applying a force to get out of orbit around Earth? How, when, where do you apply it? What is the force and how much fuel is required for it? Nobody knows. There is no software to do the calculations!
There are even several games that simulate this. The theory behind that is not that hard. It is basically conservation of momentum and F=-GM_1M_2/r^2...
Beware, the actual construction of the shuttles IS hard, but to calculate how much force you need to get out of orbit around earth? Piece of cake. And you call yourself an engineer.
Assuming that you do the calculations and apply the force and you are on your way. What happens then? Well Earth gravity force pulls you back - reduces your speed and changes your cours/direction. Every second. How do you calculate it? Nobody knows. Plenty tattooed clowns say it can be done - but how? Silence.
Easy. F=-GM_1M_2/r^2. That is all you need.
Imagine working in such a place, where nobody knows nothing, and being the boss there, planning fake programs all the time. It is the European Space Agency, CEO Jan Wörner. Contact him and how he gets his astroclowns into space and back and how he sends spacecrafts to comets using gravity assisted kicks. He never replies. Maybe he doesn't exist? Have a try!
Yeah. The CEO of the European Space Agency has certainly nothing better to do than to answer to a conspiracy "theorist" who claims to be an engineer. I can almost picture him sitting at his desk, bored, waiting for your E-Mail. What a life...
-
Heiwa, just keep from the quote section getting so long I started over.
Ok still dodging the whole NASA says it's easy claim you made I see. Why is that? It should be such a simple thing for you to back up your statement. Why do you run away from it and even edit my replies so it looks like I didn't ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet)
That link will describe show you the space toilet.
And this one will give you a brief overview of when and how long they burn each engine.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html)
And just for fun this one debunks your nonsense about the challenger astronauts still being alive
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp)
Now, how about those quotes from NASA saying space flight is easy?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html
Nope, they don't say it there. Care to try again with an actual quote of them saying it is easy? Come on, admit it, you just made that up didn't you?
Anyway, did you see e space toilet? How about the brief explanation of the apollo flight?
-
Fact remains that noone at NASA, ESA, various universities, etc, etc, specialized at human space travel can describe in detail simple trips to Moon and Mars, fuel consumed and toilets used!
That may be due to the fact that these people have better things to do than answer to (honestly) quite stupid questions. The fact that the NASA/ESA etc. does not have a "know-it-all" person but seperate people with seperate responisbilities might also play a role (the guy planning the trajectories does not worry about the properties of space-toilets and vice-versa).
Example - just how to start applying a force to get out of orbit around Earth? How, when, where do you apply it? What is the force and how much fuel is required for it? Nobody knows. There is no software to do the calculations!
There are even several games that simulate this. The theory behind that is not that hard. It is basically conservation of momentum and F=-GM_1M_2/r^2...
Beware, the actual construction of the shuttles IS hard, but to calculate how much force you need to get out of orbit around earth? Piece of cake. And you call yourself an engineer.
Assuming that you do the calculations and apply the force and you are on your way. What happens then? Well Earth gravity force pulls you back - reduces your speed and changes your cours/direction. Every second. How do you calculate it? Nobody knows. Plenty tattooed clowns say it can be done - but how? Silence.
Easy. F=-GM_1M_2/r^2. That is all you need.
Imagine working in such a place, where nobody knows nothing, and being the boss there, planning fake programs all the time. It is the European Space Agency, CEO Jan Wörner. Contact him and how he gets his astroclowns into space and back and how he sends spacecrafts to comets using gravity assisted kicks. He never replies. Maybe he doesn't exist? Have a try!
Yeah. The CEO of the European Space Agency has certainly nothing better to do than to answer to a conspiracy "theorist" who claims to be an engineer. I can almost picture him sitting at his desk, bored, waiting for your E-Mail. What a life...
Well, my Challenge is very easy. Just describe a manned space trip and collect €1M. If you are too busy with other things, you are excused.
I am not a "conspiracy theorist". I just enjoy the space show. It is fun! Nothing is true. It is all magic! Doesn't bother me the least. I get a little upset of all people in the audience though getting excited believing it is all true. I feel sorry for them. They are too serious. No fun!
-
Heiwa, just keep from the quote section getting so long I started over.
Ok still dodging the whole NASA says it's easy claim you made I see. Why is that? It should be such a simple thing for you to back up your statement. Why do you run away from it and even edit my replies so it looks like I didn't ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet)
That link will describe show you the space toilet.
And this one will give you a brief overview of when and how long they burn each engine.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html)
And just for fun this one debunks your nonsense about the challenger astronauts still being alive
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp)
Now, how about those quotes from NASA saying space flight is easy?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html
Nope, they don't say it there. Care to try again with an actual quote of them saying it is easy? Come on, admit it, you just made that up didn't you?
Look again! But maybe they are dead now!
-
Well, my Challenge is very easy. Just describe a manned space trip and collect €1M. If you are too busy with other things, you are excused.
I am not a "conspiracy theorist". I just enjoy the space show. It is fun! Nothing is true. It is all magic! Doesn't bother me the least. I get a little upset of all people in the audience though getting excited believing it is all true. I feel sorry for them. They are too serious. No fun!
It is not, especially since you keep shifting the goalposts and demand practically all the work done by the hundreds of thousands of people who worked several years for this. Plus it is a big fraud and I have never seen any thing letting me believe otherwise.
I am not talking about aero- or hydrodynamics (i do not know that much about it), so I could not describe you an engine or the exact trajectory of an aircraft within the atmosphere. But if you want to get some ideas of orbital mechanics and how to perform certain maneuvers (which you obviously have no clue about right now), just ask.
-
Well, my Challenge is very easy. Just describe a manned space trip and collect €1M. If you are too busy with other things, you are excused.
I am not a "conspiracy theorist". I just enjoy the space show. It is fun! Nothing is true. It is all magic! Doesn't bother me the least. I get a little upset of all people in the audience though getting excited believing it is all true. I feel sorry for them. They are too serious. No fun!
It is not, especially since you keep shifting the goalposts and demand practically all the work done by the hundreds of thousands of people who worked several years for this. Plus it is a big fraud and I have never seen any thing letting me believe otherwise.
I am not talking about aero- or hydrodynamics (i do not know that much about it), so I could not describe you an engine or the exact trajectory of an aircraft within the atmosphere. But if you want to get some ideas of orbital mechanics and how to perform certain maneuvers (which you obviously have no clue about right now), just ask.
No goalposts have been shifted. And I doubt hundreds of thousands of people must work for several years to win my simple, honest Challenge. It is not a fraud.
Human space travel is, but not my Challenge.
Questions for you - a satellite mass 150 000 kg (with fuel) is orbiting Earth at a speed and altitude of your choice. It shall go to the Moon. What force is required to get out of orbit towards the Moon, how much fuel is used for it (you chose the engine). How long do you apply the force and where and in what direction in orbit? I assume you aim towards the Moon.
What is the speed and direction then relative the Sun and Earth? And where is the Moon?
What are the locations, speeds and direction after 12, 24, 36, 48, 60 and 72 hours relative the Sun and Earth? Are you really heading for the Moon?
-
[...] I assume you aim towards the Moon. [...]
This single sentence shows that you have no idea of orbital mechanics. I would use a hohmann-transfer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit).
That challenge sounds doable. Do I get a prize for that as well? And what is the goal? Lunar orbit? Impact on the moon?
I have to study for an exam right now (kind of procrastinating here), but I will refer to these questions!
And do you want an analytical solution (where I would have to use some approximations) or does a numerical simulation suffice?
-
Heiwa, just keep from the quote section getting so long I started over.
Ok still dodging the whole NASA says it's easy claim you made I see. Why is that? It should be such a simple thing for you to back up your statement. Why do you run away from it and even edit my replies so it looks like I didn't ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet)
That link will describe show you the space toilet.
And this one will give you a brief overview of when and how long they burn each engine.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html)
And just for fun this one debunks your nonsense about the challenger astronauts still being alive
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp)
Now, how about those quotes from NASA saying space flight is easy?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html
Nope, they don't say it there. Care to try again with an actual quote of them saying it is easy? Come on, admit it, you just made that up didn't you?
Look again! But maybe they are dead now!
Nope, not there. Care to link to an actual quote instead of the general page? Come on, admit you just made it up.
-
Heiwa, just keep from the quote section getting so long I started over.
Ok still dodging the whole NASA says it's easy claim you made I see. Why is that? It should be such a simple thing for you to back up your statement. Why do you run away from it and even edit my replies so it looks like I didn't ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet)
That link will describe show you the space toilet.
And this one will give you a brief overview of when and how long they burn each engine.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html)
And just for fun this one debunks your nonsense about the challenger astronauts still being alive
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp)
Now, how about those quotes from NASA saying space flight is easy?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html
Nope, they don't say it there. Care to try again with an actual quote of them saying it is easy? Come on, admit it, you just made that up didn't you?
Look again! But maybe they are dead now!
Nope, not there. Care to link to an actual quote instead of the general page? Come on, admit you just made it up.
Look again. Plenty people tell about their work, etc, etc. If they really exist is another matter.
-
[...] I assume you aim towards the Moon. [...]
This single sentence shows that you have no idea of orbital mechanics. I would use a hohmann-transfer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit).
That challenge sounds doable. Do I get a prize for that as well? And what is the goal? Lunar orbit? Impact on the moon?
I have to study for an exam right now (kind of procrastinating here), but I will refer to these questions!
And do you want an analytical solution (where I would have to use some approximations) or does a numerical simulation suffice?
Yes - the Challenges are described at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Just fulfill the requirements of the rules.
-
[...] I assume you aim towards the Moon. [...]
This single sentence shows that you have no idea of orbital mechanics. I would use a hohmann-transfer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit).
That challenge sounds doable. Do I get a prize for that as well? And what is the goal? Lunar orbit? Impact on the moon?
I have to study for an exam right now (kind of procrastinating here), but I will refer to these questions!
And do you want an analytical solution (where I would have to use some approximations) or does a numerical simulation suffice?
Yes - the Challenges are described at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Just fulfill the requirements of the rules.
Did not see the sattelite one. May you point me directly to it? Your site is really difficult to read.
-
[...] I assume you aim towards the Moon. [...]
This single sentence shows that you have no idea of orbital mechanics. I would use a hohmann-transfer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit).
That challenge sounds doable. Do I get a prize for that as well? And what is the goal? Lunar orbit? Impact on the moon?
I have to study for an exam right now (kind of procrastinating here), but I will refer to these questions!
And do you want an analytical solution (where I would have to use some approximations) or does a numerical simulation suffice?
Yes - the Challenges are described at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Just fulfill the requirements of the rules.
Did not see the sattelite one. May you point me directly to it? Your site is really difficult to read.
Just scroll to the bottom of the page = 5 links to 5 Challenges.
-
Heiwa, just keep from the quote section getting so long I started over.
Ok still dodging the whole NASA says it's easy claim you made I see. Why is that? It should be such a simple thing for you to back up your statement. Why do you run away from it and even edit my replies so it looks like I didn't ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet)
That link will describe show you the space toilet.
And this one will give you a brief overview of when and how long they burn each engine.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html)
And just for fun this one debunks your nonsense about the challenger astronauts still being alive
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp)
Now, how about those quotes from NASA saying space flight is easy?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html
Nope, they don't say it there. Care to try again with an actual quote of them saying it is easy? Come on, admit it, you just made that up didn't you?
Look again! But maybe they are dead now!
Nope, not there. Care to link to an actual quote instead of the general page? Come on, admit you just made it up.
Look again. Plenty people tell about their work, etc, etc. If they really exist is another matter.
Lol you link to the main NASA page. Now you want me to read through the entire website to find a quote you claim exists. Sorry, I'm calling it. You can't support your statement, you simply made it up.
-
Heiwa, just keep from the quote section getting so long I started over.
Ok still dodging the whole NASA says it's easy claim you made I see. Why is that? It should be such a simple thing for you to back up your statement. Why do you run away from it and even edit my replies so it looks like I didn't ask?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_toilet)
That link will describe show you the space toilet.
And this one will give you a brief overview of when and how long they burn each engine.
http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/18422-apollo-saturn-v-moon-rocket-nasa-infographic.html)
And just for fun this one debunks your nonsense about the challenger astronauts still being alive
http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/challenger.asp)
Now, how about those quotes from NASA saying space flight is easy?
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/home/index.html
Nope, they don't say it there. Care to try again with an actual quote of them saying it is easy? Come on, admit it, you just made that up didn't you?
Look again! But maybe they are dead now!
Nope, not there. Care to link to an actual quote instead of the general page? Come on, admit you just made it up.
Look again. Plenty people tell about their work, etc, etc. If they really exist is another matter.
Lol you link to the main NASA page. Now you want me to read through the entire website to find a quote you claim exists. Sorry, I'm calling it. You can't support your statement, you simply made it up.
Of course he did. He's a proven pathological liar.
-
There is no satellite challenge, it's another lie. He just drones on about how impossible it all is and how no-one can tell him how it's done. Not even when all the facts and figures are freely available:
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4029.pdf
As for 150 tonnes? Which orifice has he dragged that number from? Not even the fully loaded CSM & LM combined weighed that.
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark. The activities of the company there has been covered up.
Fact remains - producing two pieces of metal like uranium and plutonium each with half critical mass and then bringing them in contact with each other, so they make up a critical mass resulting in a FLASH is pseudoscience. Fission does not work like that. That's why nuclear weapons cannot explode. I doubt they produced nuclear weapons at Rockey Flats. But maybe they produced something else there - biological and chemical weapons. Plenty scientists love to assist the military to improve US weapons. But it is all top secret in the interest of national security, you know, with all those tewowists lurking around.
-
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark.
You are in the dark about being in the dark.
-
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark.
You are in the dark about being in the dark.
True fact.
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark. The activities of the company there has been covered up.
Fact remains - producing two pieces of metal like uranium and plutonium each with half critical mass and then bringing them in contact with each other, so they make up a critical mass resulting in a FLASH is pseudoscience. Fission does not work like that. That's why nuclear weapons cannot explode. I doubt they produced nuclear weapons at Rockey Flats. But maybe they produced something else there - biological and chemical weapons. Plenty scientists love to assist the military to improve US weapons. But it is all top secret in the interest of national security, you know, with all those tewowists lurking around.
Ok show us the math why that doesn't work.
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark. The activities of the company there has been covered up.
Fact remains - producing two pieces of metal like uranium and plutonium each with half critical mass and then bringing them in contact with each other, so they make up a critical mass resulting in a FLASH is pseudoscience. Fission does not work like that. That's why nuclear weapons cannot explode. I doubt they produced nuclear weapons at Rockey Flats. But maybe they produced something else there - biological and chemical weapons. Plenty scientists love to assist the military to improve US weapons. But it is all top secret in the interest of national security, you know, with all those tewowists lurking around.
Ok show us the math why that doesn't work.
Well you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm for the math !
It appears that 1.5% of the 4x1026 U235 atoms, i.e. 6x1024 atoms in the a-bomb are, according to unproven research 1944/5, supposed to absorb one neutron and become U236 atoms that fission during a few nanoseconds to produce pure energy release explosion FLASH according some strange, unproven theory.
I doubt veryt much that 6x1024 U235 atoms can fission at the speed of light in nanoseconds. Fission simply doesn't work like that. It must be moderated, i.e. slowed down = a-bombs do not work.
-
...math !
It appears ..
I doubt veryt much..
Fission simply doesn't work like that..
All hail the heiwa science
-
Why must fission be moderated?
What happens if it is not?
-
A. Why must fission be moderated?
B. What happens if it is not?
A. The free neutrons must be slowed down - moderated - to produce fission inside a nuclear power plant. The water acts as the moderator in most nuclear power plants.
B. If there is no moderator (like in a nuclear weapon), the neutrons just fly away at the speed of light and decay and there is no fission. That's why nuclear weapons do not work.
This is basic nuclear physics! I thought you were an expert. Aren't you happy that nuclear weapons are useless?
Anyway, to become a nuclear physicist you have to say the opposite. DHS is not happy if you say anything else.
-
A. Why must fission be moderated?
B. What happens if it is not?
A. The free neutrons must be slowed down - moderated - to produce fission inside a nuclear power plant. The water acts as the moderator in most nuclear power plants.
Wrong. The fission needs to be moderated otherwise the reaction is uncontrolled and bad shit happens. The moderator moderates things - the clue's in the name. The lack of a moderator does not mean you will not get fission, it means you will get Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island, or worse - a big explosion.
B. If there is no moderator (like in a nuclear weapon), the neutrons just fly away at the speed of light and decay and there is no fission. That's why nuclear weapons do not work.
Wrong. See above.
This is basic nuclear physics! I thought you were an expert. Aren't you happy that nuclear weapons are useless?
Anyway, to become a nuclear physicist you have to say the opposite. DHS is not happy if you say anything else.
I never claimed to be an expert, unlike you. I am well aware of the limitations of my understanding, unlike you. Your description of what the moderator does shows that even an amateur like me is way ahead of you.
-
A. Why must fission be moderated?
B. What happens if it is not?
A. The free neutrons must be slowed down - moderated - to produce fission inside a nuclear power plant. The water acts as the moderator in most nuclear power plants.
Wrong. The fission needs to be moderated otherwise the reaction is uncontrolled and bad shit happens. The moderator moderates things - the clue's in the name. The lack of a moderator does not mean you will not get fission, it means you will get Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island, or worse - a big explosion.
B. If there is no moderator (like in a nuclear weapon), the neutrons just fly away at the speed of light and decay and there is no fission. That's why nuclear weapons do not work.
Wrong. See above.
This is basic nuclear physics! I thought you were an expert. Aren't you happy that nuclear weapons are useless?
Anyway, to become a nuclear physicist you have to say the opposite. DHS is not happy if you say anything else.
I never claimed to be an expert, unlike you. I am well aware of the limitations of my understanding, unlike you. Your description of what the moderator does shows that even an amateur like me is way ahead of you.
It seems we have different opinions. I am quite sure of my conclusions and offer anyone €1M to show I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
It will be interesting to see what the president-elect Donald Trump is going to do. He cannot nuke Russia to stop Fake Russian News confusing you, the US Army/Navy are in shambles and tewwowists are lurking everywhere, latinos are sneaking in over the Rio Grande gutter, etc. He deserves vaccation at Florida. Obama is doing the same at the place he was (not) born. Christmas is coming up and I am ready for the fois gras and oysters washed down with a good champagne. It will be fun.
I hate boring people not liking having fun.
-
So if you got a technician at a nuclear power plant telling you that the moderator actually slows down the reaction because it would become uncontrollable otherwise (like what happened in fukushima/chernobyl [by the way, do you deny that too?]) i would get the 1M?
-
A. Why must fission be moderated?
B. What happens if it is not?
A. The free neutrons must be slowed down - moderated - to produce fission inside a nuclear power plant. The water acts as the moderator in most nuclear power plants.
Wrong. The fission needs to be moderated otherwise the reaction is uncontrolled and bad shit happens. The moderator moderates things - the clue's in the name. The lack of a moderator does not mean you will not get fission, it means you will get Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island, or worse - a big explosion.
B. If there is no moderator (like in a nuclear weapon), the neutrons just fly away at the speed of light and decay and there is no fission. That's why nuclear weapons do not work.
Wrong. See above.
This is basic nuclear physics! I thought you were an expert. Aren't you happy that nuclear weapons are useless?
Anyway, to become a nuclear physicist you have to say the opposite. DHS is not happy if you say anything else.
I never claimed to be an expert, unlike you. I am well aware of the limitations of my understanding, unlike you. Your description of what the moderator does shows that even an amateur like me is way ahead of you.
Furthermore, nuclear bombs can use neutron reflectors around the uranium core that prevent the neutrons from flying away from the reaction zone.
EDIT: A little information on moderators and why they are used in nuclear reactors. Incidentally, why they are not used in nuclear weapons is that moderators are less effective at aiding fission reactions in a highly enriched core.
http://www.nuclear-power.net/neutron-moderator/
-
A. Why must fission be moderated?
B. What happens if it is not?
A. The free neutrons must be slowed down - moderated - to produce fission inside a nuclear power plant. The water acts as the moderator in most nuclear power plants.
Wrong. The fission needs to be moderated otherwise the reaction is uncontrolled and bad shit happens. The moderator moderates things - the clue's in the name. The lack of a moderator does not mean you will not get fission, it means you will get Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island, or worse - a big explosion.
B. If there is no moderator (like in a nuclear weapon), the neutrons just fly away at the speed of light and decay and there is no fission. That's why nuclear weapons do not work.
Wrong. See above.
This is basic nuclear physics! I thought you were an expert. Aren't you happy that nuclear weapons are useless?
Anyway, to become a nuclear physicist you have to say the opposite. DHS is not happy if you say anything else.
I never claimed to be an expert, unlike you. I am well aware of the limitations of my understanding, unlike you. Your description of what the moderator does shows that even an amateur like me is way ahead of you.
Furthermore, nuclear bombs can use neutron reflectors around the uranium core that prevent the neutrons from flying away from the reaction zone.
LOL. ROTFL.
Neutron reflectors? In a-bombs? Reflecting 1024 neutrons in less than nanoseconds to detonate an a-bomb. Sorry. You don't know what you talk about. Who told you those lies? Why do you believe them?
Tell me more about neutron reflectors. What are they? How do they work? Who makes them. How much do they cost?
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark. The activities of the company there has been covered up.
Fact remains - producing two pieces of metal like uranium and plutonium each with half critical mass and then bringing them in contact with each other, so they make up a critical mass resulting in a FLASH is pseudoscience. Fission does not work like that. That's why nuclear weapons cannot explode. I doubt they produced nuclear weapons at Rockey Flats. But maybe they produced something else there - biological and chemical weapons. Plenty scientists love to assist the military to improve US weapons. But it is all top secret in the interest of national security, you know, with all those tewowists lurking around.
Ok show us the math why that doesn't work.
Well you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm for the math !
It appears that 1.5% of the 4x1026 U235 atoms, i.e. 6x1024 atoms in the a-bomb are, according to unproven research 1944/5, supposed to absorb one neutron and become U236 atoms that fission during a few nanoseconds to produce pure energy release explosion FLASH according some strange, unproven theory.
I doubt veryt much that 6x1024 U235 atoms can fission at the speed of light in nanoseconds. Fission simply doesn't work like that. It must be moderated, i.e. slowed down = a-bombs do not work.
You doubt it? Ok, show us why it doesn't work. So far, as usual, you simply say it doesn't work.
-
So if you got a technician at a nuclear power plant telling you that the moderator actually slows down the reaction because it would become uncontrollable otherwise (like what happened in fukushima/chernobyl [by the way, do you deny that too?]) i would get the 1M?
No, I was young when the built the plants.
Fukushima - I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD . Study it! It has nothing to do with Chernobyl.
Fukushima is at the sea. Chernobyl in north Ukraine in the forests. They are peaceful nuclear power plants. Has nothing to do with aggresive nuclear weapons to scare the shit out of you and my €1 M Challenge.
Pls do not change the subject and make OT accusations. Try to behave civilized.
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark. The activities of the company there has been covered up.
Fact remains - producing two pieces of metal like uranium and plutonium each with half critical mass and then bringing them in contact with each other, so they make up a critical mass resulting in a FLASH is pseudoscience. Fission does not work like that. That's why nuclear weapons cannot explode. I doubt they produced nuclear weapons at Rockey Flats. But maybe they produced something else there - biological and chemical weapons. Plenty scientists love to assist the military to improve US weapons. But it is all top secret in the interest of national security, you know, with all those tewowists lurking around.
Ok show us the math why that doesn't work.
Well you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm for the math !
It appears that 1.5% of the 4x1026 U235 atoms, i.e. 6x1024 atoms in the a-bomb are, according to unproven research 1944/5, supposed to absorb one neutron and become U236 atoms that fission during a few nanoseconds to produce pure energy release explosion FLASH according some strange, unproven theory.
I doubt veryt much that 6x1024 U235 atoms can fission at the speed of light in nanoseconds. Fission simply doesn't work like that. It must be moderated, i.e. slowed down = a-bombs do not work.
You doubt it? Ok, show us why it doesn't work. So far, as usual, you simply say it doesn't work.
No, I did the maths and showed you. Plenty atoms to fission. Cannot be done in nano-seconds. Just ask any expert you know! I give you €1M if you prove me wrong.
-
LOL. ROTFL.
Neutron reflectors? In a-bombs? Reflecting 1024 neutrons in less than nanoseconds to detonate an a-bomb. Sorry. You don't know what you talk about. Who told you those lies? Why do you believe them?
Is stringing together a few quantities supposed to make
it seem impossible? Or is it just because you said so? What about reflecting neutrons is impossible?
Tell me more about neutron reflectors. What are they? How do they work? Who makes them. How much do they cost?
I am not surprised you have never heard of them because you have shown again and again that you have no idea what you are talking about. They are used in reactors as well as weapons. Perhaps you should go away and educate yourself, come back, and tell us that your challenge is no longer continuing?
Follow one of these links and do not return until you are ready to admit you were wrong on neutron reflectors:
http://wiki.industrial-craft.net/index.php?title=Neutron_Reflector
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-reactor/neutron-reflector/
-
A. Why must fission be moderated?
B. What happens if it is not?
A. The free neutrons must be slowed down - moderated - to produce fission inside a nuclear power plant. The water acts as the moderator in most nuclear power plants.
Wrong. The fission needs to be moderated otherwise the reaction is uncontrolled and bad shit happens. The moderator moderates things - the clue's in the name. The lack of a moderator does not mean you will not get fission, it means you will get Chernobyl, or Three Mile Island, or worse - a big explosion.
B. If there is no moderator (like in a nuclear weapon), the neutrons just fly away at the speed of light and decay and there is no fission. That's why nuclear weapons do not work.
Wrong. See above.
This is basic nuclear physics! I thought you were an expert. Aren't you happy that nuclear weapons are useless?
Anyway, to become a nuclear physicist you have to say the opposite. DHS is not happy if you say anything else.
I never claimed to be an expert, unlike you. I am well aware of the limitations of my understanding, unlike you. Your description of what the moderator does shows that even an amateur like me is way ahead of you.
Furthermore, nuclear bombs can use neutron reflectors around the uranium core that prevent the neutrons from flying away from the reaction zone.
LOL. ROTFL.
Neutron reflectors? In a-bombs? Reflecting 1024 neutrons in less than nanoseconds to detonate an a-bomb. Sorry. You don't know what you talk about. Who told you those lies? Why do you believe them?
Tell me more about neutron reflectors. What are they? How do they work? Who makes them. How much do they cost?
The same neutron reflectors you might find acting as moderators in a reactor.
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark. The activities of the company there has been covered up.
Fact remains - producing two pieces of metal like uranium and plutonium each with half critical mass and then bringing them in contact with each other, so they make up a critical mass resulting in a FLASH is pseudoscience. Fission does not work like that. That's why nuclear weapons cannot explode. I doubt they produced nuclear weapons at Rockey Flats. But maybe they produced something else there - biological and chemical weapons. Plenty scientists love to assist the military to improve US weapons. But it is all top secret in the interest of national security, you know, with all those tewowists lurking around.
Ok show us the math why that doesn't work.
Well you really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm for the math !
It appears that 1.5% of the 4x1026 U235 atoms, i.e. 6x1024 atoms in the a-bomb are, according to unproven research 1944/5, supposed to absorb one neutron and become U236 atoms that fission during a few nanoseconds to produce pure energy release explosion FLASH according some strange, unproven theory.
I doubt veryt much that 6x1024 U235 atoms can fission at the speed of light in nanoseconds. Fission simply doesn't work like that. It must be moderated, i.e. slowed down = a-bombs do not work.
You doubt it? Ok, show us why it doesn't work. So far, as usual, you simply say it doesn't work.
No, I did the maths and showed you. Plenty atoms to fission. Cannot be done in nano-seconds. Just ask any expert you know! I give you €1M if you prove me wrong.
Why can't it be done in less than a micro-second?
-
Once again Heiwa, you don't actually explain, you just say it can't happen. In fact you show a lot of evidence as to how it works, and quotes from experts telling you why it works, then you call them fools and simply say you don't believe it.
That's not proof of anything but your own ignorance.
-
LOL. ROTFL.
Neutron reflectors? In a-bombs? Reflecting 1024 neutrons in less than nanoseconds to detonate an a-bomb. Sorry. You don't know what you talk about. Who told you those lies? Why do you believe them?
Is stringing together a few quantities supposed to make
it seem impossible? Or is it just because you said so? What about reflecting neutrons is impossible?
Tell me more about neutron reflectors. What are they? How do they work? Who makes them. How much do they cost?
I am not surprised you have never heard of them because you have shown again and again that you have no idea what you are talking about. They are used in reactors as well as weapons. Perhaps you should go away and educate yourself, come back, and tell us that your challenge is no longer continuing?
Follow one of these links and do not return until you are ready to admit you were wrong on neutron reflectors:
http://wiki.industrial-craft.net/index.php?title=Neutron_Reflector
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-reactor/neutron-reflector/
So you are a salesperson of neutron reflectors. Sorry, nothing can reflect a neutron at the speed of light. It just flies away, decays and dies.
Neutron reflector salesperson! Give me a break.
-
So you are a salesperson of neutron reflectors. Sorry, nothing can reflect a neutron at the speed of light. It just flies away, decays and dies.
Tell me why nothing can reflect neutrons?
Neutron reflector salesperson! Give me a break.
They are in every nuclear reactor that you admit exists.
As a side note, neutrons, having mass, cannot travel at the speed of light. Neutrons in a nuclear reactor, once moderated travel at about 2.2km/s or 1.2 x 10-5c. Fast neutrons, the kind that cause chain reactions in the highly enriched cores of fission bombs travel at 0.3c. So you should probably stop using that falsehood in every subsequent incredulous claim you make.
-
Sorry, nothing can reflect a neutron at the speed of light. It just flies away, decays and dies.
You dumbass :D
How to shoot yourself in the foot in one easy lesson. Grappa for breakfast really does screw you up.
-
So you are a salesperson of neutron reflectors. Sorry, nothing can reflect a neutron at the speed of light. It just flies away, decays and dies.
Tell me why nothing can reflect neutrons?
Neutrons are very small and can only - if very lucky - collide with the core of an atom to split it = fission. Otherwise neutrons just pass everything. Nothing can reflect a neutron. Free neutrons just fly away and decay and harm nothing.
Of course a-bombs lovers suggest that a high-tensile tungsten carbide tamper-reflector can scatter and bounce back neutrons travelling at almost (0.3) the speed of light into the a-bomb core (volume 3 liters!) but forget that this stupid tamper is blown away before it comes into action. And most of the neutrons just pass through anyway. It seems the tamper must be 10 meters thick to reflect anything and then the bomb becomes too heavy.
Only idiots believe in neutron reflectors surrounding a-bombs.
-
Neutrons are very small and can only - if very lucky - collide with the core of an atom to split it = fission. Otherwise neutrons just pass everything. Nothing can reflect a neutron. Free neutrons just fly away and decay and harm nothing.
Proof?
Of course a-bombs lovers suggest that a high-tensile tungsten carbide tamper-reflector can scatter and bounce back neutrons travelling at almost (0.3) the speed of light into the a-bomb core (volume 3 liters!)[/quote]
Who cares what the volume is?
but forget that this stupid tamper is blown away before it comes into action.
Proof?
And most of the neutrons just pass through anyway.
Proof?
It seems the tamper must be 10 meters thick to reflect anything
Proof?
Only idiots believe in neutron reflectors surrounding a-bombs.
So you concede that nuclear reactors use neutron reflectors?
Otherwise your post was a fine example of exactly what everyone says you do: post incredulity and assertions without any substance.
-
Neutrons are very small and can only - if very lucky - collide with the core of an atom to split it = fission. Otherwise neutrons just pass everything. Nothing can reflect a neutron. Free neutrons just fly away and decay and harm nothing.
Proof?
Of course a-bombs lovers suggest that a high-tensile tungsten carbide tamper-reflector can scatter and bounce back neutrons travelling at almost (0.3) the speed of light into the a-bomb core (volume 3 liters!)
Who cares what the volume is?
but forget that this stupid tamper is blown away before it comes into action.
Proof?
And most of the neutrons just pass through anyway.
Proof?
It seems the tamper must be 10 meters thick to reflect anything
Proof?
Only idiots believe in neutron reflectors surrounding a-bombs.
So you concede that nuclear reactors use neutron reflectors?
Otherwise your post was a fine example of exactly what everyone says you do: post incredulity and assertions without any substance.
[/quote]
You sound like a typical shill paid for by USA. Introduce yourself! Full style! Tell me who you are! Pictures! Family. Prove you are a nice guy (like me). You really post a lt of shit here.
-
You sound like a typical shill paid for by USA. Introduce yourself! Full style! Tell me who you are! Pictures! Family. Prove you are a nice guy (like me).
It doesn't matter if I am nice or a psychopath. I want you to post evidence. That is what matters when discussing facts.
You really post a lt of shit here.
You lecture others about their language and don't even have the decency to heed your own advice. Pathetic as fuck.
-
A. Why must fission be moderated?
B. What happens if it is not?
A. The free neutrons must be slowed down - moderated - to produce fission inside a nuclear power plant. The water acts as the moderator in most nuclear power plants.
The U235 concentration is much lower in nuclear power plants (around 20% or so) than in atomic bombs (>90%).
B. If there is no moderator (like in a nuclear weapon), the neutrons just fly away at the speed of light and decay and there is no fission. That's why nuclear weapons do not work.
Not quite. Fast neutron reactors with no moderation work just fine. You just need a much richer concentration of U235 (>20%) or U238.
* high-enriched uranium (over 20% U-235) would fission, too. At this concentration of U-235, despite the low cross-section for fission with fast neutrons, fissions are sufficient to sustain the chain-reaction despite less likelihood of fission, so about 20% of fissile nuclei is required in the fuel. Up to 20% U is actually defined as "low-enriched' uranium. The low cross-section is offset by more neutrons being released per fission above about 0.1 MeV.
Also:
http://www.nuclear-power.net/fast-neutron-reactor/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-fast-breeder-react/
https://www.rt.com/news/325593-fast-neutron-nuclear-reactor/
-
Neutrons are very small and can only - if very lucky - collide with the core of an atom to split it = fission. Otherwise neutrons just pass everything. Nothing can reflect a neutron. Free neutrons just fly away and decay and harm nothing.
Proof?
Of course a-bombs lovers suggest that a high-tensile tungsten carbide tamper-reflector can scatter and bounce back neutrons travelling at almost (0.3) the speed of light into the a-bomb core (volume 3 liters!)
Who cares what the volume is?
but forget that this stupid tamper is blown away before it comes into action.
Proof?
And most of the neutrons just pass through anyway.
Proof?
It seems the tamper must be 10 meters thick to reflect anything
Proof?
Only idiots believe in neutron reflectors surrounding a-bombs.
So you concede that nuclear reactors use neutron reflectors?
Otherwise your post was a fine example of exactly what everyone says you do: post incredulity and assertions without any substance.
You sound like a typical shill paid for by USA. Introduce yourself! Full style! Tell me who you are! Pictures! Family. Prove you are a nice guy (like me). You really post a lt of shit here.
[/quote]
So none of the proof he asked for?
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark. The activities of the company there has been covered up.
Fact remains - producing two pieces of metal like uranium and plutonium each with half critical mass and then bringing them in contact with each other, so they make up a critical mass resulting in a FLASH is pseudoscience. Fission does not work like that. That's why nuclear weapons cannot explode. I doubt they produced nuclear weapons at Rockey Flats. But maybe they produced something else there - biological and chemical weapons. Plenty scientists love to assist the military to improve US weapons. But it is all top secret in the interest of national security, you know, with all those tewowists lurking around.
No, Rocky Flats work was never covered up. Everyone around here knews what they were doing. Maybe check out the Rocky Flats Museum. Or even go look up the site, it was a Superfund site after all.
-
If they are impossible why do they exist?
They were invented by FDR to scare people during WW2. Stalin just copied the hoax ... and there we are 71 years later. The Americans love it. Imagine that you can wipe out Russia and kill millions!
Yet they built them 10 minutes away from my current location. Still waiting for evidence against Rockey Flats. Find any yet?
Rockey Flats? Does anybody really know what happened there? CIA/FBI had to attack the place to get access and luckily nobody got hurt. After that all is secret!
One reason is that nuclear weapons do not work and only fake, non-working nuclear weapons exist and none of them were at Rockey Flats.
Personally I assume Rockey Flats were used to develop chemical and biological weapons - all illegal of course - and that people there got gready and asked to be paid a lot for nothing.
You are just guessing. You don't know anything.
Only concerning Rockey Flats, I am in the dark. The activities of the company there has been covered up.
Fact remains - producing two pieces of metal like uranium and plutonium each with half critical mass and then bringing them in contact with each other, so they make up a critical mass resulting in a FLASH is pseudoscience. Fission does not work like that. That's why nuclear weapons cannot explode. I doubt they produced nuclear weapons at Rockey Flats. But maybe they produced something else there - biological and chemical weapons. Plenty scientists love to assist the military to improve US weapons. But it is all top secret in the interest of national security, you know, with all those tewowists lurking around.
No, Rocky Flats work was never covered up. Everyone around here knews what they were doing. Maybe check out the Rocky Flats Museum. Or even go look up the site, it was a Superfund site after all.
OK - they manufactured uranium blocks with half critical mass, which are now displayed at the RF Museum. Do not put those blocks together because then - FLASH!
-
Guess I will say it again for the learning impaired.
They made plutonium spheres and turned them into nuclear bombs which were the triggers for thermonuclear bombs. The fusion one.
-
Guess I will say it again for the learning impaired.
They made plutonium spheres and turned them into nuclear bombs which were the triggers for thermonuclear bombs. The fusion one.
LOL! Nuclear bombs to trigger thermonuclear ones. Doesn't work!
-
LOL! Nuclear bombs to trigger thermonuclear ones. Doesn't work!
Proof? Everyone is still waiting...
-
LOL! Nuclear bombs to trigger thermonuclear ones. Doesn't work!
Proof? Everyone is still waiting...
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my evidence.
Nevertheless, if you believe that two pieces of uranium metal with each half a critical mass - about 30.5 kg - will, when put in contact with each other becoming one critical mass - 61 kg -, become pure energy by fission almost at the speed of light and explode in a FLASH, it is your problem.
Fission does not work like that. Atoms only fission by moderated neutrons. There is no such thing as a critical mass! It was just invented by some clowns 1942/5 while skiing in New Mexico, USA.
-
Fission does not work like that. Atoms only fission by moderated neutrons.
Wrong. Fast neutron reactors work just fine. In fact, under certain conditions, they can be even more efficient than moderated reactors.
A fast neutron reactor or simply a fast reactor is a category of nuclear reactor in which the fission chain reaction is sustained by fast neutrons. Such a reactor needs no neutron moderator, but must use fuel that is relatively rich in fissile material when compared to that required for a thermal reactor.
-
LOL! Nuclear bombs to trigger thermonuclear ones. Doesn't work!
Proof? Everyone is still waiting...
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my evidence.
Nevertheless, if you believe that two pieces of uranium metal with each half a critical mass - about 30.5 kg - will, when put in contact with each other becoming one critical mass - 61 kg -, become pure energy by fission almost at the speed of light and explode in a FLASH, it is your problem.
Fission does not work like that. Atoms only fission by moderated neutrons. There is no such thing as a critical mass! It was just invented by some clowns 1942/5 while skiing in New Mexico, USA.
So no proof. Got it.
-
Fission does not work like that. Atoms only fission by moderated neutrons.
Wrong. Fast neutron reactors work just fine. In fact, under certain conditions, they can be even more efficient than moderated reactors.
A fast neutron reactor or simply a fast reactor is a category of nuclear reactor in which the fission chain reaction is sustained by fast neutrons. Such a reactor needs no neutron moderator, but must use fuel that is relatively rich in fissile material when compared to that required for a thermal reactor.
Hm, so how do you control your fast neutron reactor?
Anyway - does two half critical masses of fissile material, when put on top of each other, become one critical mass? And does this critical mass go FLASH when a neutron passes by?
-
LOL! Nuclear bombs to trigger thermonuclear ones. Doesn't work!
Proof? Everyone is still waiting...
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my evidence.
Nevertheless, if you believe that two pieces of uranium metal with each half a critical mass - about 30.5 kg - will, when put in contact with each other becoming one critical mass - 61 kg -, become pure energy by fission almost at the speed of light and explode in a FLASH, it is your problem.
Fission does not work like that. Atoms only fission by moderated neutrons. There is no such thing as a critical mass! It was just invented by some clowns 1942/5 while skiing in New Mexico, USA.
So no proof. Got it.
But you didn't study the link!
-
Fission does not work like that. Atoms only fission by moderated neutrons.
Wrong. Fast neutron reactors work just fine. In fact, under certain conditions, they can be even more efficient than moderated reactors.
A fast neutron reactor or simply a fast reactor is a category of nuclear reactor in which the fission chain reaction is sustained by fast neutrons. Such a reactor needs no neutron moderator, but must use fuel that is relatively rich in fissile material when compared to that required for a thermal reactor.
Hm, so how do you control your fast neutron reactor?
Do you not know how to click on the link in the quote title bar?
Like thermal reactors, fast neutron reactors are controlled by keeping the criticality of the reactor reliant on delayed neutrons, with gross control from neutron-absorbing control rods or blades.
-
LOL! Nuclear bombs to trigger thermonuclear ones. Doesn't work!
Proof? Everyone is still waiting...
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my evidence.
Nevertheless, if you believe that two pieces of uranium metal with each half a critical mass - about 30.5 kg - will, when put in contact with each other becoming one critical mass - 61 kg -, become pure energy by fission almost at the speed of light and explode in a FLASH, it is your problem.
Fission does not work like that. Atoms only fission by moderated neutrons. There is no such thing as a critical mass! It was just invented by some clowns 1942/5 while skiing in New Mexico, USA.
So no proof. Got it.
But you didn't study the link!
Yes I did. A while ago. No proof.
-
LOL! Nuclear bombs to trigger thermonuclear ones. Doesn't work!
Proof? Everyone is still waiting...
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my evidence.
Nevertheless, if you believe that two pieces of uranium metal with each half a critical mass - about 30.5 kg - will, when put in contact with each other becoming one critical mass - 61 kg -, become pure energy by fission almost at the speed of light and explode in a FLASH, it is your problem.
Fission does not work like that. Atoms only fission by moderated neutrons. There is no such thing as a critical mass! It was just invented by some clowns 1942/5 while skiing in New Mexico, USA.
So no proof. Got it.
But you didn't study the link!
Yes I did. A while ago. No proof.
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
You are missing one other compelling piece of evidence.
Heiwa's request to have a nuclear weapon detonated close to his home was denied.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
-
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
Even if you are granted those 2 as merely propaganda, there are many other projects that yielded nuclear weapons. You have to be able to falsify every one.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
With the way that you grossly oversimplify and misrepresent things, it's no wonder you think it's all propaganda.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
With the way that you grossly oversimplify and misrepresent things, it's no wonder you think it's all propaganda.
You sound like J. Stalin and the Wismut AG management 1949 handing out medals and certificates to their workers of "peace".
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
With the way that you grossly oversimplify and misrepresent things, it's no wonder you think it's all propaganda.
You sound like J. Stalin and the Wismut AG management 1949 handing out medals and certificates to their workers of "peace".
...and you illustrate his point perfectly.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
With the way that you grossly oversimplify and misrepresent things, it's no wonder you think it's all propaganda.
You sound like J. Stalin and the Wismut AG management 1949 handing out medals and certificates to their workers of "peace".
...and you illustrate his point perfectly.
Well, let's sum up: a-bomb experts believe that putting a piece of 30.5 kg of uranium on top of another piece of 30.5 kg of similar uranium with a neutron in between results in a sudden FLASH and release of pure energy corresponding to exploding 20 000 000 kg of TNT. In nanoseconds. And plenty smoke in the shape of a mushroom.
As you can see from http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm , point 3.3, the below a-bomb doesn't work either.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLjbf7fQRlKKOd8I9eaxCenM1OXIKFygjiYm8B9jE1tpXsGgWS)
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
With the way that you grossly oversimplify and misrepresent things, it's no wonder you think it's all propaganda.
You sound like J. Stalin and the Wismut AG management 1949 handing out medals and certificates to their workers of "peace".
...and you illustrate his point perfectly.
Well, let's sum up: a-bomb experts believe that putting a piece of 30.5 kg of uranium on top of another piece of 30.5 kg of similar uranium with a neutron in between results in a sudden FLASH and release of pure energy corresponding to exploding 20 000 000 kg of TNT. In nanoseconds. And plenty smoke in the shape of a mushroom.
As you can see from http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm , point 3.3, the below a-bomb doesn't work either.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLjbf7fQRlKKOd8I9eaxCenM1OXIKFygjiYm8B9jE1tpXsGgWS)
and again...
-
I will just correct a few points of fact you are missing.
Well, let's sum up: a-bomb experts believe that putting a piece of 30.5 kg of uranium on top of another piece of 30.5 kg of similar uranium
And compressed to the correct density.
with a neutron in between results in a sudden FLASH and release of pure energy
You don't need a "neutron in between". The neutrons are already being emitted by the fissile materials.
corresponding to exploding 20 000 000 kg of TNT.
No, that would be what happens with fusion bombs. The most powerful fission bomb was 500,000 tonnes of TNT.
In nanoseconds.
Yes, a few hundred nano-seconds. And?
And plenty smoke in the shape of a mushroom.
Yes. And?
As you can see from http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm , point 3.3, the below a-bomb doesn't work either.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSLjbf7fQRlKKOd8I9eaxCenM1OXIKFygjiYm8B9jE1tpXsGgWS)
You don't explain why it doesn't work, you just say it doesn't. If I were your teacher, you would fail. I mean, you fail anyway, I just can't make it official.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
I'm not upset at all. But you don't show it's just propaganda, you just claim that it is. I believe a team of highly skilled scientists and technicians did, in fact, build them in 1945. I believe because all of the evidence I have seen supports it. You simply saying it was propaganda is not evidence.
I am glad that you admitted that you don't actually present any scientific evidence in your website. You just try to show everything everybody said about was propaganda.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
I'm not upset at all. But you don't show it's just propaganda, you just claim that it is. I believe a team of highly skilled scientists and technicians did, in fact, build them in 1945. I believe because all of the evidence I have seen supports it. You simply saying it was propaganda is not evidence.
I am glad that you admitted that you don't actually present any scientific evidence in your website. You just try to show everything everybody said about was propaganda.
You have seen scientific evidence that they built a-bombs 1943/5? What about Josef Stalin 1945/9? And de Gaulle 1958/67?
I think my info is interesting. Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public. And Wismut AG assisting Stalin building a fake bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium.
And let's face it - putting two pieces of half critical mass together making one critical mass and FLASH! Is it science?
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
I'm not upset at all. But you don't show it's just propaganda, you just claim that it is. I believe a team of highly skilled scientists and technicians did, in fact, build them in 1945. I believe because all of the evidence I have seen supports it. You simply saying it was propaganda is not evidence.
I am glad that you admitted that you don't actually present any scientific evidence in your website. You just try to show everything everybody said about was propaganda.
You have seen scientific evidence that they built a-bombs 1943/5? What about Josef Stalin 1945/9? And de Gaulle 1958/67?
I think my info is interesting. Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public. And Wismut AG assisting Stalin building a fake bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium.
And let's face it - putting two pieces of half critical mass together making one critical mass and FLASH! Is it science?
No. Its engineering. The science was done before, by other people. Why do you always exaggerate the word flash? is it so unbelievable to you that some things happen during a very short timespan?
By the way, do you happen to believe in the big bang?
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
I'm not upset at all. But you don't show it's just propaganda, you just claim that it is. I believe a team of highly skilled scientists and technicians did, in fact, build them in 1945. I believe because all of the evidence I have seen supports it. You simply saying it was propaganda is not evidence.
I am glad that you admitted that you don't actually present any scientific evidence in your website. You just try to show everything everybody said about was propaganda.
You have seen scientific evidence that they built a-bombs 1943/5? What about Josef Stalin 1945/9? And de Gaulle 1958/67?
I think my info is interesting. Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public. And Wismut AG assisting Stalin building a fake bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium.
And let's face it - putting two pieces of half critical mass together making one critical mass and FLASH! Is it science?
No. Its engineering. The science was done before, by other people. Why do you always exaggerate the word flash? is it so unbelievable to you that some things happen during a very short timespan?
By the way, do you happen to believe in the big bang?
Engineering? Putting two pieces of metal together producing a FLASH! You are joking! I enlarge the word because it is suggested that putting two small pieces of metal in contact with each other produces an explosion equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding in a FLASH, i.e. nanoseconds.
Evil neutrons destroy the metal atoms and release pure energy ... in a FLASH!
Re big bang - pls study my funny article about manned space travel - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - between the Black Holes in the Universe! Same engineers that screw together a-bombs also suggest that it is feasible to fly around in space between the Black Holes. You just orbit the Black Hole, you see!
It is called Rocket Science. It is very funny! 100's of people visit it each day.
-
There has never been a fission bomb with a megaton yield. Stop being so ignorant.
-
There has never been a fission bomb with a megaton yield. Stop being so ignorant.
(http://heiwaco.tripod.com/NYT1945.gif)
I only talk about 20 ktons or 20 000 tons or 20 000 000 kg of TNT equivalency that vaporized a 30 meters tall steel tower but left the ground below intact.
-
Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public.
Why would a Nobel prize winner want to have weapons of mass destruction available to the public? ???
-
Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public.
Why would a Nobel prize winner want to have weapons of mass destruction available to the public? ???
Like a lot of his claims, Heiwa has not provided a shred of evidence that this is true.
-
Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public.
Why would a Nobel prize winner want to have weapons of mass destruction available to the public? ???
I only relate what happened to my friend Manne Siegbahn, Swedish Nobel prize winner, physics, 1923. He was 1945 (secretly) asked by the Swedish government to create a Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOA, become its director and build a Swedish a-bomb. Manne agreed to take the job subject to all information how to build an a-bomb being peer reviewed and made public. You can read about it in the report Manne handed in to the Swedish government 1945. I have myself read a copy of the very well written report. Manne didn't get the job (and didn't need it and probably didn't want it). All a-bomb info should be secret, according to Swedish politicians! National and military security, you know.
Imagine if all info had been made public! Spies were not required. No Americans would have been arrested and executed as atomic bomb spies in the 1950's. Anyone could build an a-bomb and test it!
They would soon find it didn't work at all, though.
-
Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public.
Why would a Nobel prize winner want to have weapons of mass destruction available to the public? ???
I only relate what happened to my friend Manne Siegbahn, Swedish Nobel prize winner, physics, 1923. He was 1945 (secretly) asked by the Swedish government to create a Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOA, become its director and build a Swedish a-bomb. Manne agreed to take the job subject to all information how to build an a-bomb being peer reviewed and made public. You can read about it in the report Manne handed in to the Swedish government 1945. I have myself read a copy of the very well written report. Manne didn't get the job (and didn't need it and probably didn't want it). All a-bomb info should be secret, according to Swedish politicians! National and military security, you know.
Imagine if all info had been made public! Spies were not required. No Americans would have been arrested and executed as atomic bomb spies in the 1950's. Anyone could build an a-bomb and test it!
They would soon find it didn't work at all, though.
Friends?
I am assuming you are around 70.
Means by the time you were 18 he was 77.
Really seems another attempt by you to try to add credibility to your argument by making a false claim.
See what happens when you lie. Like claiming NASA said space travel is easy and you were in the aerospace industry. It is reasonable to question any claim you make like this.
You also can not be serious not understanding why a-bomb information is kept a secrete. You gave one really good reason why.
Anyone could build an a-bomb
I would not say anyone, but it is something I am glad governments decided to keep to themselves. If you are serious you sound like someone stupid enough to try building one and detonating it in an attempt to prove it would not work.
I guess someone wanting one detonated near their home would not see the logic in it.
-
Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public.
Why would a Nobel prize winner want to have weapons of mass destruction available to the public? ???
I only relate what happened to my friend Manne Siegbahn, Swedish Nobel prize winner, physics, 1923. He was 1945 (secretly) asked by the Swedish government to create a Swedish Defence Research Agency, FOA, become its director and build a Swedish a-bomb. Manne agreed to take the job subject to all information how to build an a-bomb being peer reviewed and made public. You can read about it in the report Manne handed in to the Swedish government 1945. I have myself read a copy of the very well written report. Manne didn't get the job (and didn't need it and probably didn't want it). All a-bomb info should be secret, according to Swedish politicians! National and military security, you know.
Imagine if all info had been made public! Spies were not required. No Americans would have been arrested and executed as atomic bomb spies in the 1950's. Anyone could build an a-bomb and test it!
They would soon find it didn't work at all, though.
Friends?
I am assuming you are around 70.
Means by the time you were 18 he was 77.
Really seems another attempt by you to try to add credibility to your argument by making a false claim.
See what happens when you lie. Like claiming NASA said space travel is easy and you were in the aerospace industry. It is reasonable to question any claim you make like this.
You also can not be serious not understanding why a-bomb information is kept a secrete. You gave one really good reason why.
Anyone could build an a-bomb
I would not say anyone, but it is something I am glad governments decided to keep to themselves. If you are serious you sound like someone stupid enough to try building one and detonating it in an attempt to prove it would not work.
I guess someone wanting one detonated near their home would not see the logic in it.
Correct! Manne was a friend of my grandfather, my mother was a friend of Manne's sons and I was a friend of Manne's grandson living with his grandfather 1960-1965. So I was often at Manne's place (a very big house) and discussed with him friendly. But the FOA report he wrote 1945 (or 1946) I found in an official archive a couple of years ago.
You are inventing things about me being in the aerospace industry. I am just a shareholder of e.g. Airbus NV (and many other companies). And NASA maintains human space travel is easy ... when sufficient funding is provided. Just study my web site about it. All info at my web site is correct. Why would I provide fake info there? I am serious.
Why are you glad that your government keeps secrets from you, e.g. a-bomd designs? Why cannot it be discussed openly? I know you are sentenced to death in the USA doing it, but anyway.
If a design can be discussed openly, it can be improved and manufacturing can often be done at lower cost. Government industries are generally ineffective, expensive, wasteful, etc.
-
Engineering? Putting two pieces of metal together producing a FLASH! You are joking! I enlarge the word because it is suggested that putting two small pieces of metal in contact with each other produces an explosion equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding in a FLASH, i.e. nanoseconds.
Evil neutrons destroy the metal atoms and release pure energy ... in a FLASH!
Ah alright. When they do it quickly it is impossible, but a slow process of destroying metal atoms and releasing pure energy is fine?
Re big bang - pls study my funny article about manned space travel - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - between the Black Holes in the Universe! Same engineers that screw together a-bombs also suggest that it is feasible to fly around in space between the Black Holes. You just orbit the Black Hole, you see!
It is called Rocket Science. It is very funny! 100's of people visit it each day.
That does not even remotely answer my question - do you believe that the big bang happened?
Please show me evidence of a single credible person talking about manned space travel between black holes/orbiting black holes etc that is not a pure thought experiment! Yes, we have observed objects that fit the physical properties of black holes, and that's it. No one has ever been even remotely close to one and no one plans to.
Please provide at least a hint of evidence for your statements.
-
Imagine if all info had been made public! Spies were not required. No Americans would have been arrested and executed as atomic bomb spies in the 1950's. Anyone could build an a-bomb and test it!
That certainly sounds like a good idea.
-
Engineering? Putting two pieces of metal together producing a FLASH! You are joking! I enlarge the word because it is suggested that putting two small pieces of metal in contact with each other produces an explosion equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding in a FLASH, i.e. nanoseconds.
Evil neutrons destroy the metal atoms and release pure energy ... in a FLASH!
Ah alright. When they do it quickly it is impossible, but a slow process of destroying metal atoms and releasing pure energy is fine?
Re big bang - pls study my funny article about manned space travel - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm - between the Black Holes in the Universe! Same engineers that screw together a-bombs also suggest that it is feasible to fly around in space between the Black Holes. You just orbit the Black Hole, you see!
It is called Rocket Science. It is very funny! 100's of people visit it each day.
That does not even remotely answer my question - do you believe that the big bang happened?
Please show me evidence of a single credible person talking about manned space travel between black holes/orbiting black holes etc that is not a pure thought experiment! Yes, we have observed objects that fit the physical properties of black holes, and that's it. No one has ever been even remotely close to one and no one plans to.
Please provide at least a hint of evidence for your statements.
Well, it seems that uraniumdioxide is used as fuel in nuclear power plants ... and it is not a metal. Ironoxide is known as rust so in a way rusty uranium is the fuel.
Evidently there will not be manned space travel to Black Holes ever, as manned space travel is impossible.
You should really study my web page http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm , where I state:
"I do not believe that all the matter and energy of the UNIVERSE was created by a BIG BANG gravitational singularity 13-14 billions of years ago or whatever. And I don't believe the UNIVERSE is full of Black Holes today that will collide and again suck up all the matter and energy of the UNIVERSE, so it will finish to exist ... or start all over again. I consider any scientist suggesting anything like it as a religious, stupid, crazy, sick idiot. It is very easy too fool people, e.g. with the atomic bomb! People believe atomic bombs exploded 1945 because they are told so. But it was just a magic trick! Same with human space travel in this UNIVERSE! It is just another magic trick!"
If you have observed a Black Hole, I think you did it in some alcholic mist or haze like Stephen Hawking, the inventor of Blackl Holes. He is a clown, Stephen!
-
Actually it was rather schwarzschild than Hawking, but never mind.
Just Look up Sagittarius A*. I am not saying that it is 100℅ a black hole, I am Just saying that a black hole would explain the observations and that no other Astronomical object could fulfill this role.
-
Actually it was rather schwarzschild than Hawking, but never mind.
Just Look up Sagittarius A*. I am not saying that it is 100℅ a black hole, I am Just saying that a black hole would explain the observations and that no other Astronomical object could fulfill this role.
Well, there are plenty things in the sky but my eyes are what they are. I can see the Moon, Venus, some stars, etc. but no Black Holes, that you say you have not seen any traces of.
Can you provide some evidence of your observations. A quasar? That spills mass into the Black Hole!
Anyway? You are lightyears off topic which is why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist. I have shown it ... and you start talking about Black Holes. Like the alchoholic Stephen Hawkings. Look at him! A wreck! Would you buy a car from him?
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
I'm not upset at all. But you don't show it's just propaganda, you just claim that it is. I believe a team of highly skilled scientists and technicians did, in fact, build them in 1945. I believe because all of the evidence I have seen supports it. You simply saying it was propaganda is not evidence.
I am glad that you admitted that you don't actually present any scientific evidence in your website. You just try to show everything everybody said about was propaganda.
You have seen scientific evidence that they built a-bombs 1943/5? What about Josef Stalin 1945/9? And de Gaulle 1958/67?
I think my info is interesting. Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public. And Wismut AG assisting Stalin building a fake bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium.
And let's face it - putting two pieces of half critical mass together making one critical mass and FLASH! Is it science?
So you admit you have no scientific evidence they are fake. Just your statement that it is fake.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
I'm not upset at all. But you don't show it's just propaganda, you just claim that it is. I believe a team of highly skilled scientists and technicians did, in fact, build them in 1945. I believe because all of the evidence I have seen supports it. You simply saying it was propaganda is not evidence.
I am glad that you admitted that you don't actually present any scientific evidence in your website. You just try to show everything everybody said about was propaganda.
You have seen scientific evidence that they built a-bombs 1943/5? What about Josef Stalin 1945/9? And de Gaulle 1958/67?
I think my info is interesting. Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public. And Wismut AG assisting Stalin building a fake bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium.
And let's face it - putting two pieces of half critical mass together making one critical mass and FLASH! Is it science?
So you admit you have no scientific evidence they are fake. Just your statement that it is fake.
Oc course not. I provide evidence that all information about exploding a-bombs is based on pseudoscience, i.e. just invented lies. Not one word true starting with how to detonate an a-bomb: bring two piecec of non-critical mass together to make up a critical mass, compress it to double density, add some free neutrons and suddenly billions of atoms fission and release pure energy in a FLASH ... and then a big mushroom cloud develops, bla, bla, bla. It is not science! Only idiots believe it. Study the 'reports' issued. I list them at my web site. They are all nonsense.
So my conclusion is that all info about a-bombs is fake! They do not work. They just exist - to scare you.
-
?? Please provide evidence you can read.
I can read this pathetic continuation to your evasions. Please try not to insult people. You think it is unbecoming and you should try and be consistently yourself. Now unless you can present evidence that nuclear weapons do not work that refutes the mountain of evidence that they do, then you should crawl back to your website and see about updating it for the 21st century.
Well, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm there is plenty evidence that a-bombs do not work. Start there to prove me wrong. I even pay you €1M if you can.
Why do you get so upset? Do you love a-bombs? If so, why? You sound sick in many ways. Your language! Pathetic, insult, crawl back, bla, bla. Please provide evidence that you are not crazy.
As has been pointed out to you many times. No, there is no evidence there. You try to explain how they work and then you say that's impossible. That's it. You even present as evidence the "fact" that a famous physicist refused to explain it to you when you were a child.
It's all just you saying it can't work.
Sorry, I explain how the experts say it works, and then I show it is just propaganda. Take the USSR bomb 1949 using Wismut AG uranium. Just propaganda. Take the Iranian efforts since 1970 to build an a-bomb. Just propaganda. Why are you so upset?
Do you love a-bombs? Do you really believe some clowns built three 1945?
I'm not upset at all. But you don't show it's just propaganda, you just claim that it is. I believe a team of highly skilled scientists and technicians did, in fact, build them in 1945. I believe because all of the evidence I have seen supports it. You simply saying it was propaganda is not evidence.
I am glad that you admitted that you don't actually present any scientific evidence in your website. You just try to show everything everybody said about was propaganda.
You have seen scientific evidence that they built a-bombs 1943/5? What about Josef Stalin 1945/9? And de Gaulle 1958/67?
I think my info is interesting. Swedish Nobel prize winner agreeing building one 1945, if all info is peer reviewed and made public. And Wismut AG assisting Stalin building a fake bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium.
And let's face it - putting two pieces of half critical mass together making one critical mass and FLASH! Is it science?
So you admit you have no scientific evidence they are fake. Just your statement that it is fake.
Oc course not. I provide evidence that all information about exploding a-bombs is based on pseudoscience, i.e. just invented lies. Not one word true starting with how to detonate an a-bomb: bring two piecec of non-critical mass together to make up a critical mass, compress it to double density, add some free neutrons and suddenly billions of atoms fission and release pure energy in a FLASH ... and then a big mushroom cloud develops, bla, bla, bla. It is not science! Only idiots believe it. Study the 'reports' issued. I list them at my web site. They are all nonsense.
So my conclusion is that all info about a-bombs is fake! They do not work. They just exist - to scare you.
But you don't provide any evidence, you just say it's pseudoscience. Just like you did here. Your website is pages and pages of text where you try to explain how nukes work, and then you say, but that's nonsense. No science to back you up, just your statement that it doesn't work that way.
-
]
So you admit you have no scientific evidence they are fake. Just your statement that it is fake.
...
But you don't provide any evidence, you just say it's pseudoscience. Just like you did here. Your website is pages and pages of text where you try to explain how nukes work, and then you say, but that's nonsense. No science to back you up, just your statement that it doesn't work that way.
?? But I prove that a-bombs are based on pseudoscience. You cannot increase or double the density of a metal by compression as suggested by the scientists. And neutrons cannot be reflected like light. Neutrons fly straight and decay after a while. And the New Mexico a-bomb test? A steel tower is vaporized but the ground the tower stood on remained unaffected. And Stalin built an a-bomb using what? Wismut? Marble?
And look at all photos of a-bombs exploding! A dirty mushroom cloud ... of what? Pure energy? Sorry, you sound as a drunk US general looking after some inter-continental ballistic missiles that don't work. If they get off the ground they are destroyed trying to re-enter at high speed. They cannot ever find the target.
And Obama shall spend 500 billion dollars up-grading the US a-bomb system. What a joke. The Russians are laughing all day long.
-
Your website is pages and pages of text.
Sounds a lot like this thread.
-
]
So you admit you have no scientific evidence they are fake. Just your statement that it is fake.
...
But you don't provide any evidence, you just say it's pseudoscience. Just like you did here. Your website is pages and pages of text where you try to explain how nukes work, and then you say, but that's nonsense. No science to back you up, just your statement that it doesn't work that way.
?? But I prove that a-bombs are based on pseudoscience. You cannot increase or double the density of a metal by compression as suggested by the scientists. And neutrons cannot be reflected like light. Neutrons fly straight and decay after a while. And the New Mexico a-bomb test? A steel tower is vaporized but the ground the tower stood on remained unaffected. And Stalin built an a-bomb using what? Wismut? Marble?
And look at all photos of a-bombs exploding! A dirty mushroom cloud ... of what? Pure energy? Sorry, you sound as a drunk US general looking after some inter-continental ballistic missiles that don't work. If they get off the ground they are destroyed trying to re-enter at high speed. They cannot ever find the target.
And Obama shall spend 500 billion dollars up-grading the US a-bomb system. What a joke. The Russians are laughing all day long.
See, you just did it again. You claim it's pseudoscience, that isn't proof. And then of course you take the childish route of throwing around insults.
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
This is off-topic.
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
This is off-topic.
Well, Woody says he is an expert of orbital mechancis ... but does not understand the basics. Topic is that Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist, which is what I maintain since long, or rather Nuclear Weapons Do Not work! They are just stupid propaganda to keep you afraid.
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
See, you just did it again. No evidence just an empty claim. But speaking of your space travel challenge, you never did get back to on link I posted showing you exactly the flight plan of the moon mission, and the toilet they use in space. By your silence I can only assume you found nothing wrong with it. So, what more evidence do you need?
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
And Heiwa proves AGAIN that he doesn't understand what an orbit is. Yet somehow only he is capable of judging his fraudulent contest? ::) ::)
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
This is off-topic.
Well, Woody says he is an expert of orbital mechancis ... but does not understand the basics. Topic is that Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist, which is what I maintain since long, or rather Nuclear Weapons Do Not work! They are just stupid propaganda to keep you afraid.
Funny thing is I am not an expert. Not what I do for a career, yet you can not answer the questions I have asked that are very basic.
How about are satellites in free fall around the Earth or not?
How about your explanation on how things orbit? If you are right about not being able to go to the Moon are beyond then things in orbit are not falling. Personally I think you actually are using your education this time and know if you answer,"Yes" the only real objection you have left using your model is reentry.
I could be wrong and that is why you are avoiding answering since you avoid so many other questions.
One way to prove your understanding is explain why if you agree things fall around what they are orbiting you can not be right about not being able to get to the Moon or beyond.
If your answer is no, that leaves us wondering what observations, experiments, evidence you have proving Einstein, Newton and Kepler wrong.
-
Rag on how ignorant Heiwa is about orbital mechanics in another thread. This thread is solely to rag on how ignorant he is about nuclear physics. Much love and appreciation.
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
See, you just did it again. No evidence just an empty claim. But speaking of your space travel challenge, you never did get back to on link I posted showing you exactly the flight plan of the moon mission, and the toilet they use in space. By your silence I can only assume you found nothing wrong with it. So, what more evidence do you need?
To win €1M of any of my Challenges about a-bombs and human space travel you, not me, have to provide the information required as per the rules. Do not link to ridiculous web sites and ask me to win my own Challenges.
So far nobody has been able to collect, which proves, IMHO, that a-bombs do not work and human space travel is not possible.
I always feel sorry for people believeing that the trajectory of an Earth/Mars space trip is an orbit around the Sun and cannot determine the departure and arrival times of the trip. If you do not know the difference between a trajectory and an orbit, you will never win my Challenge about space.
Same with a-bombs. People believing putting two blocks of uranium 235 with half critical mass together making up one critical mass and compressing it to double density with a neutron in between will result in a FLASH are really ignorant about basic fission and will never win my Challenge about nuclear weapons.
Actually, all these people suffer from cognitive dissonance! They believe in absurd things just being told to them.
-
To win €1M of any of my Challenges about a-bombs and human space travel you, not me, have to provide the information required as per the rules. Do not link to ridiculous web sites and ask me to win my own Challenges.
No one is asking you to win your challenge. No one cares about your challenge. You are too sketchy to take it seriously.
So far nobody has been able to collect, which proves, IMHO, that a-bombs do not work and human space travel is not possible.
It doesn't prove what you think it proves. There is too little assurance and credibility on your side for anyone to bother. How many legitimate submissions have you had?
Off-topic.
Same with a-bombs. People believing putting two blocks of uranium 235 with half critical mass together making up one critical mass and compressing it to double density with a neutron in between will result in a FLASH are really ignorant about basic fission and will never win my Challenge about nuclear weapons.
Yet, in all your knowledge, you cannot give ever give a technical explanation of why fission works how you say it does in complete contradiction to what the body of nuclear physicists know.
Actually, all these people suffer from cognitive dissonance! They believe in absurd things just being told to them.
Classic tin-foil hatter: Everyone else is the one with the problem. I am special and can see through the BS despite my complete lack of expertise in the subject. Tell us Heiwa, have you ventured on to a forum devoted to nuclear physics and been horribly eviscerated like you were at apollohoax.net?
-
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space...
There is no such thing as simple manned space flight.
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
See, you just did it again. No evidence just an empty claim. But speaking of your space travel challenge, you never did get back to on link I posted showing you exactly the flight plan of the moon mission, and the toilet they use in space. By your silence I can only assume you found nothing wrong with it. So, what more evidence do you need?
To win €1M of any of my Challenges about a-bombs and human space travel you, not me, have to provide the information required as per the rules. Do not link to ridiculous web sites and ask me to win my own Challenges.
So far nobody has been able to collect, which proves, IMHO, that a-bombs do not work and human space travel is not possible.
I always feel sorry for people believeing that the trajectory of an Earth/Mars space trip is an orbit around the Sun and cannot determine the departure and arrival times of the trip. If you do not know the difference between a trajectory and an orbit, you will never win my Challenge about space.
Same with a-bombs. People believing putting two blocks of uranium 235 with half critical mass together making up one critical mass and compressing it to double density with a neutron in between will result in a FLASH are really ignorant about basic fission and will never win my Challenge about nuclear weapons.
Actually, all these people suffer from cognitive dissonance! They believe in absurd things just being told to them.
I linked you to an apollo flight plan, something, I believe you asked for. So if you won't accept it, what's wrong with it?
And, once again, with the bombs, you simply claim it doesn't work and that apparently no one but you understands physics. No evidence just empty claims.
-
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space...
There is no such thing as simple manned space flight.
Don’t worry! Only four years and NASA will be on the Moon!
http://www.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html
NASA was 2009 trying to do it again with Constellation, an ambitious project to return humans to the moon by 2020. It is easy, according to John Olson, director of NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate Integration Office. "We're going for a sustained human presence in space."
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
See, you just did it again. No evidence just an empty claim. But speaking of your space travel challenge, you never did get back to on link I posted showing you exactly the flight plan of the moon mission, and the toilet they use in space. By your silence I can only assume you found nothing wrong with it. So, what more evidence do you need?
To win €1M of any of my Challenges about a-bombs and human space travel you, not me, have to provide the information required as per the rules. Do not link to ridiculous web sites and ask me to win my own Challenges.
So far nobody has been able to collect, which proves, IMHO, that a-bombs do not work and human space travel is not possible.
I always feel sorry for people believeing that the trajectory of an Earth/Mars space trip is an orbit around the Sun and cannot determine the departure and arrival times of the trip. If you do not know the difference between a trajectory and an orbit, you will never win my Challenge about space.
Same with a-bombs. People believing putting two blocks of uranium 235 with half critical mass together making up one critical mass and compressing it to double density with a neutron in between will result in a FLASH are really ignorant about basic fission and will never win my Challenge about nuclear weapons.
Actually, all these people suffer from cognitive dissonance! They believe in absurd things just being told to them.
I linked you to an apollo flight plan, something, I believe you asked for. So if you won't accept it, what's wrong with it?
And, once again, with the bombs, you simply claim it doesn't work and that apparently no one but you understands physics. No evidence just empty claims.
Yes, I have seen the Apollo 11 flight plan - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . If they managed to get their very heavy spacecraft - like 20 elephants! - into orbit, they didn't have the fuel to get out of orbit and into a trajectory (around the Sun?) to the Moon. But if they had, they didn't know when and where to use the fuel, produce a force and get going. Sorry, the Apollo 11 flight plan is elephant shit!
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
See, you just did it again. No evidence just an empty claim. But speaking of your space travel challenge, you never did get back to on link I posted showing you exactly the flight plan of the moon mission, and the toilet they use in space. By your silence I can only assume you found nothing wrong with it. So, what more evidence do you need?
To win €1M of any of my Challenges about a-bombs and human space travel you, not me, have to provide the information required as per the rules. Do not link to ridiculous web sites and ask me to win my own Challenges.
So far nobody has been able to collect, which proves, IMHO, that a-bombs do not work and human space travel is not possible.
I always feel sorry for people believeing that the trajectory of an Earth/Mars space trip is an orbit around the Sun and cannot determine the departure and arrival times of the trip. If you do not know the difference between a trajectory and an orbit, you will never win my Challenge about space.
Same with a-bombs. People believing putting two blocks of uranium 235 with half critical mass together making up one critical mass and compressing it to double density with a neutron in between will result in a FLASH are really ignorant about basic fission and will never win my Challenge about nuclear weapons.
Actually, all these people suffer from cognitive dissonance! They believe in absurd things just being told to them.
I linked you to an apollo flight plan, something, I believe you asked for. So if you won't accept it, what's wrong with it?
And, once again, with the bombs, you simply claim it doesn't work and that apparently no one but you understands physics. No evidence just empty claims.
Yes, I have seen the Apollo 11 flight plan - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . If they managed to get their very heavy spacecraft - like 20 elephants! - into orbit, they didn't have the fuel to get out of orbit and into a trajectory (around the Sun?) to the Moon. But if they had, they didn't know when and where to use the fuel, produce a force and get going. Sorry, the Apollo 11 flight plan is elephant shit!
Good lord you just continually display your willfull ignorance or inability to grasp stuff.
The Moon orbits the Earth. Which means the trajectory going to the Moon would be an orbit of Earth.
Going beyond the Moon to go to someplace means the vehicle needs to be placed into an orbit around the Sun that would result in an encounter with the planet you want it to go to.
Do you understand now? Seeing how you are claiming expertise you should at least understand the thing you are trying to debunk. How do you know something is impossible if you do not understand the claims of how that thing is done?
Like all your claims about different things you display a lack of understanding. Even with an event like the sinking of the Estonia that you should be somewhat well versed in since you are an marine engineer.
-
Good lord you just continually display your willfull ignorance or inability to grasp stuff.
The Moon orbits the Earth. Which means the trajectory going to the Moon would be an orbit of Earth.
Going beyond the Moon to go to someplace means the vehicle needs to be placed into an orbit around the Sun that would result in an encounter with the planet you want it to go to.
Do you understand now? Seeing how you are claiming expertise you should at least understand the thing you are trying to debunk. How do you know something is impossible if you do not understand the claims of how that thing is done?
Like all your claims about different things you display a lack of understanding. Even with an event like the sinking of the Estonia that you should be somewhat well versed in since you are an marine engineer.
Sorry - the Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun = the Moon orbits the Sun (while orbiting Earth).
But the trajectory of a spacecraft Earth/Moon is not an orbit of any kind. The trajectory has start and end locations at different times and the external and internal forces acting on the spacecraft vary all the time which means that the speed vary so that the trajectory cannot be established. It is called rocket science or actually rocket pseudoscience; plenty a false solutions around but no correct one. So human space travel is impossible.
But topic here is why nuclear weapons exist but do not work, which I have explained and proven several times here and elsewhere. Putting metal in contact with metal and compressing to double density does not produce a FLASH! Only twerps believe otherwise.
-
You have proven nothing. You are simply sating your disbelief. And sometimes you Show your incompetence, especially regarding Orbital mechanics. I seriously doubt either the fact that you are an engineer or the swedish educational System.
-
You have proven nothing. You are simply sating your disbelief. And sometimes you Show your incompetence, especially regarding Orbital mechanics. I seriously doubt either the fact that you are an engineer or the swedish educational System.
You are wrong on all accounts. Why do you waste your time with stupid, worthless comments? We discuss nuclear weapons and you talk off topic about orbital mechanics but have not understood that you cannot determine the trajectory of a spacecraft in a variable gravity field = manned space travel is not possible.
-
Good lord you just continually display your willfull ignorance or inability to grasp stuff.
The Moon orbits the Earth. Which means the trajectory going to the Moon would be an orbit of Earth.
Going beyond the Moon to go to someplace means the vehicle needs to be placed into an orbit around the Sun that would result in an encounter with the planet you want it to go to.
Do you understand now? Seeing how you are claiming expertise you should at least understand the thing you are trying to debunk. How do you know something is impossible if you do not understand the claims of how that thing is done?
Like all your claims about different things you display a lack of understanding. Even with an event like the sinking of the Estonia that you should be somewhat well versed in since you are an marine engineer.
Sorry - the Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun = the Moon orbits the Sun (while orbiting Earth).
But the trajectory of a spacecraft Earth/Moon is not an orbit of any kind. The trajectory has start and end locations at different times and the external and internal forces acting on the spacecraft vary all the time which means that the speed vary so that the trajectory cannot be established. It is called rocket science or actually rocket pseudoscience; plenty a false solutions around but no correct one. So human space travel is impossible.
But topic here is why nuclear weapons exist but do not work, which I have explained and proven several times here and elsewhere. Putting metal in contact with metal and compressing to double density does not produce a FLASH! Only twerps believe otherwise.
And you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics and are incompetent to judge your own challenge.
-
You have proven nothing. You are simply sating your disbelief. And sometimes you Show your incompetence, especially regarding Orbital mechanics. I seriously doubt either the fact that you are an engineer or the swedish educational System.
You are wrong on all accounts. Why do you waste your time with stupid, worthless comments? We discuss nuclear weapons and you talk off topic about orbital mechanics but have not understood that you cannot determine the trajectory of a spacecraft in a variable gravity field = manned space travel is not possible.
You are not discussing, you are Just repeating that you do not believe in their existence because nuclear reactions can not Happen quickly in your opinion. For that you offer 1M €, which you do not have, for convincing you - Not an external judge - that this is possible. Maybe a psychologist trying to handle your narcissm would be a better Solution than a real engineer explaining nuclear physics to you.
OT: You can not Determine the trajectory - proving that you are, at Best, a horrible engineer - other people can. But of course, add that to your pile of cognitive Dissonance...
-
Good lord you just continually display your willfull ignorance or inability to grasp stuff.
The Moon orbits the Earth. Which means the trajectory going to the Moon would be an orbit of Earth.
Going beyond the Moon to go to someplace means the vehicle needs to be placed into an orbit around the Sun that would result in an encounter with the planet you want it to go to.
Do you understand now? Seeing how you are claiming expertise you should at least understand the thing you are trying to debunk. How do you know something is impossible if you do not understand the claims of how that thing is done?
Like all your claims about different things you display a lack of understanding. Even with an event like the sinking of the Estonia that you should be somewhat well versed in since you are an marine engineer.
Sorry - the Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun = the Moon orbits the Sun (while orbiting Earth).
But the trajectory of a spacecraft Earth/Moon is not an orbit of any kind. The trajectory has start and end locations at different times and the external and internal forces acting on the spacecraft vary all the time which means that the speed vary so that the trajectory cannot be established. It is called rocket science or actually rocket pseudoscience; plenty a false solutions around but no correct one. So human space travel is impossible.
But topic here is why nuclear weapons exist but do not work, which I have explained and proven several times here and elsewhere. Putting metal in contact with metal and compressing to double density does not produce a FLASH! Only twerps believe otherwise.
And you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics and are incompetent to judge your own challenge.
No, I am an expert of nuclear weapons (they do not work) and orbital mechanics (human space travel is impossible). None have proven me wrong even if I pay them €1M to do so. I assume you suffer from cognitive dissonance. You sound like it.
-
Good lord you just continually display your willfull ignorance or inability to grasp stuff.
The Moon orbits the Earth. Which means the trajectory going to the Moon would be an orbit of Earth.
Going beyond the Moon to go to someplace means the vehicle needs to be placed into an orbit around the Sun that would result in an encounter with the planet you want it to go to.
Do you understand now? Seeing how you are claiming expertise you should at least understand the thing you are trying to debunk. How do you know something is impossible if you do not understand the claims of how that thing is done?
Like all your claims about different things you display a lack of understanding. Even with an event like the sinking of the Estonia that you should be somewhat well versed in since you are an marine engineer.
Sorry - the Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun = the Moon orbits the Sun (while orbiting Earth).
But the trajectory of a spacecraft Earth/Moon is not an orbit of any kind. The trajectory has start and end locations at different times and the external and internal forces acting on the spacecraft vary all the time which means that the speed vary so that the trajectory cannot be established. It is called rocket science or actually rocket pseudoscience; plenty a false solutions around but no correct one. So human space travel is impossible.
But topic here is why nuclear weapons exist but do not work, which I have explained and proven several times here and elsewhere. Putting metal in contact with metal and compressing to double density does not produce a FLASH! Only twerps believe otherwise.
And you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics and are incompetent to judge your own challenge.
No, I am an expert of nuclear weapons (they do not work) and orbital mechanics (human space travel is impossible). None have proven me wrong even if I pay them €1M to do so. I assume you suffer from cognitive dissonance. You sound like it.
Wrong. You present only opinions and no facts. You prove repeatedly you do not understand the concepts involved. IF you were an expert you would know that EVERY movement in a gravitational field can be considered an orbit. That based on their eccentricity they will follow a path of an ellipse, parabola, or a hyperbola. Even if you just barely skimmed the links previously provided you'd know that. The fact that you don't shows you are willfully ignorant. How sad for you.
You sound like a broken old man that never recovered when his hull design was rejected so you try to exposit on subjects you don't understand.
-
Heiwa does not realize the difference between opinion and evidence.
He does the same with space travel. Tries to explain it, displaying a very limited or no understanding, then just saying it could not happen. The times I have seen him try to offer a counter argument using stuff like math, he fails. I suspect that is why we do not see him attempt that anymore.
I am more familiar with his errors and woeful misunderstanding about space travel and orbital mechanics.
Yes, I am not perfect. To solve the problem I pay anyone €1M to explain some simple manned trips in space - http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm - and to show that a-bombs actually function - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Many people believe that the trajectory of a human space trip between Earth and Mars is an orbit around the Sun and that's why they will never be able to go anywhere in space. The humans allegedly orbiting Earth are just propaganda since Gagarin 1961. No human has ever been in space. There is no way to re-enter and land.
See, you just did it again. No evidence just an empty claim. But speaking of your space travel challenge, you never did get back to on link I posted showing you exactly the flight plan of the moon mission, and the toilet they use in space. By your silence I can only assume you found nothing wrong with it. So, what more evidence do you need?
To win €1M of any of my Challenges about a-bombs and human space travel you, not me, have to provide the information required as per the rules. Do not link to ridiculous web sites and ask me to win my own Challenges.
So far nobody has been able to collect, which proves, IMHO, that a-bombs do not work and human space travel is not possible.
I always feel sorry for people believeing that the trajectory of an Earth/Mars space trip is an orbit around the Sun and cannot determine the departure and arrival times of the trip. If you do not know the difference between a trajectory and an orbit, you will never win my Challenge about space.
Same with a-bombs. People believing putting two blocks of uranium 235 with half critical mass together making up one critical mass and compressing it to double density with a neutron in between will result in a FLASH are really ignorant about basic fission and will never win my Challenge about nuclear weapons.
Actually, all these people suffer from cognitive dissonance! They believe in absurd things just being told to them.
I linked you to an apollo flight plan, something, I believe you asked for. So if you won't accept it, what's wrong with it?
And, once again, with the bombs, you simply claim it doesn't work and that apparently no one but you understands physics. No evidence just empty claims.
Yes, I have seen the Apollo 11 flight plan - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . If they managed to get their very heavy spacecraft - like 20 elephants! - into orbit, they didn't have the fuel to get out of orbit and into a trajectory (around the Sun?) to the Moon. But if they had, they didn't know when and where to use the fuel, produce a force and get going. Sorry, the Apollo 11 flight plan is elephant shit!
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
-
Good lord you just continually display your willfull ignorance or inability to grasp stuff.
The Moon orbits the Earth. Which means the trajectory going to the Moon would be an orbit of Earth.
Going beyond the Moon to go to someplace means the vehicle needs to be placed into an orbit around the Sun that would result in an encounter with the planet you want it to go to.
Do you understand now? Seeing how you are claiming expertise you should at least understand the thing you are trying to debunk. How do you know something is impossible if you do not understand the claims of how that thing is done?
Like all your claims about different things you display a lack of understanding. Even with an event like the sinking of the Estonia that you should be somewhat well versed in since you are an marine engineer.
Sorry - the Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun = the Moon orbits the Sun (while orbiting Earth).
But the trajectory of a spacecraft Earth/Moon is not an orbit of any kind. The trajectory has start and end locations at different times and the external and internal forces acting on the spacecraft vary all the time which means that the speed vary so that the trajectory cannot be established. It is called rocket science or actually rocket pseudoscience; plenty a false solutions around but no correct one. So human space travel is impossible.
But topic here is why nuclear weapons exist but do not work, which I have explained and proven several times here and elsewhere. Putting metal in contact with metal and compressing to double density does not produce a FLASH! Only twerps believe otherwise.
And you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics and are incompetent to judge your own challenge.
No, I am an expert of nuclear weapons (they do not work) and orbital mechanics (human space travel is impossible). None have proven me wrong even if I pay them €1M to do so. I assume you suffer from cognitive dissonance. You sound like it.
Wrong. You present only opinions and no facts. You prove repeatedly you do not understand the concepts involved. IF you were an expert you would know that EVERY movement in a gravitational field can be considered an orbit. That based on their eccentricity they will follow a path of an ellipse, parabola, or a hyperbola. Even if you just barely skimmed the links previously provided you'd know that. The fact that you don't shows you are willfully ignorant. How sad for you.
You sound like a broken old man that never recovered when his hull design was rejected so you try to exposit on subjects you don't understand.
No, I prevent facts and figures. You really have to study orbital mechanics and the difference between a trajectory of an object travelling between moving heavenly bodies in a variable gravity field and orbits - one body flying around another body in space in a uniform gravity field. Don't you see the difference? I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
And I am in good shape. Just returned from two hours ice skating in a uniform gravity field. Quite fun actually. But I was a better skater in the 1960's. Do you skate? I orbited the rink several times, i.e. went around it, but the trajectory was not cirkular or hyperbolic or straight. And the speed and direction changed all the time. Only gravity was constant.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
-
Good lord you just continually display your willfull ignorance or inability to grasp stuff.
The Moon orbits the Earth. Which means the trajectory going to the Moon would be an orbit of Earth.
Going beyond the Moon to go to someplace means the vehicle needs to be placed into an orbit around the Sun that would result in an encounter with the planet you want it to go to.
Do you understand now? Seeing how you are claiming expertise you should at least understand the thing you are trying to debunk. How do you know something is impossible if you do not understand the claims of how that thing is done?
Like all your claims about different things you display a lack of understanding. Even with an event like the sinking of the Estonia that you should be somewhat well versed in since you are an marine engineer.
Sorry - the Moon orbits Earth that orbits the Sun = the Moon orbits the Sun (while orbiting Earth).
But the trajectory of a spacecraft Earth/Moon is not an orbit of any kind. The trajectory has start and end locations at different times and the external and internal forces acting on the spacecraft vary all the time which means that the speed vary so that the trajectory cannot be established. It is called rocket science or actually rocket pseudoscience; plenty a false solutions around but no correct one. So human space travel is impossible.
But topic here is why nuclear weapons exist but do not work, which I have explained and proven several times here and elsewhere. Putting metal in contact with metal and compressing to double density does not produce a FLASH! Only twerps believe otherwise.
And you only prove AGAIN that you don't understand orbital mechanics and are incompetent to judge your own challenge.
No, I am an expert of nuclear weapons (they do not work) and orbital mechanics (human space travel is impossible). None have proven me wrong even if I pay them €1M to do so. I assume you suffer from cognitive dissonance. You sound like it.
Wrong. You present only opinions and no facts. You prove repeatedly you do not understand the concepts involved. IF you were an expert you would know that EVERY movement in a gravitational field can be considered an orbit. That based on their eccentricity they will follow a path of an ellipse, parabola, or a hyperbola. Even if you just barely skimmed the links previously provided you'd know that. The fact that you don't shows you are willfully ignorant. How sad for you.
You sound like a broken old man that never recovered when his hull design was rejected so you try to exposit on subjects you don't understand.
No, I prevent facts and figures. You really have to study orbital mechanics and the difference between a trajectory of an object travelling between moving heavenly bodies in a variable gravity field and orbits - one body flying around another body in space in a uniform gravity field. Don't you see the difference? I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm .
Your "website" is nothing but arguments from incredulity. You don't understand it so it must not work. I HAVE studied orbital mechanics and it is very clear you have NOT. Also VERY clear you didn't even bother to look at the previous links provided. Nothing but willful ignorance from you.
And I am in good shape. Just returned from two hours ice skating in a uniform gravity field. Quite fun actually. But I was a better skater in the 1960's. Do you skate? I orbited the rink several times, i.e. went around it, but the trajectory was not cirkular or hyperbolic or straight. And the speed and direction changed all the time. Only gravity was constant.
Yep, definitely expositing on subjects you don't understand. Definitely a broken old man. You sound like you're one step away from yelling at strangers on a street corner.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
And you further prove you don't understand orbital mechanics with the above statement. Transfer orbits depend on the variation of gravity. It is part of it. But of course you never bothered to actually LOOK at any relevant information, did you? Just more lies from Heiwa the pathological liar.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
Nothing you just said is true. I sent you a link the provided that exact information. You have not provided a link to NASA saying it was easy, the link you provided was to nasa's home page. Your website is a joke with walls of text saying how things are supposed to work and then you simply saying, but of course that's impossible.
So what, specifically do you find incorrect in the link I sent you, you still have not answered that and you still have not given a link to NASA saying flights to the moon are easy.
Back up your position. You say my information is wrong, show me where and how.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I'm not going to check out your website. You lost me at "Where's Walter." LOL. That, and continually asserting your position while ignoring other poster's input.
-
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I'm not going to check out your website. You lost me at "Where's Walter." LOL. That, and continually asserting your position while ignoring other poster's input.
Yes, Walter C was funny.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4205/images/c132.gif)
He explained to us that Apollo 11 Service and Command Modules, SCM, were loaded on top of the Lunar Module, LM, that in turn was loaded on top of the Saturn 3rd stage rocket, that brought Apollo 11 out of orbit to the Moon at >11 000 m/s speed. 15 minutes after TLI the CSM disconnected from the LM/Saturn 3rd stage and backed off 25 meters or so. Then the SCM flipped 180° and the LM/Saturn 3rd stage advanced 25 meters and one way or other the SCM was connected to the top of the LM, bla, bla, bla. As Walter explained this to the world public, it must have happened.
IMO it was just a funny show! No modules or 3rd stage rockets were ever in space.
-
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I'm not going to check out your website. You lost me at "Where's Walter." LOL. That, and continually asserting your position while ignoring other poster's input.
Yes, Walter C was funny.
(http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4205/images/c132.gif)
He explained to us that Apollo 11 Service and Command Modules, SCM, were loaded on top of the Lunar Module, LM, that in turn was loaded on top of the Saturn 3rd stage rocket, that brought Apollo 11 out of orbit to the Moon at >11 000 m/s speed. 15 minutes after TLI the CSM disconnected from the LM/Saturn 3rd stage and backed off 25 meters or so. Then the SCM flipped 180° and the LM/Saturn 3rd stage advanced 25 meters and one way or other the SCM was connected to the top of the LM, bla, bla, bla. As Walter explained this to the world public, it must have happened.
IMO it was just a funny show! No modules or 3rd stage rockets were ever in space.
OK
-
A victory for FE!
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Actually what happened was several people with actual knowledge of space flight point out many of your errors. You ignored them. You contradicted yourself a few times and ignored it when this was pointed out. You even, I believe admitted to doing the math wrong and then somehow tried to use your, admittedly incorrect math to prove you right. This was pointed out to you as well.
Basically a bunch of actually scientists and engineers proved you wrong repeatedly. The only thing you proved was you lack the knowledge or skill to judge your own "challenge".
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Actually what happened was several people with actual knowledge of space flight point out many of your errors. You ignored them. You contradicted yourself a few times and ignored it when this was pointed out. You even, I believe admitted to doing the math wrong and then somehow tried to use your, admittedly incorrect math to prove you right. This was pointed out to you as well.
Basically a bunch of actually scientists and engineers proved you wrong repeatedly. The only thing you proved was you lack the knowledge or skill to judge your own "challenge".
he was also caught changing the wording of his challenge repeatedly after he was proven wrong. Yet more lies from the pathological liar Heiwa.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Actually what happened was several people with actual knowledge of space flight point out many of your errors. You ignored them. You contradicted yourself a few times and ignored it when this was pointed out. You even, I believe admitted to doing the math wrong and then somehow tried to use your, admittedly incorrect math to prove you right. This was pointed out to you as well.
Basically a bunch of actually scientists and engineers proved you wrong repeatedly. The only thing you proved was you lack the knowledge or skill to judge your own "challenge".
Are you sure? What known people have pointed out any errors of mine? I always ignore the anonymous shills. Except you. I never contradict myself! And no known person to me have said so. I am easy to reach at anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr .
So what bunch of actually scientists and engineers have proved me wrong repeatedly?
I have never heard from any of them. List them!
On the other hand I have plenty of supporters and fans.
Next wednesday a fan of mine arrives from far away to discuss what to do next. But tomorrow it is ski time. Plenty of snow at Isola 2000. So tomorrow I am on it. It clears your mind. Great fun.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Actually what happened was several people with actual knowledge of space flight point out many of your errors. You ignored them. You contradicted yourself a few times and ignored it when this was pointed out. You even, I believe admitted to doing the math wrong and then somehow tried to use your, admittedly incorrect math to prove you right. This was pointed out to you as well.
Basically a bunch of actually scientists and engineers proved you wrong repeatedly. The only thing you proved was you lack the knowledge or skill to judge your own "challenge".
he was also caught changing the wording of his challenge repeatedly after he was proven wrong. Yet more lies from the pathological liar Heiwa.
?? Why do you make up this nonsense? Who pays you for it? Or you do it on your own? Regardless, you sound sick. Are you too poor to seek medical assistance? Is there noone to help you? Call 911! But don't bother me here with your shit.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Actually what happened was several people with actual knowledge of space flight point out many of your errors. You ignored them. You contradicted yourself a few times and ignored it when this was pointed out. You even, I believe admitted to doing the math wrong and then somehow tried to use your, admittedly incorrect math to prove you right. This was pointed out to you as well.
Basically a bunch of actually scientists and engineers proved you wrong repeatedly. The only thing you proved was you lack the knowledge or skill to judge your own "challenge".
he was also caught changing the wording of his challenge repeatedly after he was proven wrong. Yet more lies from the pathological liar Heiwa.
?? Why do you make up this nonsense? Who pays you for it? Or you do it on your own? Regardless, you sound sick. Are you too poor to seek medical assistance? Is there noone to help you? Call 911! But don't bother me here with your shit.
Nobody pays me to call you on your shit. You tell lies all the time. You WERE proven to have changed your challenge multiple times.
I'm not sick at all but you definitely sound like a broken old man that had a nervous breakdown when your hull design wasn't accepted. That would at least partially explain your pathological tendency to lie. It could also explain why you live in government housing.
-
They say exactly when and where to use the fuel. Show us how it is wrong. Once again you simply say something can't happen withou a shred of evidence to support your position. I noticed earlier you are continuing to spread your lie about NASA saying flights to the moon are easy. Why do you keep lying about this?
No, NASA cannot say when and where and how much fuel is used to produce unknown forces applied in unknown directions to Apollo 11 to proceed to the Moon. All is badly documented! http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm . And I have already provided some links to NASA explaining how easy it is. It is just a qestion of funding. Just study my web site better. Why would I lie about it? It is just a stupid joke. Not even fun any longer. Just boring.
On apollohoax.net you were shown the fuel usage, burn time and subsequent delta-V for every burn in the Apollo 11 mission. Your lies and cognitive dissonance are astounding.
Maybe so - copy/paste - but they like NASA didn't consider that the trip was in a variable gravity field, where as soon as you stop applying a rocket force, your speed and direction are changed ... and you fly off in the wrong direction.
Try yourself - how to apply a force to get out of EPO to go to L2. How do you do it?
Go to http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 it's a very good website. Better than yours!
Everyone else should go to the site as well to see how thoroughly he gets embrassed by literal rocket scientists. I am sure it t could have gone worse, but it appears real rocket scientists have better things to do than convince misanthropes that they are wrong.
Now back to how you haven't presented any evidence or technical explanation of why fission bombs cannot work please.
Checked it out. Hilarious! Also, awesome site. I registered - just waiting for approval.
Yes, it is a good website. I explained 2012 quite clearly there, why human space travel was impossible and thus a hoax to impress people. Great fun. Then I was banned. I cannot understand that people believe it is possible to navigate a spacecraft in a variable gravity field, which changes your speed and direction all the time. You are lost at once. It is rocket science. I have improved my website http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm since.
The US nuclear bombs are another, much older hoax of a more serious sort. To scare you. Not funny. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Actually what happened was several people with actual knowledge of space flight point out many of your errors. You ignored them. You contradicted yourself a few times and ignored it when this was pointed out. You even, I believe admitted to doing the math wrong and then somehow tried to use your, admittedly incorrect math to prove you right. This was pointed out to you as well.
Basically a bunch of actually scientists and engineers proved you wrong repeatedly. The only thing you proved was you lack the knowledge or skill to judge your own "challenge".
Are you sure? What known people have pointed out any errors of mine? I always ignore the anonymous shills. Except you. I never contradict myself! And no known person to me have said so. I am easy to reach at anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr .
So what bunch of actually scientists and engineers have proved me wrong repeatedly?
I have never heard from any of them. List them!
On the other hand I have plenty of supporters and fans.
Next wednesday a fan of mine arrives from far away to discuss what to do next. But tomorrow it is ski time. Plenty of snow at Isola 2000. So tomorrow I am on it. It clears your mind. Great fun.
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
-
nobody could prove me wrong.
I believe this is a perfect diagnosis of your condition. You nailed it!
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Multiple people proved you wrong. The only thing you proved was you didn't even understand the subject enough to see how. You became a running joke there like you do at every forum you visit.
-
Next wednesday a fan of mine arrives from far away to discuss what to do next.
That's your psychiatrist. He will be coming up from the third floor.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Multiple people proved you wrong. The only thing you proved was you didn't even understand the subject enough to see how. You became a running joke there like you do at every forum you visit.
Can you name any? And what was wrong?
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
My guess also because he was insulting people, kept claiming questions were off topic and avoided answering direct questions and linking his webpage over and over again.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
My guess also because he was insulting people, kept claiming questions were off topic and avoided answering direct questions and linking his webpage over and over again.
No - at Apollohoax I made 117 polite posts, answered all questions and then, without a reason or warning given, I was banned. It was years ago. Easy to verify. Pls do not guess and invent things.
-
No - at Apollohoax I made 117 polite posts, answered all questions and then, without a reason or warning given, I was banned. It was years ago. Easy to verify. Pls do not guess and invent things.
You were banned for
sock puppetry, trolling, insulting people (ie. comparing them to Nazis), and refusing to provide evidence for his claims.
You received several very public warnings about your approach to the forum, and were on moderation - which might be a bit of a clue that you weren't following the forum's rules.
Easy to verify.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
Oh, yikes! How could noone see that? You need fuel to perform orbital maneuvers! Thank you for pointing that Out! How could we Miss that until now?
-
Couple of examples of your polite posts:
I have a distinct feeling this Apollohoaxforum is run by some bored, retired NASA hoaxsters with bad pensions and nagging wifes or husbands in some lousy subdivision where most houses are empty.
Do not trust the incompetent rocket engineers and space pilots at this forum. They have never been in space, I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read. They are just unhappy, bored mopes you find in bankrupt US subdivisions on old corn fields in the middle of nowhere or elsewhere.
You got banned from AH because people there are far less tolerant of ignorant trolling fucktards interested only in fluffing their ego.
-
Couple of examples of your polite posts:
I have a distinct feeling this Apollohoaxforum is run by some bored, retired NASA hoaxsters with bad pensions and nagging wifes or husbands in some lousy subdivision where most houses are empty.
Do not trust the incompetent rocket engineers and space pilots at this forum. They have never been in space, I am 100% certain of that, and can hardly read. They are just unhappy, bored mopes you find in bankrupt US subdivisions on old corn fields in the middle of nowhere or elsewhere.
You got banned from AH because people there are far less tolerant of ignorant trolling fucktards interested only in fluffing their ego.
Yep. Which makes this
No - at Apollohoax I made 117 polite posts, answered all questions and then, without a reason or warning given, I was banned. It was years ago. Easy to verify. Pls do not guess and invent things.
yet more LIES from Heiwa.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
That's really hilarious. You were shown exactly how to calculate the fuel consumption and given links to how to do the maneuvers. You ignored all corrections and actual information. They took you for a troll and banned you. Or that's my guess.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
That's really hilarious. You were shown exactly how to calculate the fuel consumption and given links to how to do the maneuvers. You ignored all corrections and actual information. They took you for a troll and banned you. Or that's my guess.
Hm - the topic at Apollohoax was my famous €1M Challenge. People were invited to try it. I was told about it and joined the forum to explain how to win ... and that it was difficult. In the end noone won my Challenge ... it is still not won ... and someone got upset ... and I was banned.
The Challenge was not to tell me how to calculate the fuel consumption or do the manoeuvers of a rocket.
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
It is a sad fact. Human space travel is impossible.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
That's really hilarious. You were shown exactly how to calculate the fuel consumption and given links to how to do the maneuvers. You ignored all corrections and actual information. They took you for a troll and banned you. Or that's my guess.
Hm - the topic at Apollohoax was my famous €1M Challenge. People were invited to try it. I was told about it and joined the forum to explain how to win ... and that it was difficult. In the end noone won my Challenge ... it is still not won ... and someone got upset ... and I was banned.
The Challenge was not to tell me how to calculate the fuel consumption or do the manoeuvers of a rocket.
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
It is a sad fact. Human space travel is impossible.
Your a priori assumption that space travel is impossible blinds you to (or causes you to ignore) any evidence to the contrary, and guarantees that no one will ever win your bogus "Challenge." Add this to the reasons listed above for why you were banned.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
That's really hilarious. You were shown exactly how to calculate the fuel consumption and given links to how to do the maneuvers. You ignored all corrections and actual information. They took you for a troll and banned you. Or that's my guess.
Hm - the topic at Apollohoax was my famous €1M Challenge. People were invited to try it. I was told about it and joined the forum to explain how to win ... and that it was difficult. In the end noone won my Challenge ... it is still not won ... and someone got upset ... and I was banned.
The Challenge was not to tell me how to calculate the fuel consumption or do the manoeuvers of a rocket.
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
It is a sad fact. Human space travel is impossible.
again, thats not true. I sent you a link that shows you exactly the trajectory. Others posted the fuel consumption and showed how your math was wrong. Your challenge goes unwon because no matter what proof you are shown you simply say, thats impossible. It is a dishonest challenge.
-
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
If the moon is in earth orbit, then why would a spacecraft in earth orbit need to leave earth orbit to reach the moon that's in earth orbit?
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
That's really hilarious. You were shown exactly how to calculate the fuel consumption and given links to how to do the maneuvers. You ignored all corrections and actual information. They took you for a troll and banned you. Or that's my guess.
Hm - the topic at Apollohoax was my famous €1M Challenge. People were invited to try it. I was told about it and joined the forum to explain how to win ... and that it was difficult. In the end noone won my Challenge ... it is still not won ... and someone got upset ... and I was banned.
The Challenge was not to tell me how to calculate the fuel consumption or do the manoeuvers of a rocket.
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
It is a sad fact. Human space travel is impossible.
again, thats not true. I sent you a link that shows you exactly the trajectory. Others posted the fuel consumption and showed how your math was wrong. Your challenge goes unwon because no matter what proof you are shown you simply say, thats impossible. It is a dishonest challenge.
No, you didn't send me anything. I don't know you. You seem to be a bad loser. You are not alone. My Challenge is honest and official. But very difficult to win.
-
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
If the moon is in earth orbit, then why would a spacecraft in earth orbit need to leave earth orbit to reach the moon that's in earth orbit?
What is funny is his acceptance of satellites removes everything from his "challenge", but reentry. He just does not have enough understanding to realize this and unwilling to learn anything.
I think one reason he will not answer my question about if things in orbit are actually falling is he is actually using his education. If they are then his argument that things can not be sent to the Moon are beyond is wrong.
I will challenge him once again to demonstrate his expertise and answer, why if things are in free fall while orbiting would prove you wrong?
Not asking to say you are wrong just why that would prove you wrong. You are an engineer and should be able to figure that out.
Do you need me to explain why? I really should not have to, if you are a capable engineer. Then again you seem to have problems with relatively simple things like how docking the CM and LEM was accomplished. Somewhat not surprising I also seen you have trouble understanding how to have sex. I can explain that to you also.
-
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
If the moon is in earth orbit, then why would a spacecraft in earth orbit need to leave earth orbit to reach the moon that's in earth orbit?
My Challenge is, i.a., about describing the detailed trajectory of a spacecraft trip starting in orbit Earth and ending on the Moon incl. time table fuel used, etc. Just read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
It seems that by applying a force to your spacecraft in orbit Earth, you will never reach the Moon orbiting Earth far away. You will always go off in the wrong direction and miss the moving Moon. That's why noone has won the Challenge.
Of course NASA has said it has done the trip several times but it is Fake News as such false information was specifically required by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defence or the conduct of foreign affairs.
-
My Challenge is, i.a., about describing the detailed trajectory of a spacecraft trip starting in orbit Earth and ending on the Moon incl. time table fuel used, etc. Just read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
You've been given all the information you need, you just don't understand it.
Case in point:
It seems that by applying a force to your spacecraft in orbit Earth, you will never reach the Moon orbiting Earth far away. You will always go off in the wrong direction and miss the moving Moon.
You will go off in the opposite direction that the rocket engine is pointing, at a speed proportional to the time the engine fired. You will reach the moon if you time it so that these two things put your rocket in the place the moon will be, allowing for your speed of travel. Not difficult concepts.
That's why noone has won the Challenge.
No-one has one the challenge because you're a fraud who rigs the contest.
Of course NASA has said it has done the trip several times
And the USSR, and China, and Japan, and India, and the ESA...
but it is Fake News as such false information was specifically required by an Executive Orderto be kept secret in the interest of national defence or the conduct of foreign affairs.
Bullshit.
-
Hm - the topic at Apollohoax was my famous €1M Challenge. People were invited to try it.
Not strictly true. People were told about it in a post, then people mostly called you a fraud.
I was told about it and joined the forum to explain how to win ...
You seem to show up remarkably quickly when your hoax is mentioned, which makes me think you spend a lot of time googling yourself.
and that it was difficult. In the end noone won my Challenge ... it is still not won ... and someone got upset ... and I was banned.
I repeat: you were banned for trolling, refusing to provide any evidence of your nonsensical claims and insulting behaviour.
Easy to verify.
-
My Challenge is, i.a., about describing the detailed trajectory of a spacecraft trip starting in orbit Earth and ending on the Moon incl. time table fuel used, etc. Just read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
You've been given all the information you need, you just don't understand it.
Case in point:
It seems that by applying a force to your spacecraft in orbit Earth, you will never reach the Moon orbiting Earth far away. You will always go off in the wrong direction and miss the moving Moon.
You will go off in the opposite direction that the rocket engine is pointing, at a speed proportional to the time the engine fired. You will reach the moon if you time it so that these two things put your rocket in the place the moon will be, allowing for your speed of travel. Not difficult concepts.
That's why noone has won the Challenge.
No-one has one the challenge because you're a fraud who rigs the contest.
Of course NASA has said it has done the trip several times
And the USSR, and China, and Japan, and India, and the ESA...
but it is Fake News as such false information was specifically required by an Executive Orderto be kept secret in the interest of national defence or the conduct of foreign affairs.
Bullshit.
Well, you don't win my Challenge with such nonsense. How to apply a force in the right direction/location/time to a spacecraft orbiting Earth at 7000 m/s speed changing direction 4° every minute? You will never hit the Moon! Not even the path of the Moon orbit.
But do not worry. The POTUS ordered the fakery and made it illegal to whistleblow.
-
Hm - the topic at Apollohoax was my famous €1M Challenge. People were invited to try it.
Not strictly true. People were told about it in a post, then people mostly called you a fraud.
I was told about it and joined the forum to explain how to win ...
...
I repeat: you were banned for trolling, refusing to provide any evidence of your nonsensical claims and insulting behaviour.
Easy to verify.
Do it!
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
That's really hilarious. You were shown exactly how to calculate the fuel consumption and given links to how to do the maneuvers. You ignored all corrections and actual information. They took you for a troll and banned you. Or that's my guess.
Hm - the topic at Apollohoax was my famous €1M Challenge. People were invited to try it. I was told about it and joined the forum to explain how to win ... and that it was difficult. In the end noone won my Challenge ... it is still not won ... and someone got upset ... and I was banned.
The Challenge was not to tell me how to calculate the fuel consumption or do the manoeuvers of a rocket.
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
It is a sad fact. Human space travel is impossible.
again, thats not true. I sent you a link that shows you exactly the trajectory. Others posted the fuel consumption and showed how your math was wrong. Your challenge goes unwon because no matter what proof you are shown you simply say, thats impossible. It is a dishonest challenge.
No, you didn't send me anything. I don't know you. You seem to be a bad loser. You are not alone. My Challenge is honest and official. But very difficult to win.
i misspoke. I posted a link showing you the flight path in a reply to you. You ignored it as you do all evidence. No, your challenge is a joke and everyone knows it. You are unfit to judge it and any time anyone does give you actual evidence you either ignore it or just say, that's impossible
-
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
If the moon is in earth orbit, then why would a spacecraft in earth orbit need to leave earth orbit to reach the moon that's in earth orbit?
My Challenge is, i.a., about describing the detailed trajectory of a spacecraft trip starting in orbit Earth and ending on the Moon incl. time table fuel used, etc. Just read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
Do you mean something like what's described on this page?
Most attempts to illustrate the trajectories of the Apollo flights to the Moon are intended to show only the primary elements of the mission, with little attention to geometric accuracy and scale. One such example is shown below. Unlike these common not-to-scale drawings, this page takes a new approach. After determining the orbital elements of Apollo 11's translunar trajectory, I've calculated its position versus time and accurately plotted, in correct proportion and orientation, its flight path to the Moon. Furthermore, Apollo 11's trajectory through the region of the Van Allen Radiation Belts has been mapped to show how the trajectory was designed to bypass the most intense areas of the this potentially dangerous obstacle.
It seems that by applying a force to your spacecraft in orbit Earth, you will never reach the Moon orbiting Earth far away. You will always go off in the wrong direction and miss the moving Moon. That's why noone has won the Challenge.
Anyone who has ever tried to hit a moving target knows that you don't aim where the target is, but where it will be. If you know the size, mass and orbital parameters of the moon and if you understand the gravitational fields of the earth an moon, then there shouldn't be any reason that any number of lunar intercept trajectories couldn't be calculated and optimized to fit various mission objectives.
-
Just go back to that apollohoax link. Several times your errors were pointed out.
Yes http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=269.0 is a very good website. I explain why human space travel is impossible. And then I was banned as nobody could prove me wrong.
Uhm, no. You were proven wrong on multiple occasions. I suspect you were banned because you refused to acknowledge the evidence presented to you and were seen as a troll.
I was not proven wrong at all. Maybe I was banned for it? Or was it the poor persons suggesting using a Hohmann transfer to go to Mars? He forgot he needed fuel to get out of orbit around Earth, more fuel to brake to enter orbit around Mars and then he had no fuel to brake and land on Mars. He crashed, poor sod. RIP.
He didn't understand manned space travel is impossible.
That's really hilarious. You were shown exactly how to calculate the fuel consumption and given links to how to do the maneuvers. You ignored all corrections and actual information. They took you for a troll and banned you. Or that's my guess.
Hm - the topic at Apollohoax was my famous €1M Challenge. People were invited to try it. I was told about it and joined the forum to explain how to win ... and that it was difficult. In the end noone won my Challenge ... it is still not won ... and someone got upset ... and I was banned.
The Challenge was not to tell me how to calculate the fuel consumption or do the manoeuvers of a rocket.
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
It is a sad fact. Human space travel is impossible.
again, thats not true. I sent you a link that shows you exactly the trajectory. Others posted the fuel consumption and showed how your math was wrong. Your challenge goes unwon because no matter what proof you are shown you simply say, thats impossible. It is a dishonest challenge.
No, you didn't send me anything. I don't know you. You seem to be a bad loser. You are not alone. My Challenge is honest and official. But very difficult to win.
i misspoke. I posted a link showing you the flight path in a reply to you. You ignored it as you do all evidence. No, your challenge is a joke and everyone knows it. You are unfit to judge it and any time anyone does give you actual evidence you either ignore it or just say, that's impossible
Hm, posting a link does not win my Challenge.
-
The Challenge was to describe a manned space trip and the trajectory chosen and the latter was ... impossible. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . As soon as a spacecraft leaves Earth orbit (by fireing a rocket engine) it is lost forever. It can never return.
If the moon is in earth orbit, then why would a spacecraft in earth orbit need to leave earth orbit to reach the moon that's in earth orbit?
My Challenge is, i.a., about describing the detailed trajectory of a spacecraft trip starting in orbit Earth and ending on the Moon incl. time table fuel used, etc. Just read the rules at http://heiwaco.com/chall2.htm .
Do you mean something like what's described on this page?
Most attempts to illustrate the trajectories of the Apollo flights to the Moon are intended to show only the primary elements of the mission, with little attention to geometric accuracy and scale. One such example is shown below. Unlike these common not-to-scale drawings, this page takes a new approach. After determining the orbital elements of Apollo 11's translunar trajectory, I've calculated its position versus time and accurately plotted, in correct proportion and orientation, its flight path to the Moon. Furthermore, Apollo 11's trajectory through the region of the Van Allen Radiation Belts has been mapped to show how the trajectory was designed to bypass the most intense areas of the this potentially dangerous obstacle.
It seems that by applying a force to your spacecraft in orbit Earth, you will never reach the Moon orbiting Earth far away. You will always go off in the wrong direction and miss the moving Moon. That's why noone has won the Challenge.
Anyone who has ever tried to hit a moving target knows that you don't aim where the target is, but where it will be. If you know the size, mass and orbital parameters of the moon and if you understand the gravitational fields of the earth an moon, then there shouldn't be any reason that any number of lunar intercept trajectories couldn't be calculated and optimized to fit various mission objectives.
Yes, but the person trying to hit the moving target (in orbit around Earth) is himself moving (1) in orbit around Earth at great velocity/rate of turning and (2) moving in orbit around the Sun. The gravity field between the target (Moon) and Earth is not uniform - it varies a lot.
So where is the departure location in orbit Earth? And when do you pass it? And what force do you apply to get out of orbit at that location/time? And in what direction? And for how long? And how much fuel is used. What is mass before and after? And how do you ensure you really apply the force in the right direction? And what do you do if you go off in the wrong direction? To win the Challenge you must know all this. I assume you go for the fastest trajectory using minimum fuel but you can also go around the Sun, if you like. You decide! But do not just say it can be done.
You sound like an amateur with no idea of 3D space travel, i.e. a loser.
This is rocket science. I explain the difficulties at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Study it before posting more nonsense.
-
All you did, yet again, was post a lot of questions with evident answers in the Apollo 11 flight plan, which are difficult to derive. You claim it is impossible but you have not shown why it is so?
Can you even attempt the calculations? If it is impossible you can prove it by calculating the answers and showing they are nonsensical based on the parameters of the vehicles and fuel used and the time allotted. Bear in mind that the calculations you posted on your website (gigajoules!) were shown to be inappropriate and a poor analysis of the factors involved in space travel.
P.S. Why are you insulting people?
-
All you did, yet again, was post a lot of questions with evident answers in the Apollo 11 flight plan, which are difficult to derive. You claim it is impossible but you have not shown why it is so?
Can you even attempt the calculations? If it is impossible you can prove it by calculating the answers and showing they are nonsensical based on the parameters of the vehicles and fuel used and the time allotted. Bear in mind that the calculations you posted on your website (gigajoules!) were shown to be inappropriate and a poor analysis of the factors involved in space travel.
P.S. Why are you insulting people?
Topic is of course why nuclear weapons do not work (even if they exist) - a subject dear to me - reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death, and so on. I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Same thing with the US space program sending humans into orbits and to the Moon. It is also US propaganda to impress people but to say so is also illegal in USA by presidental executive orders.
So when I create a Challenge for anyone to explain how you send humans to the Moon and Mars, what is the result apart from nobody knowing how to do the calculations?
Insults! By anonymous people many suffering from cognitive dissonance. They believe anything and get sick when told that they are wrong and have been fooled.
I only try to help. With a little humour added.
Don't ask me to solve the Challenge. I know it is not possible to send humans into space. If you do, they all die.
-
Topic is of course why nuclear weapons do not work (even if they exist) - a subject dear to me - reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death, and so on. I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
This is a lie. It is not illegal in the US to say that nuclear weapons don't work. Show us the legislation.
Same thing with the US space program sending humans into orbits and to the Moon. It is also US propaganda to impress people but to say so is also illegal in USA by presidental executive orders.
This is a lie. It is not illegal to say that the US space program is fake. Show us the legislation.
So when I create a challenge for anyone to explain how you send humans to the Moon and Mars, what is the result apart from nobody knowing how to do the calculations?
This is a lie. You have been shown calculations, and simple diagrams, and very simple words.
Insults! By anonymous people many suffering from cognitive dissonance. They believe anything and get sick when told that they are wrong and have been fooled.
This is a lie. People insult you not because you are correct but because you are a liar and a fraud, and because you present information that is patently false and refuse to acknowledge the schoolboy errors you repeatedly make
I only try to help. With a little humour added.
Don't ask me to solve the Challenge. I know it is not possible to send humans into space. If you do, they all die.
The only thing you are helping is make yourself look stupid. No-one has died in space. Some have died on the way back. You know nothing.
-
Topic is of course why nuclear weapons do not work (even if they exist) - a subject dear to me - reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death, and so on. I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
This is a lie. It is not illegal in the US to say that nuclear weapons don't work. Show us the legislation.
Sorry you are wrong as usual. Just study my website, link above. Why don't you do it?
-
Insults! By anonymous people many suffering from cognitive dissonance. They believe anything and get sick when told that they are wrong and have been fooled.
This is a lie. People insult you not because you are correct but because you are a liar and a fraud, and because you present information that is patently false and refuse to acknowledge the schoolboy errors you repeatedly make
Yes, I don't like being insulted by anonymous twerps for any reason, like you. Why not discuss in a civilized manner?
What schoolboy errors are you talking about? Copy/paste them! With a certificate from your doctor that you ar not mad!
-
reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death,
More lies from the pathological liar Heiwa. You KNOW the above is not true yet you keep repeating it anyway. It is NOT illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake. What IS illegal is revealing classified info. You have not had access to classified info (and I doubt you would understand it if you did) and you have not been sentenced to anything. Stop lying just to get attention.
-
Insults! By anonymous people many suffering from cognitive dissonance. They believe anything and get sick when told that they are wrong and have been fooled.
This is a lie. People insult you not because you are correct but because you are a liar and a fraud, and because you present information that is patently false and refuse to acknowledge the schoolboy errors you repeatedly make
Yes, I don't like being insulted by anonymous twerps for any reason, like you. Why not discuss in a civilized manner?
You mean by not calling them anonymous twerps? I am not anonymous. My real name is on my website - it's not hard to find. I consider not telling lies or calling people nazis to be civilised dscussion. I consider responding to questions with answers rather than lies, insults and obfuscation to be discussion - this is not something in which you demonstrate any expertise.
What schoolboy errors are you talking about? Copy/paste them! With a certificate from your doctor that you ar not mad!
I already have. You ignored them.
-
reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death,
More lies from the pathological liar Heiwa. You KNOW the above is not true yet you keep repeating it anyway. It is NOT illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake. What IS illegal is revealing classified info. You have not had access to classified info (and I doubt you would understand it if you did) and you have not been sentenced to anything. Stop lying just to get attention.
Hm, more anonymous insults. Of course it is illegal to tell the truth about nuclear weapons in the USA. Just ask your legal council. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
Insults! By anonymous people many suffering from cognitive dissonance. They believe anything and get sick when told that they are wrong and have been fooled.
This is a lie. People insult you not because you are correct but because you are a liar and a fraud, and because you present information that is patently false and refuse to acknowledge the schoolboy errors you repeatedly make
Yes, I don't like being insulted by anonymous twerps for any reason, like you. Why not discuss in a civilized manner?
You mean by not calling them anonymous twerps? I am not anonymous. My real name is on my website - it's not hard to find. I consider not telling lies or calling people nazis to be civilised dscussion. I consider responding to questions with answers rather than lies, insults and obfuscation to be discussion - this is not something in which you demonstrate any expertise.
What schoolboy errors are you talking about? Copy/paste them! With a certificate from your doctor that you ar not mad!
I already have. You ignored them.
You have a website? And a real name? With a certificate from your doctor. Please links!
-
reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death,
More lies from the pathological liar Heiwa. You KNOW the above is not true yet you keep repeating it anyway. It is NOT illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake. What IS illegal is revealing classified info. You have not had access to classified info (and I doubt you would understand it if you did) and you have not been sentenced to anything. Stop lying just to get attention.
Hm, more anonymous insults. Of course it is illegal to tell the truth about nuclear weapons in the USA. Just ask your legal council. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
They are not insults when they're true. You are knowingly telling lies.
I have asked my legal council. He laughed at you. He agreed that the only thing illegal is disclosing classified information and that you have not had access to any such information.
Stop lying Heiwa. Everyone knows you're just doing it for attention.
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
-
reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death,
More lies from the pathological liar Heiwa. You KNOW the above is not true yet you keep repeating it anyway. It is NOT illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake. What IS illegal is revealing classified info. You have not had access to classified info (and I doubt you would understand it if you did) and you have not been sentenced to anything. Stop lying just to get attention.
Hm, more anonymous insults. Of course it is illegal to tell the truth about nuclear weapons in the USA. Just ask your legal council. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
They are not insults when they're true. You are knowingly telling lies.
I have asked my legal council. He laughed at you. He agreed that the only thing illegal is disclosing classified information and that you have not had access to any such information.
Stop lying Heiwa. Everyone knows you're just doing it for attention.
No, sorry, your legal council is wrong.
Anyway, everything about nuclear weapons producing a FLASH is propaganda approved by FDR to be kept secret for ever. Just study the laws! I link to them at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Why not study them?
-
reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death,
More lies from the pathological liar Heiwa. You KNOW the above is not true yet you keep repeating it anyway. It is NOT illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake. What IS illegal is revealing classified info. You have not had access to classified info (and I doubt you would understand it if you did) and you have not been sentenced to anything. Stop lying just to get attention.
Hm, more anonymous insults. Of course it is illegal to tell the truth about nuclear weapons in the USA. Just ask your legal council. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
They are not insults when they're true. You are knowingly telling lies.
I have asked my legal council. He laughed at you. He agreed that the only thing illegal is disclosing classified information and that you have not had access to any such information.
Stop lying Heiwa. Everyone knows you're just doing it for attention.
No, sorry, your legal council is wrong.
Anyway, everything about nuclear weapons producing a FLASH is propaganda approved by FDR to be kept secret for ever. Just study the laws! I link to them at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Why not study them?
More lies from Heiwa. You've been told MULTIPLE times where you are wrong with the statement that it is illegal to say nuclear weapons are fake and yet insist on repeating it. The only possible reasons are you are begging for attention or you are incapable of understanding. I'm thinking it is a combo of both. Just more lies from the proven pathological liar Heiwa.
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
Wrong.
Section 10 b, 2
whoever, lawfully or unwfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrustedd with, anyy document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating rcstrictecd data-
You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You publish OPINIONS backed up by arguments from incredulity. That is NOT restricted data. There is no law against opinions. You have also NEVER had a conviction or trial. You sound like you googled this and thought it would be neat to claim. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. Does the group home you live in have legal council? More lies from Heiwa.
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
And I know nuclear weapons exist because I built one in my own shop. It is very similar to the Hiroshima bomb.I accessed the plans from the internet. Please don't tell anyone about this. I could get in big trouble if they knew!
-
Topic is of course why nuclear weapons do not work (even if they exist) - a subject dear to me - reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death, and so on. I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
This is a lie. It is not illegal in the US to say that nuclear weapons don't work. Show us the legislation.
Sorry you are wrong as usual. Just study my website, link above. Why don't you do it?
There is no legislation against saying nuclear weapons do not exist. It is not illegal to say so.
-
I am starting to think Heiwa may just actually believe he has been sentenced to death in the US.
It is not too far fetched. It is not too uncommon for conspiracy theorist to think some government or other group has targeted them.
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
Wrong.
Section 10 b, 2
whoever, lawfully or unwfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrustedd with, anyy document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating rcstrictecd data-
You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You publish OPINIONS backed up by arguments from incredulity. That is NOT restricted data. There is no law against opinions. You have also NEVER had a conviction or trial. You sound like you googled this and thought it would be neat to claim. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. Does the group home you live in have legal council? More lies from Heiwa.
Sorry, everything about a-bombs is restricted data as per LAW and as I describe it at my website, I should be punished by death in the USA. It is a hard life but luckily I am not there. They apparently execute people like me with injection! I wonder what it can be. Cyankalium?
Anyway, a-bombs are pure BS. Just an invention by Executive orders of POTUS to scare. I describe it at my website. Why do you suggest I lie? Why would I do it? Do you work for the POTUS XYZ guards?
-
Topic is of course why nuclear weapons do not work (even if they exist) - a subject dear to me - reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death, and so on. I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
This is a lie. It is not illegal in the US to say that nuclear weapons don't work. Show us the legislation.
Sorry you are wrong as usual. Just study my website, link above. Why don't you do it?
There is no legislation against saying nuclear weapons do not exist. It is not illegal to say so.
Sorry - can't you read? I just quoted the law!
-
Topic is of course why nuclear weapons do not work (even if they exist) - a subject dear to me - reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death, and so on. I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
This is a lie. It is not illegal in the US to say that nuclear weapons don't work. Show us the legislation.
Sorry you are wrong as usual. Just study my website, link above. Why don't you do it?
There is no legislation against saying nuclear weapons do not exist. It is not illegal to say so.
Sorry - can't you read? I just quoted the law!
Nuclear weapons don't exist.
Oops! I just broke the law. Am I in trouble?
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
Wrong.
Section 10 b, 2
whoever, lawfully or unwfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrustedd with, anyy document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating rcstrictecd data-
You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You publish OPINIONS backed up by arguments from incredulity. That is NOT restricted data. There is no law against opinions. You have also NEVER had a conviction or trial. You sound like you googled this and thought it would be neat to claim. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. Does the group home you live in have legal council? More lies from Heiwa.
Sorry, everything about a-bombs is restricted data as per LAW and as I describe it at my website, I should be punished by death in the USA. It is a hard life but luckily I am not there. They apparently execute people like me with injection! I wonder what it can be. Cyankalium?
Anyway, a-bombs are pure BS. Just an invention by Executive orders of POTUS to scare. I describe it at my website. Why do you suggest I lie? Why would I do it? Do you work for the POTUS XYZ guards?
More lies from Heiwa. You have NEVER had access to restricted (aka classified) information. Therefore you have NEVER had a trial or a sentence. That is a fantasy of yours to make yourself look more important. I suggest you lie because you do. You have been proven to do so multiple times at apollohoax.net and here. I work for nobody. I'm currently in between jobs. But your implication that I work for someone to post here is yet another of your lies.
-
Topic is of course why nuclear weapons do not work (even if they exist) - a subject dear to me - reason being that nuclear weapons are just US propaganda to scare people and that it is made illegal to say so - any whistle blower is punished by death, and so on. I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
This is a lie. It is not illegal in the US to say that nuclear weapons don't work. Show us the legislation.
Sorry you are wrong as usual. Just study my website, link above. Why don't you do it?
There is no legislation against saying nuclear weapons do not exist. It is not illegal to say so.
Sorry - can't you read? I just quoted the law!
Nuclear weapons don't exist.
Oops! I just broke the law. Am I in trouble?
Only in Heiwa's mind. But I'm really starting to think he's not all there. That would also explain why he lives in government housing.
-
I should be punished by death ...
I would hate to say I agree with you because that is awful. I'm thinking down the lines of something a little more moderate - perhaps being banned from the internet for the rest of your life.
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
Wrong.
Section 10 b, 2
whoever, lawfully or unwfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrustedd with, anyy document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating rcstrictecd data-
You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You publish OPINIONS backed up by arguments from incredulity. That is NOT restricted data. There is no law against opinions. You have also NEVER had a conviction or trial. You sound like you googled this and thought it would be neat to claim. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. Does the group home you live in have legal council? More lies from Heiwa.
Sorry, everything about a-bombs is restricted data as per LAW and as I describe it at my website, I should be punished by death in the USA. It is a hard life but luckily I am not there. They apparently execute people like me with injection! I wonder what it can be. Cyankalium?
Anyway, a-bombs are pure BS. Just an invention by Executive orders of POTUS to scare. I describe it at my website. Why do you suggest I lie? Why would I do it? Do you work for the POTUS XYZ guards?
More lies from Heiwa. You have NEVER had access to restricted (aka classified) information. Therefore you have NEVER had a trial or a sentence. That is a fantasy of yours to make yourself look more important. I suggest you lie because you do. You have been proven to do so multiple times at apollohoax.net and here. I work for nobody. I'm currently in between jobs. But your implication that I work for someone to post here is yet another of your lies.
So you are unemployed and have nothing better to do than inventing things about me!
Everything at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm is correct. Plenty restricted data is presented. I like my scoop about Stalin and Wismut AG! They never produced any uranium! It was just normal quartz. Stalin's a-bomb was pure communist propaganda. Like the FDR ones. Prove me wrong and earn €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
Wrong.
Section 10 b, 2
whoever, lawfully or unwfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrustedd with, anyy document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating rcstrictecd data-
You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You publish OPINIONS backed up by arguments from incredulity. That is NOT restricted data. There is no law against opinions. You have also NEVER had a conviction or trial. You sound like you googled this and thought it would be neat to claim. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. Does the group home you live in have legal council? More lies from Heiwa.
Sorry, everything about a-bombs is restricted data as per LAW and as I describe it at my website, I should be punished by death in the USA. It is a hard life but luckily I am not there. They apparently execute people like me with injection! I wonder what it can be. Cyankalium?
Anyway, a-bombs are pure BS. Just an invention by Executive orders of POTUS to scare. I describe it at my website. Why do you suggest I lie? Why would I do it? Do you work for the POTUS XYZ guards?
More lies from Heiwa. You have NEVER had access to restricted (aka classified) information. Therefore you have NEVER had a trial or a sentence. That is a fantasy of yours to make yourself look more important. I suggest you lie because you do. You have been proven to do so multiple times at apollohoax.net and here. I work for nobody. I'm currently in between jobs. But your implication that I work for someone to post here is yet another of your lies.
So you are unemployed and have nothing better to do than inventing things about me!
Everything at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm is correct. Plenty restricted data is presented. I like my scoop about Stalin and Wismut AG! They never produced any uranium! It was just normal quartz. Stalin's a-bomb was pure communist propaganda. Like the FDR ones. Prove me wrong and earn €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Not unemployed. Currently between jobs. It is just for a few days. And I've invented nothing about you. You have NEVER had access to restricted data. Therefore you have never been through a trial or sentenced. I doubt anyone cares about your OPINION that nuclear weapons are fake. Everything on your site is argument from incredulity. Your repeated insistence that you are sentenced to death makes you sound sick though. Perhaps you should talk to a doctor?
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
Wrong.
Section 10 b, 2
whoever, lawfully or unwfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrustedd with, anyy document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating rcstrictecd data-
You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You publish OPINIONS backed up by arguments from incredulity. That is NOT restricted data. There is no law against opinions. You have also NEVER had a conviction or trial. You sound like you googled this and thought it would be neat to claim. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. Does the group home you live in have legal council? More lies from Heiwa.
Sorry, everything about a-bombs is restricted data as per LAW and as I describe it at my website, I should be punished by death in the USA. It is a hard life but luckily I am not there. They apparently execute people like me with injection! I wonder what it can be. Cyankalium?
Anyway, a-bombs are pure BS. Just an invention by Executive orders of POTUS to scare. I describe it at my website. Why do you suggest I lie? Why would I do it? Do you work for the POTUS XYZ guards?
More lies from Heiwa. You have NEVER had access to restricted (aka classified) information. Therefore you have NEVER had a trial or a sentence. That is a fantasy of yours to make yourself look more important. I suggest you lie because you do. You have been proven to do so multiple times at apollohoax.net and here. I work for nobody. I'm currently in between jobs. But your implication that I work for someone to post here is yet another of your lies.
So you are unemployed and have nothing better to do than inventing things about me!
Everything at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm is correct. Plenty restricted data is presented. I like my scoop about Stalin and Wismut AG! They never produced any uranium! It was just normal quartz. Stalin's a-bomb was pure communist propaganda. Like the FDR ones. Prove me wrong and earn €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Not unemployed. Currently between jobs. It is just for a few days. And I've invented nothing about you. You have NEVER had access to restricted data. Therefore you have never been through a trial or sentenced. I doubt anyone cares about your OPINION that nuclear weapons are fake. Everything on your site is argument from incredulity. Your repeated insistence that you are sentenced to death makes you sound sick though. Perhaps you should talk to a doctor?
Not unemployed? You work for yourself but between one and another of your own jobs. And you pay yourself. Why not? Sounds SF or BS to me and my restricted data. You see, everything about a-bombs is restricted. And the Stalin/Wismut AG uranium is not an argument from incredulity. It is fact! Like everything else at my website. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance - believing BS taught by parents, schools, media, etc.
So how do you trigger an a-bomb? Do you bring two parts of metal together, compress them suddenly to double density so the total mass becomes critical, add a free neutron and ... FLASH?
-
Sorry, everything about a-bombs is restricted data as per LAW...
Call MI-6 because Encyclopedia Britannica is publishing restricted materials contrary to LAWs.
In practice, an assembly of fissionable material must be brought from a subcritical to a critical state extremely suddenly. One way this can be done is to bring two subcritical masses together, at which point their combined mass becomes a critical one. This can be practically achieved by using high explosives to shoot two subcritical slugs of fissionable material together in a hollow tube. A second method used is that of implosion, in which a core of fissionable material is suddenly compressed into a smaller size and thus a greater density; because it is denser, the nuclei are more tightly packed and the chances of an emitted neutron’s striking a nucleus are increased. The core of an implosion-type atomic bomb consists of a sphere or a series of concentric shells of fissionable material surrounded by a jacket of high explosives, which, being simultaneously detonated, implode the fissionable material under enormous pressures into a denser mass that immediately achieves criticality. An important aid in achieving criticality is the use of a tamper; this is a jacket of beryllium oxide or some other substance surrounding the fissionable material and reflecting some of the escaping neutrons back into the fissionable material, where they can thus cause more fissions. In addition, “boosted fission” devices incorporate such fusionable materials as deuterium or tritium into the fission core. The fusionable material boosts the fission explosion by supplying a superabundance of neutrons.
...and as I describe it at my website, I should be punished by death in the USA. It is a hard life but luckily I am not there.
Then why hasn't France extradited you to the US?
They apparently execute people like me with injection! I wonder what it can be. Cyankalium?
No, they inject people like you with haloperidol.
Anyway, a-bombs are pure BS. Just an invention by Executive orders of POTUS to scare. I describe it at my website.
I would think that real atomic bombs that have been demonstrated scores of times would be a lot scarier than fake atomic bombs.
You should have been in Las Vegas in the 1950s when tourists would party all night and then watch the nuclear tests at dawn.
Why do you suggest I lie? Why would I do it? Do you work for the POTUS XYZ guards?
I'm not sure why you lie. Perhaps it's for nothing more than your own amusement. The fact that you keep saying the same things over and over again regardless of how many times you've been told that you're wrong suggests that you are deliberately attempting to deceive people (possibly including yourself).
-
I would think that real atomic bombs that have been demonstrated scores of times would be a lot scarier than fake atomic bombs.
You should have been in Las Vegas in the 1950s when tourists would party all night and then watch the nuclear tests at dawn.
You think so? You were there? It seems you have no idea how propaganda works.
-
Anders, let's add "restricted" to the list of concepts you don't get. For example, information that you gathered via Google is not really restricted is it?
-
I would think that real atomic bombs that have been demonstrated scores of times would be a lot scarier than fake atomic bombs.
You should have been in Las Vegas in the 1950s when tourists would party all night and then watch the nuclear tests at dawn.
You think so? You were there? It seems you have no idea how propaganda works.
It seems that someone went to a lot of bother to make sure that tourists over 60 miles away could see a bunch of fake tests:
For four decades, the U.S. Department of Energy tested more than a thousand nuclear devices at the Nevada Test Site, a desert expanse just 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The 1951 detonation of a warhead 1,060 feet over the desert floor marked the beginning of the above-ground trials, whose famous mushroom clouds were easily visible from the nearby tourist magnet.
“They would light up the sky,” says Allen Palmer, executive director of the National Atomic Testing Museum. “It turned night into day.”
-
I know this is pointless...However, I will be working with my lawyer alot coming up as income, property, investment etc etc taxes are near, so tell us the law codes for this law limiting free speech in America against saying nukes are fake. I will ask him to pull the actual laws themselves...Just need the numbers.
We have people that can go on the air and say 9/11 was false (which it was), the president was not born in the states, moonlanding was fake, Kennedy was an allowed assassination ( which it was) etc etc etc...Really think someone saying nukes are fake is going to "stepping over the line"?
Show us the law....Or show us your trial records..People don't just get "sentenced to death" without a trial in America. Even Snowden needs a trial.... he isn't sentenced to death, just hiding out under Asylum
And if you were sentenced to death "on the down low" without a trial by the U.S.....Then you would have been "suicided" twice in the back of the head.
You provide a law...Or your court records, I will break COMPLETE anonymity...Just for you sugar cup. Business/personal the whole nine yards. Will even invite you over to have some shots of some 1972 jg Smith Glenlivet..
In Texas we offer a little more than coffee to our travelling guests ;)
So what do you say? Then there will be one less " Anonymous twerp"...
Honesty will set you free..
http://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
That says nothing about spreading opinions backed up only by argument from incredulity which is all you have. You've also never been convicted nor had a trial, both of which would be necessary. More lies from Heiwa.
Suggest you study Sec. 10 b Restrictions (1), (2) and (3). I publish restricted data and it is punished by death.
Of course NSA, DHS, CIA and FBI sleep as usual. Call them!
Wrong.
Section 10 b, 2
whoever, lawfully or unwfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrustedd with, anyy document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating rcstrictecd data-
You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You publish OPINIONS backed up by arguments from incredulity. That is NOT restricted data. There is no law against opinions. You have also NEVER had a conviction or trial. You sound like you googled this and thought it would be neat to claim. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. Does the group home you live in have legal council? More lies from Heiwa.
Sorry, everything about a-bombs is restricted data as per LAW and as I describe it at my website, I should be punished by death in the USA. It is a hard life but luckily I am not there. They apparently execute people like me with injection! I wonder what it can be. Cyankalium?
Anyway, a-bombs are pure BS. Just an invention by Executive orders of POTUS to scare. I describe it at my website. Why do you suggest I lie? Why would I do it? Do you work for the POTUS XYZ guards?
More lies from Heiwa. You have NEVER had access to restricted (aka classified) information. Therefore you have NEVER had a trial or a sentence. That is a fantasy of yours to make yourself look more important. I suggest you lie because you do. You have been proven to do so multiple times at apollohoax.net and here. I work for nobody. I'm currently in between jobs. But your implication that I work for someone to post here is yet another of your lies.
So you are unemployed and have nothing better to do than inventing things about me!
Everything at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm is correct. Plenty restricted data is presented. I like my scoop about Stalin and Wismut AG! They never produced any uranium! It was just normal quartz. Stalin's a-bomb was pure communist propaganda. Like the FDR ones. Prove me wrong and earn €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Not unemployed. Currently between jobs. It is just for a few days. And I've invented nothing about you. You have NEVER had access to restricted data. Therefore you have never been through a trial or sentenced. I doubt anyone cares about your OPINION that nuclear weapons are fake. Everything on your site is argument from incredulity. Your repeated insistence that you are sentenced to death makes you sound sick though. Perhaps you should talk to a doctor?
Not unemployed? You work for yourself but between one and another of your own jobs. And you pay yourself. Why not? Sounds SF or BS to me and my restricted data. You see, everything about a-bombs is restricted. And the Stalin/Wismut AG uranium is not an argument from incredulity. It is fact! Like everything else at my website. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance - believing BS taught by parents, schools, media, etc.
snip irrelevant spam
I didn't say I work for myself. Are you incapable of reading the English language?
And you still have NOT EVER had access to restricted information. Opinions you've pulled out of your arse are not restricted. And your website is full of argument from incredulity. Repeatedly you claim something just doesn't work. You don't back it up. But I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference. I think your brain might not actually see the difference between opinion and fact. How sad for you.
-
I didn't say I work for myself. Are you incapable of reading the English language?
And you still have NOT EVER had access to restricted information. Opinions you've pulled out of your arse are not restricted. And your website is full of argument from incredulity. Repeatedly you claim something just doesn't work. You don't back it up. But I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference. I think your brain might not actually see the difference between opinion and fact. How sad for you.
You don't understand. All information about US a-bombs is restricted by law. It cannot be freely discussed. You must just accept what the US authorities say. Just read the law carefully.
And also study my website again about the two (!) different fissions that exist.
1. The 1938 fission where atoms fission after being hit by neutrons and are releasing energy. Easy to duplicate in a lab.
2. The 1942/5 military, top secret, US-made fission, where two pieces of metal are suddenly brought in contact with each other making up a critical mass that is compressed to double density with a neutron in between, resulting in runway, exponential fission lasting nanoseconds and a FLASH!
I simply suggest the second type is pseudoscientific nonsense. It cannot be duplicated in a lab. It is just invented to scare you. I also suggest Stalin copied the US nonsense using uranium metal by Wismut AG. Wismut AG never produced any uranium.
What tourists experienced at Las Vegas in the 1950's was just an out-door fireworks show.
Aren't you happy a-bombs do not work? That only peaceful fission works.
-
I didn't say I work for myself. Are you incapable of reading the English language?
And you still have NOT EVER had access to restricted information. Opinions you've pulled out of your arse are not restricted. And your website is full of argument from incredulity. Repeatedly you claim something just doesn't work. You don't back it up. But I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference. I think your brain might not actually see the difference between opinion and fact. How sad for you.
You don't understand. All information about US a-bombs is restricted by law. It cannot be freely discussed. You must just accept what the US authorities say. Just read the law carefully.
I have read it and that is NOT what it says. Either you are deliberately misinterpreting it to make yourself look more important, or you really don't understand it because you don't understand English, or you are mentally incapable of understanding it.
And also study my website again
snip irrelevant nonsense
I've seen your website plenty. I'll not give you more page hits to boost your ego. If you can't bring the info here then it sucks to be you.
-
Heiwa on trial:
Judge: Not guilty
Heiwa: Oh yes I am your Honor! If you read the law carefully you will see that I am guilty!
Judge: Very well then, I sentence you to prison.
Heiwa: Oh no no no your Honor, the law says this crime is punishable by death!
-
I didn't say I work for myself. Are you incapable of reading the English language?
And you still have NOT EVER had access to restricted information. Opinions you've pulled out of your arse are not restricted. And your website is full of argument from incredulity. Repeatedly you claim something just doesn't work. You don't back it up. But I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference. I think your brain might not actually see the difference between opinion and fact. How sad for you.
You don't understand. All information about US a-bombs is restricted by law. It cannot be freely discussed. You must just accept what the US authorities say. Just read the law carefully.
I have read it and that is NOT what it says. Either you are deliberately misinterpreting it to make yourself look more important, or you really don't understand it because you don't understand English, or you are mentally incapable of understanding it.
And also study my website again
snip irrelevant nonsense
I've seen your website plenty. I'll not give you more page hits to boost your ego. If you can't bring the info here then it sucks to be you.
So you believe in the 1942/5 military, top secret, US-made fission - all restricted information - where two pieces of metal are suddenly brought in contact with each other making up a critical mass that is compressed to double density with a neutron in between, resulting in runway, exponential fission lasting nanoseconds and a FLASH!
Well why not? You can believe what you like. Father Christmas last week, Jesus, etc, etc.
But the details of this US FLASH 1945 fission was kept secret for many years, so you had no choice! You had to believe. When some details finally were made public, plenty people got a good laugh but that was all. They could not say it was all nonsense due to this 1946 US law!
So I decided to create my website. Very popular. 100's of visitors daily. If you find something wrong, tell me!
-
I didn't say I work for myself. Are you incapable of reading the English language?
And you still have NOT EVER had access to restricted information. Opinions you've pulled out of your arse are not restricted. And your website is full of argument from incredulity. Repeatedly you claim something just doesn't work. You don't back it up. But I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference. I think your brain might not actually see the difference between opinion and fact. How sad for you.
You don't understand. All information about US a-bombs is restricted by law. It cannot be freely discussed. You must just accept what the US authorities say. Just read the law carefully.
I have read it and that is NOT what it says. Either you are deliberately misinterpreting it to make yourself look more important, or you really don't understand it because you don't understand English, or you are mentally incapable of understanding it.
And also study my website again
snip irrelevant nonsense
I've seen your website plenty. I'll not give you more page hits to boost your ego. If you can't bring the info here then it sucks to be you.
So you believe in the 1942/5 military, top secret, US-made fission - all restricted information - where two pieces of metal are suddenly brought in contact with each other making up a critical mass that is compressed to double density with a neutron in between, resulting in runway, exponential fission lasting nanoseconds and a FLASH!
Well why not? You can believe what you like. Father Christmas last week, Jesus, etc, etc.
But the details of this US FLASH 1945 fission was kept secret for many years, so you had no choice! You had to believe. When some details finally were made public, plenty people got a good laugh but that was all. They could not say it was all nonsense due to this 1946 US law!
So I decided to create my website. Very popular. 100's of visitors daily. If you find something wrong, tell me!
I didn't say ANYTHING about how fission works. I specifically deleted that from your quote as it is OFF TOPIC to the current discussion regarding your lies about being sentenced to death. Why must you keep going off topic? You really do have mental issues, don't you? How sad for you.
-
I didn't say I work for myself. Are you incapable of reading the English language?
And you still have NOT EVER had access to restricted information. Opinions you've pulled out of your arse are not restricted. And your website is full of argument from incredulity. Repeatedly you claim something just doesn't work. You don't back it up. But I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference. I think your brain might not actually see the difference between opinion and fact. How sad for you.
You don't understand. All information about US a-bombs is restricted by law. It cannot be freely discussed. You must just accept what the US authorities say. Just read the law carefully.
I have read it and that is NOT what it says. Either you are deliberately misinterpreting it to make yourself look more important, or you really don't understand it because you don't understand English, or you are mentally incapable of understanding it.
And also study my website again
snip irrelevant nonsense
I've seen your website plenty. I'll not give you more page hits to boost your ego. If you can't bring the info here then it sucks to be you.
So you believe in the 1942/5 military, top secret, US-made fission - all restricted information - where two pieces of metal are suddenly brought in contact with each other making up a critical mass that is compressed to double density with a neutron in between, resulting in runway, exponential fission lasting nanoseconds and a FLASH!
Well why not? You can believe what you like. Father Christmas last week, Jesus, etc, etc.
But the details of this US FLASH 1945 fission was kept secret for many years, so you had no choice! You had to believe. When some details finally were made public, plenty people got a good laugh but that was all. They could not say it was all nonsense due to this 1946 US law!
So I decided to create my website. Very popular. 100's of visitors daily. If you find something wrong, tell me!
I didn't say ANYTHING about how fission works. I specifically deleted that from your quote as it is OFF TOPIC to the current discussion regarding your lies about being sentenced to death. Why must you keep going off topic? You really do have mental issues, don't you? How sad for you.
Sorry, the false fission invented by USA is not OT. It is the reason why nuclear weapons exist but do not work since 1945. Many nations have copied the stupid concept. Then there is this US law about people, like me, publishing restricted information, which is punishable by death in USA.
I didn't write that law. I just inform about it. I put my real name below my writing. I am proud of my work.
Why do you get so upset? And obnoxious!
-
I didn't say I work for myself. Are you incapable of reading the English language?
And you still have NOT EVER had access to restricted information. Opinions you've pulled out of your arse are not restricted. And your website is full of argument from incredulity. Repeatedly you claim something just doesn't work. You don't back it up. But I'm starting to think you can't tell the difference. I think your brain might not actually see the difference between opinion and fact. How sad for you.
You don't understand. All information about US a-bombs is restricted by law. It cannot be freely discussed. You must just accept what the US authorities say. Just read the law carefully.
I have read it and that is NOT what it says. Either you are deliberately misinterpreting it to make yourself look more important, or you really don't understand it because you don't understand English, or you are mentally incapable of understanding it.
And also study my website again
snip irrelevant nonsense
I've seen your website plenty. I'll not give you more page hits to boost your ego. If you can't bring the info here then it sucks to be you.
So you believe in the 1942/5 military, top secret, US-made fission - all restricted information - where two pieces of metal are suddenly brought in contact with each other making up a critical mass that is compressed to double density with a neutron in between, resulting in runway, exponential fission lasting nanoseconds and a FLASH!
Well why not? You can believe what you like. Father Christmas last week, Jesus, etc, etc.
But the details of this US FLASH 1945 fission was kept secret for many years, so you had no choice! You had to believe. When some details finally were made public, plenty people got a good laugh but that was all. They could not say it was all nonsense due to this 1946 US law!
So I decided to create my website. Very popular. 100's of visitors daily. If you find something wrong, tell me!
I didn't say ANYTHING about how fission works. I specifically deleted that from your quote as it is OFF TOPIC to the current discussion regarding your lies about being sentenced to death. Why must you keep going off topic? You really do have mental issues, don't you? How sad for you.
Sorry, the false fission invented by USA is not OT. It is the reason why nuclear weapons exist but do not work since 1945. Many nations have copied the stupid concept. Then there is this US law about people, like me, publishing restricted information, which is punishable by death in USA.
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
I didn't write that law. I just inform about it.
And misinterpret it. You are wrong. It requires having had access to restricted info to be a crime. You have not had access therefore you are guilty of nothing except inflating your ego by trying to make yourself look more important.
I put my real name below my writing. I am proud of my work.
Good for you! Want a cookie? Nobody cares.
If you had any research skills at all you'd be able to find out my name. It has been tied to my username before. I'll not put it on this website though because of past issues with stalkers. Your repeated habit of bringing this up makes me think you're wanting to be a stalker too. Sorry, I'm not into creepy old guys that are pathological liars.
Why do you get so upset? And obnoxious!
Since when is laughing at you and your lies being upset? if you think I'm obnoxious then that is just your subconscious telling you I'm right and you feeling guilty for lying. Maybe you should stop?
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death, if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945, but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945 but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
info you have found is NOT restricted info. If it is freely available, it is NOT restricted. Stop lying to make yourself look important. You have not been tried, nor will you be. You have not been sentenced to death, nor will you be. Stop lying.
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945 but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
info you have found is NOT restricted info. If it is freely available, it is NOT restricted. Stop lying to make yourself look important. You have not been tried, nor will you be. You have not been sentenced to death, nor will you be. Stop lying.
Sorry! All a-bomb info is 'restricted' in the USA. Only an Executive Order by the POTUS may change it. Do you think Donald Trump will do it? Of course not. It is a great show.
Donald won the election before the votes were counted. It took USA three weeks to count the votes and then, when summing up, it was found that the other candidate had got two million more votes than Donald.
Here in France the votes in presidential elections , A against B, are counted in 2-3 hours! It is very simple. The voting stations are open from say 8-20 hrs and people vote, i.e. put the ballot of their choice, A or B or a blank or whatever, into an envelope that they put in the ballot box. Everything is recorded.
At 20 hrs voting is finished and vote counting starts. Say that 2000 persons have put their envelopes in the box of a particular station, e.g. the one across the street, where i live.
The box is opened and the envelopes are split into groupes of 100 and, if all is OK, there are thus 20 groupes (each 100 envelopes). We voters stand around and check the people running and counting the election.
Then each group of envelopes are opened and the ballots counted, i.e. for A, B or blank or for X. This is done 20 times and in the end we know, e.g. that A got 1200 votes, B got 700 votes, there were 50 blank votes and 50 votes for X.
At 22 hrs the result is recorded and relayed to the vote centre.
But in the USA it takes three weeks to count the votes. Don't ask me why.
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945 but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
info you have found is NOT restricted info. If it is freely available, it is NOT restricted. Stop lying to make yourself look important. You have not been tried, nor will you be. You have not been sentenced to death, nor will you be. Stop lying.
Sorry! All a-bomb info is 'restricted' in the USA. Only an Executive Order by the POTUS may change it.
...snip offtopic rant...
Wrong AGAIN. if the info is freely available or made up (as most of yours is) then it is NOT restricted info. It is just your sick fantasy that you have been sentenced to death. A sad attempt to make yourself look more important. Sorry. You're not.
-
Oh heiwa, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. You made a statement that no one can show you the flight plans for a moon trip. My link showed you that in great detail. So naturally you ignored it and said it was impossible. What you didn't do was point out any actual errors.
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945 but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
info you have found is NOT restricted info. If it is freely available, it is NOT restricted. Stop lying to make yourself look important. You have not been tried, nor will you be. You have not been sentenced to death, nor will you be. Stop lying.
Sorry! All a-bomb info is 'restricted' in the USA. Only an Executive Order by the POTUS may change it.
...snip offtopic rant...
Wrong AGAIN. if the info is freely available or made up (as most of yours is) then it is NOT restricted info. It is just your sick fantasy that you have been sentenced to death. A sad attempt to make yourself look more important. Sorry. You're not.
No, according to US law it is restricted. BTW, did you vote? Describe how you did it.
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945 but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
info you have found is NOT restricted info. If it is freely available, it is NOT restricted. Stop lying to make yourself look important. You have not been tried, nor will you be. You have not been sentenced to death, nor will you be. Stop lying.
Sorry! All a-bomb info is 'restricted' in the USA. Only an Executive Order by the POTUS may change it.
...snip offtopic rant...
Wrong AGAIN. if the info is freely available or made up (as most of yours is) then it is NOT restricted info. It is just your sick fantasy that you have been sentenced to death. A sad attempt to make yourself look more important. Sorry. You're not.
No, according to US law it is restricted.
snip irrelevant crap
Nope. You are AGAIN misinterpreting it. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. I'm betting you never have. None would advise that freely available info and opinions are counted as restricted (aka classified) info. You are not a lawyer so stop acting like one and stop lying.
-
Oh heiwa, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. You made a statement that no one can show you the flight plans for a moon trip. My link showed you that in great detail. So naturally you ignored it and said it was impossible. What you didn't do was point out any actual errors.
Flight plans? In 3D space? And you showed me a link! But I didn't ask you or anybody for a link. To win my Challenge you have to follow the rules. Just visit my website. And read the WARNING.
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945 but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
info you have found is NOT restricted info. If it is freely available, it is NOT restricted. Stop lying to make yourself look important. You have not been tried, nor will you be. You have not been sentenced to death, nor will you be. Stop lying.
Sorry! All a-bomb info is 'restricted' in the USA. Only an Executive Order by the POTUS may change it.
...snip offtopic rant...
Wrong AGAIN. if the info is freely available or made up (as most of yours is) then it is NOT restricted info. It is just your sick fantasy that you have been sentenced to death. A sad attempt to make yourself look more important. Sorry. You're not.
No, according to US law it is restricted.
snip irrelevant crap
Nope. You are AGAIN misinterpreting it. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. I'm betting you never have. None would advise that freely available info and opinions are counted as restricted (aka classified) info. You are not a lawyer so stop acting like one and stop lying.
You are OT again. Or is this an NT?
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945 but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
info you have found is NOT restricted info. If it is freely available, it is NOT restricted. Stop lying to make yourself look important. You have not been tried, nor will you be. You have not been sentenced to death, nor will you be. Stop lying.
Sorry! All a-bomb info is 'restricted' in the USA. Only an Executive Order by the POTUS may change it.
...snip offtopic rant...
Wrong AGAIN. if the info is freely available or made up (as most of yours is) then it is NOT restricted info. It is just your sick fantasy that you have been sentenced to death. A sad attempt to make yourself look more important. Sorry. You're not.
No, according to US law it is restricted.
snip irrelevant crap
Nope. You are AGAIN misinterpreting it. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. I'm betting you never have. None would advise that freely available info and opinions are counted as restricted (aka classified) info. You are not a lawyer so stop acting like one and stop lying.
You are OT again. Or is this an NT?
I haven't changed the topic. It is still about YOUR lies. Are you really that incapable of reading the English language? You sound sick.
-
sorry, topics change. The current topic is your LIES about publishing restricted information. You have not had access to such information. All you have is opinion.
Correct. 1945 all a-bomb info was military and top secret and a law was adopted making all a-bomb info 'restricted' and punished by death if discussed.
However, over the years the military and scientific community started to leak a-bomb info, even if it remained 'restricted' and still punished by death if discussed.
I worked in Japan 1972/6 and wondered why Yokohama looked so strange. I was told it was bombed back to the stone age May 1945 by the US but it could not be discussed according to some US regulations. Colleagues of mine were from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they also queried the bombings of their towns 1945 but it could not be discussed either according to some US regulations. Being law abiding I followed the rules.
In 1999 I met E at Mombasa, Kenya, and later her father W. W told me he had worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 and built the Stalin/USSR a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG. Wismut AG was then running a GULAG camp with slaves mining something. It was all propaganda. No uranium! No a-bomb.
So I started my little a-bomb research 2000 and found it was all propaganda. The result is my web page, etc.
History has to be re-written and corrected by new experts. It is not my job.
My job is safety at sea.
It is not very good.
But don't blame me.
I just to assist in a friendly manner.
info you have found is NOT restricted info. If it is freely available, it is NOT restricted. Stop lying to make yourself look important. You have not been tried, nor will you be. You have not been sentenced to death, nor will you be. Stop lying.
Sorry! All a-bomb info is 'restricted' in the USA. Only an Executive Order by the POTUS may change it.
...snip offtopic rant...
Wrong AGAIN. if the info is freely available or made up (as most of yours is) then it is NOT restricted info. It is just your sick fantasy that you have been sentenced to death. A sad attempt to make yourself look more important. Sorry. You're not.
No, according to US law it is restricted.
snip irrelevant crap
Nope. You are AGAIN misinterpreting it. You should take your own advice and consult legal council. I'm betting you never have. None would advise that freely available info and opinions are counted as restricted (aka classified) info. You are not a lawyer so stop acting like one and stop lying.
You are OT again. Or is this an NT?
I haven't changed the topic. It is still about YOUR lies. Are you really that incapable of reading the English language? You sound sick.
??
-
Oh heiwa, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. You made a statement that no one can show you the flight plans for a moon trip. My link showed you that in great detail. So naturally you ignored it and said it was impossible. What you didn't do was point out any actual errors.
Flight plans? In 3D space? And you showed me a link! But I didn't ask you or anybody for a link. To win my Challenge you have to follow the rules. Just visit my website. And read the WARNING.
Here you go:
http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/OrbitalTransfer.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porkchop_plot
Why not show us where it is wrong? Why if you are trying to spread the truth do you refuse to show us why stuff in the link is lies?
You are and engineer you should be fully capable of solving velocity problems and then show us why it is impossible in space. Regardless if everything is moving.
The conventional belief is if the velocity of an object can be determined then doing the calculations needed to determine the velocity an other object needs to hit it is possible. Regardless if it is in a 1d, 2d or 3d.
If I remember correctly you are the one that claimed a ship travelling across the ocean travels in 3d just like a spacecraft. If that is true how is a ship navigated from one port to another?
-
Oh heiwa, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. You made a statement that no one can show you the flight plans for a moon trip. My link showed you that in great detail. So naturally you ignored it and said it was impossible. What you didn't do was point out any actual errors.
Flight plans? In 3D space? And you showed me a link! But I didn't ask you or anybody for a link. To win my Challenge you have to follow the rules. Just visit my website. And read the WARNING.
Here you go:
http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/OrbitalTransfer.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porkchop_plot
Why not show us where it is wrong? Why if you are trying to spread the truth do you refuse to show us why stuff in the link is lies?
You are and engineer you should be fully capable of solving velocity problems and then show us why it is impossible in space. Regardless if everything is moving.
The conventional belief is if the velocity of an object can be determined then doing the calculations needed to determine the velocity an other object needs to hit it is possible. Regardless if it is in a 1d, 2d or 3d.
If I remember correctly you are the one that claimed a ship travelling across the ocean travels in 3d just like a spacecraft. If that is true how is a ship navigated from one port to another?
The links are just pseudo space nonsense. Only ships on our oceans are real.
-
Oh heiwa, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. You made a statement that no one can show you the flight plans for a moon trip. My link showed you that in great detail. So naturally you ignored it and said it was impossible. What you didn't do was point out any actual errors.
Flight plans? In 3D space? And you showed me a link! But I didn't ask you or anybody for a link. To win my Challenge you have to follow the rules. Just visit my website. And read the WARNING.
Here you go:
http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/OrbitalTransfer.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porkchop_plot
Why not show us where it is wrong? Why if you are trying to spread the truth do you refuse to show us why stuff in the link is lies?
You are and engineer you should be fully capable of solving velocity problems and then show us why it is impossible in space. Regardless if everything is moving.
The conventional belief is if the velocity of an object can be determined then doing the calculations needed to determine the velocity an other object needs to hit it is possible. Regardless if it is in a 1d, 2d or 3d.
If I remember correctly you are the one that claimed a ship travelling across the ocean travels in 3d just like a spacecraft. If that is true how is a ship navigated from one port to another?
The links are just pseudo space nonsense. Only ships on our oceans are real.
So show us where they are wrong.
Just claiming something is not evidence.
You claim to win your challenge what is known about physics needs to be used and not just make something up.
You are the one challenging what is accepted by science about space travel which includes not only those working in the aerospace industry but other fields.
So why do you avoid showing us that anything that is provided supported by Laws of Physics and not only theories is wrong?
Is it because you can not? That your beliefs are only supported by you wanting them to be true?
If you will not answer the above how about this question:
Are things in orbit in free fall?
It is a simple question with a yes or no answer.
Why do you avoid answering it?
Keep in mind I think your "challenge" is fraudulent, you will never judge an application a winner and the money does not exist. So do not need to hear how I do not win your "challenge" with that question.
The answer is not on your website. So linking it does not answer it.
-
Oh heiwa, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. You made a statement that no one can show you the flight plans for a moon trip. My link showed you that in great detail. So naturally you ignored it and said it was impossible. What you didn't do was point out any actual errors.
Flight plans? In 3D space?
Like airplanes?!?
-
Oh heiwa, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. You made a statement that no one can show you the flight plans for a moon trip. My link showed you that in great detail. So naturally you ignored it and said it was impossible. What you didn't do was point out any actual errors.
Flight plans? In 3D space? And you showed me a link! But I didn't ask you or anybody for a link. To win my Challenge you have to follow the rules. Just visit my website. And read the WARNING.
Again, no one was trying to win your fake challenge. It was a discussion and you asked why no one could show you flight plans. There is a lot of information so I provided you the link so you could see it. You were never able to show anything about it that wasn't correct.
-
Oh heiwa, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. You made a statement that no one can show you the flight plans for a moon trip. My link showed you that in great detail. So naturally you ignored it and said it was impossible. What you didn't do was point out any actual errors.
Flight plans? In 3D space? And you showed me a link! But I didn't ask you or anybody for a link. To win my Challenge you have to follow the rules. Just visit my website. And read the WARNING.
Here you go:
http://math-ed.com/Resources/GIS/Geometry_In_Space/OrbitalTransfer.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porkchop_plot
Why not show us where it is wrong? Why if you are trying to spread the truth do you refuse to show us why stuff in the link is lies?
You are and engineer you should be fully capable of solving velocity problems and then show us why it is impossible in space. Regardless if everything is moving.
The conventional belief is if the velocity of an object can be determined then doing the calculations needed to determine the velocity an other object needs to hit it is possible. Regardless if it is in a 1d, 2d or 3d.
If I remember correctly you are the one that claimed a ship travelling across the ocean travels in 3d just like a spacecraft. If that is true how is a ship navigated from one port to another?
The links are just pseudo space nonsense. Only ships on our oceans are real.
So show us where they are wrong.
Just claiming something is not evidence.
You claim to win your challenge what is known about physics needs to be used and not just make something up.
You are the one challenging what is accepted by science about space travel which includes not only those working in the aerospace industry but other fields.
So why do you avoid showing us that anything that is provided supported by Laws of Physics and not only theories is wrong?
Is it because you can not? That your beliefs are only supported by you wanting them to be true?
If you will not answer the above how about this question:
Are things in orbit in free fall?
It is a simple question with a yes or no answer.
Why do you avoid answering it?
Keep in mind I think your "challenge" is fraudulent, you will never judge an application a winner and the money does not exist. So do not need to hear how I do not win your "challenge" with that question.
The answer is not on your website. So linking it does not answer it.
Hm, all information incl. Challenges at my website is correct. Show me by copy/paste and/or reference to numbered paragraph what you consider wrong and I will review what you say?
If you have questions about safety at sea, you are welcome to ask them and I will reply.
I am not wasting my time commenting on stupid links you provide. The Internet are full of Fake News and incorrect information of all kind put there by anonymous people.
-
And Heiwa avoids Woody's simple question AGAIN. I'm starting to think he can't actually read and just has someone else in the government housing occasionally reading posts to him.
-
The Internet are full of Fake News and incorrect information of all kind ...
That's why I don't want to click on this link:
http://heiwaco.com
-
I simply suggest the second type is pseudoscientific nonsense. It cannot be duplicated in a lab.
Actually, it has been duplicated over 2000 times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
-
I simply suggest the second type is pseudoscientific nonsense. It cannot be duplicated in a lab.
Actually, it has been duplicated over 2000 times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
ROTFL! Does it means that it works? It is just propaganda. You do not win my Challenge with a link to propaganda.
-
And Heiwa avoids Woody's simple question AGAIN. I'm starting to think he can't actually read and just has someone else in the government housing occasionally reading posts to him.
Hm, you are supposed to demonstrate that nuclear weapons work, i.e. that the US alternative FLASH fission from 1942/5 is working and that you trigger it by by putting two pieces of metal together,compress them to double density so they make up a critical mass, etc, etc. To me it is pseudoscience! Link to someone who knows how to trigger an a-bomb!
-
I simply suggest the second type is pseudoscientific nonsense. It cannot be duplicated in a lab.
Actually, it has been duplicated over 2000 times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
ROTFL! Does it means that it works? It is just propaganda. You do not win my Challenge with a link to propaganda.
Nobody here cares about your challenge! You ask for evidence and then ignore it when presented. You ask for calculations and then ignore the ones that disprove your position. Your assertions are based on calculations that are oversimplified or simply done wrong. You have been shown this multiple times and you just pretend you didn't see it.
You do not have nor have you ever had access to classified information. You are not going to be brought to trial for posting information which you found online on your website. You are not in any danger of receiving the death penalty.
This crazy circle will keep repeating until you stop repeating your lies.
-
I simply suggest the second type is pseudoscientific nonsense. It cannot be duplicated in a lab.
Actually, it has been duplicated over 2000 times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
ROTFL! Does it means that it works? It is just propaganda. You do not win my Challenge with a link to propaganda.
Nobody here cares about your challenge! You ask for evidence and then ignore it when presented. You ask for calculations and then ignore the ones that disprove your position. Your assertions are based on calculations that are oversimplified or simply done wrong. You have been shown this multiple times and you just pretend you didn't see it.
You do not have nor have you ever had access to classified information. You are not going to be brought to trial for posting information which you found online on your website. You are not in any danger of receiving the death penalty.
This crazy circle will keep repeating until you stop repeating your lies.
You are just repeating nonsense. You and others are worried about my Challenge because you cannot win it. Reason is that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. I warn you about at the top of my web pages. You believe anything that doesn't match what is in your brain to be a lie. I know it hurts.
-
Nobody here cares about your challenge! You ask for evidence and then ignore it when presented. You ask for calculations and then ignore the ones that disprove your position. Your assertions are based on calculations that are oversimplified or simply done wrong. You have been shown this multiple times and you just pretend you didn't see it.
You do not have nor have you ever had access to classified information. You are not going to be brought to trial for posting information which you found online on your website. You are not in any danger of receiving the death penalty.
This crazy circle will keep repeating until you stop repeating your lies.
You are just repeating nonsense. You and others are worried about my Challenge because you cannot win it. Reason is that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. I warn you about at the top of my web pages. You believe anything that doesn't match what is in your brain to be a lie. I know it hurts.
I can say "cognitive dissonance" a lot too you know. It doesn't mean I'm smart. Talking about cognitive dissonance all the time doesn't mean you're smart and frankly, because you overuse the term, it makes you seem kind of unsmart. I couldn't care less about your challenge, I haven't even looked at it. I have seen you try to defend your assertions and it's very clear to me that competing in your challenge would just be an exercise in futility on account of you being the judge.
-
Nobody here cares about your challenge! You ask for evidence and then ignore it when presented. You ask for calculations and then ignore the ones that disprove your position. Your assertions are based on calculations that are oversimplified or simply done wrong. You have been shown this multiple times and you just pretend you didn't see it.
You do not have nor have you ever had access to classified information. You are not going to be brought to trial for posting information which you found online on your website. You are not in any danger of receiving the death penalty.
This crazy circle will keep repeating until you stop repeating your lies.
You are just repeating nonsense. You and others are worried about my Challenge because you cannot win it. Reason is that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. I warn you about at the top of my web pages. You believe anything that doesn't match what is in your brain to be a lie. I know it hurts.
I can say "cognitive dissonance" a lot too you know. It doesn't mean I'm smart. Talking about cognitive dissonance all the time doesn't mean you're smart and frankly, because you overuse the term, it makes you seem kind of unsmart. I couldn't care less about your challenge, I haven't even looked at it. I have seen you try to defend your assertions and it's very clear to me that competing in your challenge would just be an exercise in futility on account of you being the judge.
Heiwa this is exactly why everyone knows your "challenge" is fake, because you are the sole judge of it and you clearly lack the skill to judge such a challenge. You ignore evidence, you dispute anything that disagrees with you by simply saying it is impossible without ever offering any actual proof to,back,up your claims. You are, in short, a fraud and everyone knows it.
-
Nobody here cares about your challenge! You ask for evidence and then ignore it when presented. You ask for calculations and then ignore the ones that disprove your position. Your assertions are based on calculations that are oversimplified or simply done wrong. You have been shown this multiple times and you just pretend you didn't see it.
You do not have nor have you ever had access to classified information. You are not going to be brought to trial for posting information which you found online on your website. You are not in any danger of receiving the death penalty.
This crazy circle will keep repeating until you stop repeating your lies.
You are just repeating nonsense. You and others are worried about my Challenge because you cannot win it. Reason is that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. I warn you about at the top of my web pages. You believe anything that doesn't match what is in your brain to be a lie. I know it hurts.
I can say "cognitive dissonance" a lot too you know. It doesn't mean I'm smart. Talking about cognitive dissonance all the time doesn't mean you're smart and frankly, because you overuse the term, it makes you seem kind of unsmart. I couldn't care less about your challenge, I haven't even looked at it. I have seen you try to defend your assertions and it's very clear to me that competing in your challenge would just be an exercise in futility on account of you being the judge.
Heiwa this is exactly why everyone knows your "challenge" is fake, because you are the sole judge of it and you clearly lack the skill to judge such a challenge. You ignore evidence, you dispute anything that disagrees with you by simply saying it is impossible without ever offering any actual proof to,back,up your claims. You are, in short, a fraud and everyone knows it.
Well, it is your opinion. I and my Challenges are real and I am qualified to handle them. Only losers think otherwise. Reason why my nuclear weapons and human space travel Challenges are impossible to win is that both nuclear weapons and human space travel are hoaxes created by the US government. I find it hilarious.
-
Is something in free fall when it orbits?
Why avoid that question?
-
Is something in free fall when it orbits?
Why avoid that question?
OK, I explain it at my website but can repeat it here:
In physics, an orbit is the curved path of an object around a point in space, for example the orbits of planets around the Sun, moons around planets or man-made satellites around planet Earth.
Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating path around a body in a constant, uniform gravity field, although it may occasionally be used (by badly infomed people) for a non recurring trajectory of an object in space travelling between two (or more) other objects in a variable gravity field.
To a close approximation in constant gravity field, planets and satellites follow elliptical orbits, with the central mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse, as described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
Current understanding of the mechanics of orbital motion in non-uniform gravity fields is based on Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, which accounts for gravity as due to curvature of space-time, with orbits following geodesics. I don’t really appreciate those ideas as I do not believe in singularities, Black Holes and quasars.
I prefer the orbital motion in a constant, uniform gravity field approximated by Newtonian Mechanics, which explains gravity as force obeying an inverse square law.
However, when the bodies like Earth and Moon are moving in different directions and speeds, the motion of a spacecraft in between the moving bodies, is subject to variable gravity forces and ... the trajectory of the spacecraft cannot be determined or calculated.
If the spacecraft then is in free fall is a question of semantics. It is attracted by variable gravity forces from surrounding objects and the trajectory is a spiral that cannot be determined. However, if the spacecraft is close to Earth or Moon, where one gravity force is dominant, the spacecraft will crash on Earth or Moon. The spacecraft has no means to withstand the gravity force.
That is why space travel between planets and/or moons are impossible. Only satellites travelling in orbits around Earth are possible. It is a one-way trip like a merry-go-round.
-
If you accept Newtonian Mechanics then things in orbit are in free fall. This is not a Relativity thing it is a Newtonian thing.
They just describe what is happening differently. Using Newtonian Mechanics gravity is a force pulling on something like a satellite causing it to be in an orbit as it falls. Using Relativity gravity is not a force it is the curve of spacetime caused by Earth's mass that results in an orbit.
Both consider something orbiting to be falling.
So since you accept Newtonian Mechanics and gravity you accept things are falling around what they orbit. Is that correct?
If the spacecraft then is in free fall is a question of semantics.
Not semantics. Something is in free fall or you need to provide evidence it orbits the Earth for some other reason.
It does not instill confidence you know what you are talking about when you copy and paste from wikipedia.
-
Yeah massive fail when you copy from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
but have to insert your own disclaimer otherwise it proves you can actually do what Heiwa says you can't.
What an idiot :D
-
And Heiwa avoids Woody's simple question AGAIN. I'm starting to think he can't actually read and just has someone else in the government housing occasionally reading posts to him.
Hm, you are supposed to demonstrate that nuclear weapons work, i.e. that the US alternative FLASH fission from 1942/5 is working and that you trigger it by by putting two pieces of metal together,compress them to double density so they make up a critical mass, etc, etc. To me it is pseudoscience! Link to someone who knows how to trigger an a-bomb!
Why would I waste my time explaining to someone who clearly is incapable of learning?
YOU are supposed to be able to answer a simple question and the fact that you continue to avoid it speaks volumes.
-
I simply suggest the second type is pseudoscientific nonsense. It cannot be duplicated in a lab.
Actually, it has been duplicated over 2000 times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests
ROTFL! Does it means that it works? It is just propaganda. You do not win my Challenge with a link to propaganda.
Nobody here cares about your challenge! You ask for evidence and then ignore it when presented. You ask for calculations and then ignore the ones that disprove your position. Your assertions are based on calculations that are oversimplified or simply done wrong. You have been shown this multiple times and you just pretend you didn't see it.
You do not have nor have you ever had access to classified information. You are not going to be brought to trial for posting information which you found online on your website. You are not in any danger of receiving the death penalty.
This crazy circle will keep repeating until you stop repeating your lies.
You are just repeating nonsense. You and others are worried about my Challenge because you cannot win it. Reason is that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. I warn you about at the top of my web pages. You believe anything that doesn't match what is in your brain to be a lie. I know it hurts.
Nobody cares about your challenge because we all know the money doesn't exist and the judge is corrupt and a fraud.
-
Nobody here cares about your challenge! You ask for evidence and then ignore it when presented. You ask for calculations and then ignore the ones that disprove your position. Your assertions are based on calculations that are oversimplified or simply done wrong. You have been shown this multiple times and you just pretend you didn't see it.
You do not have nor have you ever had access to classified information. You are not going to be brought to trial for posting information which you found online on your website. You are not in any danger of receiving the death penalty.
This crazy circle will keep repeating until you stop repeating your lies.
You are just repeating nonsense. You and others are worried about my Challenge because you cannot win it. Reason is that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. I warn you about at the top of my web pages. You believe anything that doesn't match what is in your brain to be a lie. I know it hurts.
I can say "cognitive dissonance" a lot too you know. It doesn't mean I'm smart. Talking about cognitive dissonance all the time doesn't mean you're smart and frankly, because you overuse the term, it makes you seem kind of unsmart. I couldn't care less about your challenge, I haven't even looked at it. I have seen you try to defend your assertions and it's very clear to me that competing in your challenge would just be an exercise in futility on account of you being the judge.
Heiwa this is exactly why everyone knows your "challenge" is fake, because you are the sole judge of it and you clearly lack the skill to judge such a challenge. You ignore evidence, you dispute anything that disagrees with you by simply saying it is impossible without ever offering any actual proof to,back,up your claims. You are, in short, a fraud and everyone knows it.
Well, it is your opinion. I and my Challenges are real and I am qualified to handle them. Only losers think otherwise. Reason why my nuclear weapons and human space travel Challenges are impossible to win is that both nuclear weapons and human space travel are hoaxes created by the US government. I find it hilarious.
That is your opinion and backed up by nothing. On the other hand, the opinion that your "challenge" is fake and you lack the skills to judge it is backed up by your own actions and irrational behavior.
-
I prefer the orbital motion in a constant, uniform gravity field approximated by Newtonian Mechanics, which explains gravity as force obeying an inverse square law.
However, when the bodies like Earth and Moon are moving in different directions and speeds, the motion of a spacecraft in between the moving bodies, is subject to variable gravity forces and ... the trajectory of the spacecraft cannot be determined or calculated.
If the earth and moon have gravitational fields that that follow the inverse square law, and the motions of the earth and moon are well understood, then why shouldn't it be possible to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft? If all of the variables and parameters are known and understood (which they are), then the calculus should be relatively straightforward (if not quite complex). You do know about calculus, don't you?
BTW, I already posted a link to someone who did calculate Apollo 11's trajectory to the moon.
-
If you accept Newtonian Mechanics then things in orbit are in free fall. This is not a Relativity thing it is a Newtonian thing.
They just describe what is happening differently. Using Newtonian Mechanics gravity is a force pulling on something like a satellite causing it to be in an orbit as it falls. Using Relativity gravity is not a force it is the curve of spacetime caused by Earth's mass that results in an orbit.
Both consider something orbiting to be falling.
So since you accept Newtonian Mechanics and gravity you accept things are falling around what they orbit. Is that correct?
If the spacecraft then is in free fall is a question of semantics.
Not semantics. Something is in free fall or you need to provide evidence it orbits the Earth for some other reason.
It does not instill confidence you know what you are talking about when you copy and paste from wikipedia.
No - a spacecraft travelling in space between moving heavenly bodies in a variable gravity field is not in free fall anywhere. It is attracted by all heavenly bodies in the universe after been given an initial kick, and the resulting trajectory is too difficult to determine. However, if the spacecraft is close to a moving heavenly body sneaking up, the gravity force of this body will attract the spacecraft and it will fall faster and faster towards it until contact is made - CRASH!. No orbit!
Have you ever dropped a glass in your kitchen? Same effect! It is not in orbit - it drops towards the floor and CRASH!.
I have a feeling you don't know what you are talking about. Earth orbits the Sun in a uniform gravity field and Newtonian Mechanics can be used to calculate the time for a 360° orbit = 1 year. You cannot use Newtonian Mechanics to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft flying around between several, moving heavenly bodies.
Basic.
That's why nobody will ever win my Challenge! Space travel to the Moon is not possible. Only NASA/ESA shills suggest otherwise! But look at them. Clowns! Twerps! Paid C-actors.
-
I prefer the orbital motion in a constant, uniform gravity field approximated by Newtonian Mechanics, which explains gravity as force obeying an inverse square law.
However, when the bodies like Earth and Moon are moving in different directions and speeds, the motion of a spacecraft in between the moving bodies, is subject to variable gravity forces and ... the trajectory of the spacecraft cannot be determined or calculated.
If the earth and moon have gravitational fields that that follow the inverse square law, and the motions of the earth and moon are well understood, then why shouldn't it be possible to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft? If all of the variables and parameters are known and understood (which they are), then the calculus should be relatively straightforward (if not quite complex). You do know about calculus, don't you?
BTW, I already posted a link to someone who did calculate Apollo 11's trajectory to the moon.
Hm, someone has calculated Apollo 11's trajectory to the Moon, you say? But it is impossible! NASA couldn't do it 1969 and nobody can do it today.
-
Warning; this is a low content post.
You people are f-ing retarded. What is wrong with you? Please, stop reporting this thread, and stop posting in this thread if it offends you. Yes, we know everyone here is a retard. Do you have to constantly remind us?
-
BTW, I already posted a link to someone who did calculate Apollo 11's trajectory to the moon.
Hm, someone has calculated Apollo 11's trajectory to the Moon, you say? But it is impossible! NASA couldn't do it 1969 and nobody can do it today.
This is a prime example of why your challenge is a fraud.
-
I prefer the orbital motion in a constant, uniform gravity field approximated by Newtonian Mechanics, which explains gravity as force obeying an inverse square law.
However, when the bodies like Earth and Moon are moving in different directions and speeds, the motion of a spacecraft in between the moving bodies, is subject to variable gravity forces and ... the trajectory of the spacecraft cannot be determined or calculated.
If the earth and moon have gravitational fields that that follow the inverse square law, and the motions of the earth and moon are well understood, then why shouldn't it be possible to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft? If all of the variables and parameters are known and understood (which they are), then the calculus should be relatively straightforward (if not quite complex). You do know about calculus, don't you?
BTW, I already posted a link to someone who did calculate Apollo 11's trajectory to the moon.
Hm, someone has calculated Apollo 11's trajectory to the Moon, you say? But it is impossible! NASA couldn't do it 1969 and nobody can do it today.
You say that it's impossible, yet someone has done it (and even shown the math). Congratulations, you don't suffer from cognitive dissonance, you revel in it.
BTW, NASA has been calculating lunar trajectories since at least 1958 when it tried to launch Pioneer 0. However, NASA had 11 failures to successfully hit the moon until 1964 when Ranger 6 intentionally impacted the moon (but failed to return any data). So that just goes to show that hitting the moon is indeed exceedingly difficult, but not impossible.
-
I prefer the orbital motion in a constant, uniform gravity field approximated by Newtonian Mechanics, which explains gravity as force obeying an inverse square law.
However, when the bodies like Earth and Moon are moving in different directions and speeds, the motion of a spacecraft in between the moving bodies, is subject to variable gravity forces and ... the trajectory of the spacecraft cannot be determined or calculated.
If the earth and moon have gravitational fields that that follow the inverse square law, and the motions of the earth and moon are well understood, then why shouldn't it be possible to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft? If all of the variables and parameters are known and understood (which they are), then the calculus should be relatively straightforward (if not quite complex). You do know about calculus, don't you?
BTW, I already posted a link to someone who did calculate Apollo 11's trajectory to the moon.
Hm, someone has calculated Apollo 11's trajectory to the Moon, you say? But it is impossible! NASA couldn't do it 1969 and nobody can do it today.
You say that it's impossible, yet someone has done it (and even shown the math). Congratulations, you don't suffer from cognitive dissonance, you revel in it.
BTW, NASA has been calculating lunar trajectories since at least 1958 when it tried to launch Pioneer 0. However, NASA had 11 failures to successfully hit the moon until 1964 when Ranger 6 intentionally impacted the moon (but failed to return any data). So that just goes to show that hitting the moon is indeed exceedingly difficult, but not impossible.
Hm, Earth orbits the Sun in one plane with one velocity and the Moon orbits the Earth in another plane with another velocity and the spacecraft orbits Earth in a third plane with its velocity and altitude. The planes are all inclined against each other in 3D space. It means the velocity/direction of the spacecraft relative the Sun and the Moon vary all the time.
The spacecraft shall be catapulted from orbit around Earth at high speed to where the Moon will arrive in its slow speed orbit around Earth, when the Moon and the spacecraft encounter each other. It must take place at the exact start location in orbit Earth at the right time and in the right direction with the correct force in the correct direction during the correct duration.
That trajectory of the spacecraft - which is not an orbit - cannot be established because as soon as the catapulting force is no longer applied, moving Earth pulls the spacecraft back to it, etc, etc. It is rocket science = advanced pseudoscience.
So NASA never managed to do it 1958 onwards and then decided to fake it ... and everything else. It is a great, magic show. All fantasies.
-
Nobody here cares about your challenge! You ask for evidence and then ignore it when presented. You ask for calculations and then ignore the ones that disprove your position. Your assertions are based on calculations that are oversimplified or simply done wrong. You have been shown this multiple times and you just pretend you didn't see it.
You do not have nor have you ever had access to classified information. You are not going to be brought to trial for posting information which you found online on your website. You are not in any danger of receiving the death penalty.
This crazy circle will keep repeating until you stop repeating your lies.
You are just repeating nonsense. You and others are worried about my Challenge because you cannot win it. Reason is that you suffer from cognitive dissonance. I warn you about at the top of my web pages. You believe anything that doesn't match what is in your brain to be a lie. I know it hurts.
I can say "cognitive dissonance" a lot too you know. It doesn't mean I'm smart. Talking about cognitive dissonance all the time doesn't mean you're smart and frankly, because you overuse the term, it makes you seem kind of unsmart. I couldn't care less about your challenge, I haven't even looked at it. I have seen you try to defend your assertions and it's very clear to me that competing in your challenge would just be an exercise in futility on account of you being the judge.
Heiwa this is exactly why everyone knows your "challenge" is fake, because you are the sole judge of it and you clearly lack the skill to judge such a challenge. You ignore evidence, you dispute anything that disagrees with you by simply saying it is impossible without ever offering any actual proof to,back,up your claims. You are, in short, a fraud and everyone knows it.
Well, it is your opinion. I and my Challenges are real and I am qualified to handle them. Only losers think otherwise. Reason why my nuclear weapons and human space travel Challenges are impossible to win is that both nuclear weapons and human space travel are hoaxes created by the US government. I find it hilarious.
Qualified? Where did you get your doctorate or master's in physics from?
-
I prefer the orbital motion in a constant, uniform gravity field approximated by Newtonian Mechanics, which explains gravity as force obeying an inverse square law.
However, when the bodies like Earth and Moon are moving in different directions and speeds, the motion of a spacecraft in between the moving bodies, is subject to variable gravity forces and ... the trajectory of the spacecraft cannot be determined or calculated.
If the earth and moon have gravitational fields that that follow the inverse square law, and the motions of the earth and moon are well understood, then why shouldn't it be possible to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft? If all of the variables and parameters are known and understood (which they are), then the calculus should be relatively straightforward (if not quite complex). You do know about calculus, don't you?
BTW, I already posted a link to someone who did calculate Apollo 11's trajectory to the moon.
Hm, someone has calculated Apollo 11's trajectory to the Moon, you say? But it is impossible! NASA couldn't do it 1969 and nobody can do it today.
You say that it's impossible, yet someone has done it (and even shown the math). Congratulations, you don't suffer from cognitive dissonance, you revel in it.
BTW, NASA has been calculating lunar trajectories since at least 1958 when it tried to launch Pioneer 0. However, NASA had 11 failures to successfully hit the moon until 1964 when Ranger 6 intentionally impacted the moon (but failed to return any data). So that just goes to show that hitting the moon is indeed exceedingly difficult, but not impossible.
Hm, Earth orbits the Sun in one plane with one velocity and the Moon orbits the Earth in another plane with another velocity and the spacecraft orbits Earth in a third plane with its velocity and altitude. The planes are all inclined against each other in 3D space. It means the velocity/direction of the spacecraft relative the Sun and the Moon vary all the time.
The spacecraft shall be catapulted from orbit around Earth at high speed to where the Moon will arrive in its slow speed orbit around Earth, when the Moon and the spacecraft encounter each other. It must take place at the exact start location in orbit Earth at the right time and in the right direction with the correct force in the correct direction during the correct duration.
That trajectory of the spacecraft - which is not an orbit - cannot be established because as soon as the catapulting force is no longer applied, moving Earth pulls the spacecraft back to it, etc, etc. It is rocket science = advanced pseudoscience.
So NASA never managed to do it 1958 onwards and then decided to fake it ... and everything else. It is a great, magic show. All fantasies.
And Heiwa proves AGAIN that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics. Too bad it is the only thing he proves.
-
No - a spacecraft travelling in space between moving heavenly bodies in a variable gravity field is not in free fall anywhere. It is attracted by all heavenly bodies in the universe after been given an initial kick, and the resulting trajectory is too difficult to determine. However, if the spacecraft is close to a moving heavenly body sneaking up, the gravity force of this body will attract the spacecraft and it will fall faster and faster towards it until contact is made - CRASH!. No orbit!
That will just happen if the angular momentum of the orbit is very low.
I have a feeling you don't know what you are talking about. Earth orbits the Sun in a uniform gravity field
That is just plain wrong.
You cannot use Newtonian Mechanics to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft flying around between several, moving heavenly bodies.
Willing to bet your non-existent 1M € on that? I might write a program which can calculate those trajectories then. Or you could use an existing one.
Basic.
That's why nobody will ever win my Challenge! Space travel to the Moon is not possible. Only NASA/ESA shills suggest otherwise! But look at them. Clowns! Twerps! Paid C-actors.
[/quote]
-
I might write a program which can calculate those trajectories then. Or you could use an existing one.
Basic.
Yes, why not? But better to use an existing one. Which one do you suggest?
-
No - a spacecraft travelling in space between moving heavenly bodies in a variable gravity field is not in free fall anywhere. It is attracted by all heavenly bodies in the universe after been given an initial kick, and the resulting trajectory is too difficult to determine. However, if the spacecraft is close to a moving heavenly body sneaking up, the gravity force of this body will attract the spacecraft and it will fall faster and faster towards it until contact is made - CRASH!. No orbit!
That will just happen if the angular momentum of the orbit is very low.
I have a feeling you don't know what you are talking about. Earth orbits the Sun in a uniform gravity field
That is just plain wrong.
You cannot use Newtonian Mechanics to calculate the trajectory of a spacecraft flying around between several, moving heavenly bodies.
Willing to bet your non-existent 1M € on that? I might write a program which can calculate those trajectories then. Or you could use an existing one.
Basic.
That's why nobody will ever win my Challenge! Space travel to the Moon is not possible. Only NASA/ESA shills suggest otherwise! But look at them. Clowns! Twerps! Paid C-actors.
[/quote]
I would not waste the time, unless you are doing it more for yourself.
Heiwa claims he accepts Kepler's and Newton's work as being correct. He just does not accept it when it is used to do something he says can not happen.
So basically even if you create a program backed by physics he says works he will deny it does without reviewing it.
I say this because I did some relatively simple calculations and all of his objections were wrong. Like saying the calculations did not take gravity into account when they did. He also asked questions that were answered in what I provided. Then of course he just then ignored it when I pointed it out to him.
Remember this is a man who says nobody can tell him the amount of propellant needed to get somewhere like the Moon. He adds the mass of the propellant for stages of the Apollo 11 on his website. Where he actually makes a truthful claim that it weighed a lot. Not sure how nobody can tell him then he somehow got the information. My guess is it is because it is readily available and easy to find.
-
I might write a program which can calculate those trajectories then. Or you could use an existing one.
Basic.
Yes, why not? But better to use an existing one. Which one do you suggest?
You could start with NEMO (http://bima.astro.umd.edu/nemo/) (i have heard good things about it), but there are at least a dozen others...
-
Remember this is a man who says nobody can tell him the amount of propellant needed to get somewhere like the Moon. He adds the mass of the propellant for stages of the Apollo 11 on his website. Where he actually makes a truthful claim that it weighed a lot. Not sure how nobody can tell him then he somehow got the information. My guess is it is because it is readily available and easy to find.
Hm, the difficulty is not to calculate the force (N) to get out of orbit and on to the Moon, and the associated fuel consumption (kg), which depends on the rocket engine used, masses (kgs) and velocities (m/s) involved, what gravity field (m/s²) you are in, etc, etc. No the difficulty is to be able to apply that force in the right direction, duration, location and time in your orbit, which also depends on the moving target (the Moon). So far nobody has managed to calculate the force forgetting the rest.
Plenty twerps say (1) it can be done, (2) it has been done several times, (3) it is/was difficult but doable by experts but cannot give an example.
I just analyze the Apollo 11 departure from orbit at my web site http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm and it seems that you need 100's of tons of fuel to make the force and accelerate out of orbit, while nobody can explain how you get so much fuel up in orbit. If that force was applied at the right direction, duration, location and time in your orbit is unclear. There was no count-down to fire the rocket and nobody knows where it was done (except in orbit) and in what direction.
I find it strange that NASA can not provide that information and conclude that the whole thing was a magic show = no spacecraft flying anywhere. I know that magicians do not like when people say how their tricks were done but in this case it was just a simple pre-made film/voice recording broadcasted on TV/radio and a little mock-up of a rocket sent up behind the clouds.
-
I might write a program which can calculate those trajectories then. Or you could use an existing one.
Basic.
Yes, why not? But better to use an existing one. Which one do you suggest?
You could start with NEMO (http://bima.astro.umd.edu/nemo/) (i have heard good things about it), but there are at least a dozen others...
Thanks - it maybe can be used to calulate the force of a simple manoeuvre but not the fuel consumption and how to apply the force to a spacecraft at the right time, etc, etc. To plan a complete space trip with many accelerations up/down and a stop you need better tools. The software NEMO has actually nothing to do with spacecraft travel.
Also the software is not complete and the user is asked to write the extra software himself. I was quite good at FORTRAN around 1970 but here C is recommended.
-
I just analyze the Apollo 11 departure from orbit at my web site http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm and it seems that you need 100's of tons of fuel to make the force and accelerate out of orbit, while nobody can explain how you get so much fuel up in orbit.
Hmm - maybe using the biggest rocket ever built?
If that force was applied at the right direction, duration, location and time in your orbit is unclear. There was no count-down to fire the rocket and nobody knows where it was done (except in orbit) and in what direction.
Uh-huh..
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/02earth-orbit-tli.htm#0022638
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/A11_Earth_Orbit_Chart_Rev3.jpg
I find it strange that NASA can not provide that information and conclude that the whole thing was a magic show = no spacecraft flying anywhere. I know that magicians do not like when people say how their tricks were done but in this case it was just a simple pre-made film/voice recording broadcasted on TV/radio and a little mock-up of a rocket sent up behind the clouds.
They do provide the information.
https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11TrajectoryAnalysis.pdf
Millions of people have seen those rockets go up in person. You are dumb.
-
If that force was applied at the right direction, duration, location and time in your orbit is unclear. There was no count-down to fire the rocket and nobody knows where it was done (except in orbit) and in what direction.
Uh-huh..
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/02earth-orbit-tli.htm#0022638
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/A11_Earth_Orbit_Chart_Rev3.jpg
No count-down! No position in orbit (only speed). No direction. And no info where the Moon is. Thanks for proving my point.
-
Hm, Earth orbits the Sun in one plane with one velocity and the Moon orbits the Earth in another plane with another velocity and the spacecraft orbits Earth in a third plane with its velocity and altitude. The planes are all inclined against each other in 3D space. It means the velocity/direction of the spacecraft relative the Sun and the Moon vary all the time.
For the most part, the earth/moon system's orbit around the sun can be safely ignored. We are only interested in expanding the spacecraft's orbit so that it extends out to the moon.
The spacecraft shall be catapulted from orbit around Earth at high speed to where the Moon will arrive in its slow speed orbit around Earth, when the Moon and the spacecraft encounter each other. It must take place at the exact start location in orbit Earth at the right time and in the right direction with the correct force in the correct direction during the correct duration.
Then it's a good thing that even relatively crude computers are very good at handling such critical events.
That trajectory of the spacecraft - which is not an orbit - cannot be established because as soon as the catapulting force is no longer applied, moving Earth pulls the spacecraft back to it, etc, etc. It is rocket science = advanced pseudoscience.
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
So NASA never managed to do it 1958 onwards and then decided to fake it ... and everything else. It is a great, magic show. All fantasies.
Thank you for proving the old saying that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-
If that force was applied at the right direction, duration, location and time in your orbit is unclear. There was no count-down to fire the rocket and nobody knows where it was done (except in orbit) and in what direction.
Uh-huh..
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/02earth-orbit-tli.htm#0022638
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/A11_Earth_Orbit_Chart_Rev3.jpg
No count-down! No position in orbit (only speed). No direction. And no info where the Moon is. Thanks for proving my point.
The countdown was all done by computer. You can see that there are times called out - the crew do not hit a 'fire' button.
If you weren't so lazy you could do some other checking - try this page:
http://history.nasa.gov/ap08fj/02earth_orbit_tli.htm
or any of the other AFJ pages where the TLI sequences are covered - some of them even give the speed.
As for where they were, I suggest you look again at the orbital map I gave you - it's all on there, and can be matched up with the receiving station on the ground.
It's not difficult to find out where the moon was - use Stellarium. The launch windows are called that because the position of the moon in its orbit matches how long it will take the CSM to get there after launch. The direction of the rocket at TLI was where the moon will be in 3 days. It's not difficult. Use Stellarium to prove where the moon was when they got there. Oh, and try and get your head around the idea of course correction burns too.
All the information you claim is not available is out there, and always has been, you're just too lazy to look for it and too dumb to understand it.
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
-
I just analyze the Apollo 11 departure from orbit at my web site http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm and it seems that you need 100's of tons of fuel to make the force and accelerate out of orbit, while nobody can explain how you get so much fuel up in orbit.
You did the fuel calculations wrong as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Just ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away. I am not a rocket scientist but I think you have a problem dealing with factors that change such as the weight of the fuel and gravitational fields. I would struggle as well. There are those who do know how to account for these variables and that is what you don't seem to be able to comprehend. They didn't figure it out right away either, as was posted above - it took them 11 attempts before they got it right. Anyway, just ignoring the fact that people have tackled the issues you've declared unsolvable and solved them doesn't make said fact disappear.
-
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
Very good. Those orbital parameters are well known and very predictable. That kind of helps when aiming a rocket at it.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
Nope.
Want to know how you move from a low orbit to a higher one? You increase speed. This is how you put satellites from LEO to MEO and HEO. Increase speed enough and the orbit is high enough that you can intercept the moon.
The moon is orbiting the Earth at around 3683 kph. Not that slow. See if you can find out how fast the Apollo craft were travelling by the time they got there - pretty easy to search if you aren't lazy and incompetent.
What you do when you get there is move from a high orbit to a low one. How? By reducing speed, that way you get captured by the moon's gravity. Simple.
See the Apollo reference material for the fuel budgets and relative speeds involved.
-
I just analyze the Apollo 11 departure from orbit at my web site http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm and it seems that you need 100's of tons of fuel to make the force and accelerate out of orbit, while nobody can explain how you get so much fuel up in orbit.
You did the fuel calculations wrong as has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Just ignoring that fact doesn't make it go away. I am not a rocket scientist but I think you have a problem dealing with factors that change such as the weight of the fuel and gravitational fields. I would struggle as well. There are those who do know how to account for these variables and that is what you don't seem to be able to comprehend. They didn't figure it out right away either, as was posted above - it took them 11 attempts before they got it right. Anyway, just ignoring the fact that people have tackled the issues you've declared unsolvable and solved them doesn't make said fact disappear.
??? I use the NASA figures of masses and fuel consumed - different figures wherever you look - and then I conclude something is wrong. And then anonymous twerps suggest I am wrong!
Does it mean NASA is right? No!
So I decided to offer anyone €1M to show me how it was done correctly - my Challenge! But instead of doing it, the twerps queried, if I had €1M. When I proved I had €1M, the twerps became obnoxious ... and there we are today.
To sort out this unfortunate or ridiculous or amazing difference of opinions I asked the famous, Swedish astrophysicist Carol Norberg to assist. No reply. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#CN . She acknowledged receipt but maybe then went back into winter sleep or Christmas/New Year alcholic haze?
I suggest you contact Carol Norberg and that you together win my Challenge and show I am wrong, etc, etc.
Teamwork!
Pls tell me the result!
-
If that force was applied at the right direction, duration, location and time in your orbit is unclear. There was no count-down to fire the rocket and nobody knows where it was done (except in orbit) and in what direction.
Uh-huh..
http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/02earth-orbit-tli.htm#0022638
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/figs/A11_Earth_Orbit_Chart_Rev3.jpg
No count-down! No position in orbit (only speed). No direction. And no info where the Moon is. Thanks for proving my point.
Thank you for proving you didn't read the transcript. Can you read?
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
And Heiwa proves AGAIN that he doesn't understand orbital mechanics at all.
You don't have to keep proving it Heiwa. Everyone already knows you're incompetent
-
When I proved I had €1M,
Why do you lie? You have NEVER proved you have the money. More LIES from Heiwa.
-
To sort out this unfortunate or ridiculous or amazing difference of opinions I asked the famous, Swedish astrophysicist Carol Norberg to assist. No reply. http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm#CN . She acknowledged receipt but maybe then went back into winter sleep or Christmas/New Year alcholic haze?
So she was polite then realized you're nothing but a crackpot and ignored you like you deserve. Smart girl.
-
I suggest you contact Carol Norberg and that you together win my Challenge and show I am wrong, etc, etc.
I suggest you give up. I will not contact some Swedish astrophysicist. The "anonymous twerps" didn't just claim you were wrong, they backed their claims up. You didn't like being proved wrong so you just ignored their very patient attempts to show you why you were wrong.
-
I suggest you contact Carol Norberg and that you together win my Challenge and show I am wrong, etc, etc.
I suggest you give up. I will not contact some Swedish astrophysicist. The "anonymous twerps" didn't just claim you were wrong, they backed their claims up. You didn't like being proved wrong so you just ignored their very patient attempts to show you why you were wrong.
Why would I? Noone incl. Carol Norberg have shown me wrong. I feel sorry for her.
Now a friend of mine has asked ESA director Jan Wörner to explain how it is done:
https://balthasarschmitt.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/hallo-esa-jan-woerner-wir-sagen-ihnen-was-wir-denken/
I am looking forward what Jan will invent.
-
I suggest you give up. I will not contact some Swedish astrophysicist. The "anonymous twerps" didn't just claim you were wrong, they backed their claims up. You didn't like being proved wrong so you just ignored their very patient attempts to show you why you were wrong.
Why would I? Noone incl. Carol Norberg have shown me wrong. I feel sorry for her.
Now a friend of mine has asked ESA director Jan Wörner to explain how it is done:
https://balthasarschmitt.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/hallo-esa-jan-woerner-wir-sagen-ihnen-was-wir-denken/
I am looking forward what Jan will invent.
- Ignoring the people who have proved you wrong doesn't mean they didn't prove you wrong. They did.
- There is no need to feel sorry for Norberg. ???
- You are already presupposing that whatever Wörner comes up with will be an "invention." IOW You have dismissed any explanation he has to offer before he has even responded. (Which, like Norberg, he probably won't.) Also, your comment about Wörner was very condescending.
-
I suggest you give up. I will not contact some Swedish astrophysicist. The "anonymous twerps" didn't just claim you were wrong, they backed their claims up. You didn't like being proved wrong so you just ignored their very patient attempts to show you why you were wrong.
Why would I? Noone incl. Carol Norberg have shown me wrong. I feel sorry for her.
Now a friend of mine has asked ESA director Jan Wörner to explain how it is done:
https://balthasarschmitt.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/hallo-esa-jan-woerner-wir-sagen-ihnen-was-wir-denken/
I am looking forward what Jan will invent.
- Ignoring the people who have proved you wrong doesn't mean they didn't prove you wrong. They did.
- There is no need to feel sorry for Norberg. ???
- You are already presupposing that whatever Wörner comes up with will be an "invention." IOW You have dismissed any explanation he has to offer before he has even responded. (Which, like Norberg, he probably won't.) Also, your comment about Wörner was very condescending.
Noone has proven me wrong. Plenty twerps of all kind scream, shout, moan and groan here that I am wrong, but they do not provide any evidence.
Norberg probably believed in the human space show 20 years ago and, without critical thinking, started to teach it at university. I have suggested she admits her mistake. It is not a big deal.
Jan Wörner, the ESA director, is a criminal, stealing money from EU tax payers, falsifying everything about space travel at ESA (assisted by a fair number of assistants) and should be in jail.
-
Jan Wörner, the ESA director, is a criminal, stealing money from EU tax payers, falsifying everything about space travel at ESA (assisted by a fair number of assistants) and should be in jail.
If lying on the internet was a crime you would be in jail for life, that's for sure!
-
Jan Wörner, the ESA director, is a criminal, stealing money from EU tax payers, falsifying everything about space travel at ESA (assisted by a fair number of assistants) and should be in jail.
If lying on the internet was a crime you would be in jail for life, that's for sure!
Well, there is the possibility to sue for libel, if Jan Wörner thinks that I publish or say something that damages his reputation and/or discredits him in an unfair manner. I am not afraid of it. I work publicly under my own name, I can prove scientifically what I say, so I do not worry at all.
I have already done it re the Swedish government cover-up of the M/S Estonia sinking investigation 1994/7 and its order to a university 2005/8 to falsify its research about it. The only result was a government order to media and concerned parties to ignore me (and making everything secret for 50 years). In court they would have no chance.
-
Well I haven't looked into Wörner, but I think it's probable you are lying about him the way you lie about no one having proved you wrong regarding your moon trip challenge.
-
Well I haven't looked into Wörner, but I think it's probable you are lying about him the way you lie about no one having proved you wrong regarding your moon trip challenge.
Wörner is the director of the European Space Agency and has officially promised to build a hotel on the Moon and invited us to ask questions about it. I have previously asked questions to ESA/him how to get to the Moon and back alive (to win my Challenge) but there are no real replies ever. I have a feeling Wörner is just an actor. He makes speeches without substance. Like Elon Musk. Question is how long it will last. Study the linke above https://balthasarschmitt.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/hallo-esa-jan-woerner-wir-sagen-ihnen-was-wir-denken/
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
I know. And up there they orbit Earth in one day (while Earth rotates 360°)! The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days because it is further away. But all satellites are one-way only. They can never land on Earth again. They have nothing to do with manned space travel and nuclear weapons that do not work.
Why do you change topic with OT questions?
In Sweden 1961 we all celebrated the Russians in space! And we wished they never returned.
-
Well I haven't looked into Wörner, but I think it's probable you are lying about him the way you lie about no one having proved you wrong regarding your moon trip challenge.
Wörner is the director of the European Space Agency and has officially promised to build a hotel on the Moon and invited us to ask questions about it. I have previously asked questions to ESA/him how to get to the Moon and back alive (to win my Challenge) but there are no real replies ever. I have a feeling Wörner is just an actor. He makes speeches without substance. Like Elon Musk. Question is how long it will last. Study the linke above https://balthasarschmitt.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/hallo-esa-jan-woerner-wir-sagen-ihnen-was-wir-denken/
I don't care about Wörner. Your moon trip calculations were proved wrong and you ignored the people who proved you wrong.Then you lied about it and called them "twerps."
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
I know. And up there they orbit Earth in one day (while Earth rotates 360°)! The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days because it is further away.
If a satellite can be transferred from a 90 minute orbit to a one day orbit, then why can't it be transferred to a 28 day orbit?
-
Well I haven't looked into Wörner, but I think it's probable you are lying about him the way you lie about no one having proved you wrong regarding your moon trip challenge.
Wörner is the director of the European Space Agency and has officially promised to build a hotel on the Moon and invited us to ask questions about it. I have previously asked questions to ESA/him how to get to the Moon and back alive (to win my Challenge) but there are no real replies ever. I have a feeling Wörner is just an actor. He makes speeches without substance. Like Elon Musk. Question is how long it will last. Study the linke above https://balthasarschmitt.wordpress.com/2016/12/26/hallo-esa-jan-woerner-wir-sagen-ihnen-was-wir-denken/
I don't care about Wörner. You're moon trip calculations were proved wrong and you ignored the people who proved you wrong and called them "twerps." Then you lied about it.
It is in order for you to ignore Wörner. I have never made any Moon trip calculations! I have only analyzed the NASA ones and found them impossible and inventions - the magic show! Visit my website!
No people have proved me wrong but I call many people twerps (or twirps), i.e. contemptible, silly fools. I don't lie about them. I laugh at them.
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
I know. And up there they orbit Earth in one day (while Earth rotates 360°)! The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days because it is further away.
If a satellite can be transferred from a 90 minute orbit to a one day orbit, then why can't it be transferred to a 28 day orbit?
Probably due to lack of fuel and that the Moon is much further away. Ask your astrophysicist friends about it and report back.
BTW - the Moon does not orbit Earth in the same plane as the geostationary ones above the Equator. Think about that.
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
I know. And up there they orbit Earth in one day (while Earth rotates 360°)! The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days because it is further away.
If a satellite can be transferred from a 90 minute orbit to a one day orbit, then why can't it be transferred to a 28 day orbit?
Probably due to lack of fuel and that the Moon is much further away. Ask your astrophysicist friends about it and report back.
BTW - the Moon does not orbit Earth in the same plane as the geostationary ones above the Equator. Think about that.
But it still orbits the Earth. All that would be necessary is a plane transfer. You'd know that if you knew anything about orbital mechanics but it is abundantly clear you do not.
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
I know. And up there they orbit Earth in one day (while Earth rotates 360°)! The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days because it is further away.
If a satellite can be transferred from a 90 minute orbit to a one day orbit, then why can't it be transferred to a 28 day orbit?
Probably due to lack of fuel and that the Moon is much further away. Ask your astrophysicist friends about it and report back.
BTW - the Moon does not orbit Earth in the same plane as the geostationary ones above the Equator. Think about that.
But it still orbits the Earth. All that would be necessary is a plane transfer. You'd know that if you knew anything about orbital mechanics but it is abundantly clear you do not.
Thanks for telling me that the Moon orbits Earth.
But a plane transfer! Did Apollo 11 do one or was it already in Moon orbit from the start ... but at a much lower altitude? It must have been because NASA has never told us about a plane transfer.
Questions remain, to win my Challenge, what force was required to move from low altitude orbit to Moon orbit and how much fuel was required ... and ... how did you manage to arrive in Moon orbit when the Moon passed by?
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
I know. And up there they orbit Earth in one day (while Earth rotates 360°)! The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days because it is further away.
If a satellite can be transferred from a 90 minute orbit to a one day orbit, then why can't it be transferred to a 28 day orbit?
Probably due to lack of fuel and that the Moon is much further away. Ask your astrophysicist friends about it and report back.
BTW - the Moon does not orbit Earth in the same plane as the geostationary ones above the Equator. Think about that.
But it still orbits the Earth. All that would be necessary is a plane transfer. You'd know that if you knew anything about orbital mechanics but it is abundantly clear you do not.
Thanks for telling me that the Moon orbits Earth.
But a plane transfer! Did Apollo 11 do one or was it already in Moon orbit from the start ... but at a much lower altitude? It must have been because NASA has never told us about a plane transfer.
Questions remain, to win my Challenge, what force was required to move from low altitude orbit to Moon orbit and how much fuel was required ... and ... how did you manage to arrive in Moon orbit when the Moon passed by?
Apollo started in an inclined orbit so their transfer orbit intersected the Moon's orbit. You'd know that if you bothered to study the subject at all.
NOBODY cares about your fraudulent challenge. Everyone knows you don't have the money anyway and the judge is incompetent.
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
I know. And up there they orbit Earth in one day (while Earth rotates 360°)! The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days because it is further away.
If a satellite can be transferred from a 90 minute orbit to a one day orbit, then why can't it be transferred to a 28 day orbit?
Probably due to lack of fuel and that the Moon is much further away. Ask your astrophysicist friends about it and report back.
BTW - the Moon does not orbit Earth in the same plane as the geostationary ones above the Equator. Think about that.
But it still orbits the Earth. All that would be necessary is a plane transfer. You'd know that if you knew anything about orbital mechanics but it is abundantly clear you do not.
Thanks for telling me that the Moon orbits Earth.
But a plane transfer! Did Apollo 11 do one or was it already in Moon orbit from the start ... but at a much lower altitude? It must have been because NASA has never told us about a plane transfer.
Questions remain, to win my Challenge, what force was required to move from low altitude orbit to Moon orbit and how much fuel was required ... and ... how did you manage to arrive in Moon orbit when the Moon passed by?
Apollo started in an inclined orbit so their transfer orbit intersected the Moon's orbit. You'd know that if you bothered to study the subject at all.
NOBODY cares about your fraudulent challenge. Everyone knows you don't have the money anyway and the judge is incompetent.
Yes, yes ... they started inclined and transferred to intersect the Moon orbit - when the Moon was there ... but what was the force required to do it and how much fuel was used?
Re the money ... it is still there ... and I am in good shape to judge my own Challenge, loser!
-
The moon is in earth's orbit. Why can't a spacecraft have an orbit around the earth the same size as the moon's orbit?
The Moon is orbiting Earth far away at fairly low speed. One orbit takes 28 days.
A spacecraft starting from high speed, low altitude orbit (say <90 minutes) around Earth cannot be catapulted from that high speed, low altitude orbit into the low speed, extremely high altitude orbit of the Moon. You will always miss, but if by magic you hit a bull eye, you will CRASH.
How do you think that communications satellites get into geostationary orbit above a very specific spot above the equator? I'll give you a hint: they start in a low, fast orbit and then are transferred into a higher, slower orbit.
I know. And up there they orbit Earth in one day (while Earth rotates 360°)! The Moon orbits Earth in 28 days because it is further away.
If a satellite can be transferred from a 90 minute orbit to a one day orbit, then why can't it be transferred to a 28 day orbit?
Probably due to lack of fuel and that the Moon is much further away. Ask your astrophysicist friends about it and report back.
BTW - the Moon does not orbit Earth in the same plane as the geostationary ones above the Equator. Think about that.
But it still orbits the Earth. All that would be necessary is a plane transfer. You'd know that if you knew anything about orbital mechanics but it is abundantly clear you do not.
Thanks for telling me that the Moon orbits Earth.
But a plane transfer! Did Apollo 11 do one or was it already in Moon orbit from the start ... but at a much lower altitude? It must have been because NASA has never told us about a plane transfer.
Questions remain, to win my Challenge, what force was required to move from low altitude orbit to Moon orbit and how much fuel was required ... and ... how did you manage to arrive in Moon orbit when the Moon passed by?
Apollo started in an inclined orbit so their transfer orbit intersected the Moon's orbit. You'd know that if you bothered to study the subject at all.
NOBODY cares about your fraudulent challenge. Everyone knows you don't have the money anyway and the judge is incompetent.
Yes, yes ... they started inclined and transferred to intersect the Moon orbit - when the Moon was there ... but what was the force required to do it and how much fuel was used?
You've been given all of that multiple times in the past. Why should I waste my time when I know you'll deny it like you did then. Again, the judge is incompetent. No reason to think that has changed.
Re the money ... it is still there ... and I am in good shape to judge my own Challenge, loser!
Liar. You've never proven you have it, you have deliberately avoided any proof, and there is evidence you live in government housing. Give it up. Nobody believes you.
-
Re the money ... it is still there ... and I am in good shape to judge my own Challenge, loser!
Liar. You've never proven you have it, you have deliberately avoided any proof, and there is evidence you live in government housing. Give it up. Nobody believes you.
Hm, what evidence is there that I live in government housing? What government? What housing?
What shall I give up? My housing?
Why would anyone believe you? Who are you? What are you doing in life? Do you have any?
-
Re the money ... it is still there ... and I am in good shape to judge my own Challenge, loser!
Liar. You've never proven you have it, you have deliberately avoided any proof, and there is evidence you live in government housing. Give it up. Nobody believes you.
Hm, what evidence is there that I live in government housing? What government? What housing?
What shall I give up? My housing?
Why would anyone believe you? Who are you? What are you doing in life? Do you have any?
Typical Heiwa. Deflect, avoid, and accuse.
-
Re the money ... it is still there ... and I am in good shape to judge my own Challenge, loser!
Liar. You've never proven you have it, you have deliberately avoided any proof, and there is evidence you live in government housing. Give it up. Nobody believes you.
Hm, what evidence is there that I live in government housing? What government? What housing?
What shall I give up? My housing?
Why would anyone believe you? Who are you? What are you doing in life? Do you have any?
If you did not create a website that appears to have taken some effort to give simplified explanations on how things are done then just say it can not be done I would lean more to you are just a troll.
So I will answer those questions:
This evidence:
You provide an address.
Here is the building at that address:
(http://www.icfhabitat.fr/hp/sites/icfhabitat.fr.hp/files/imagecache/hp_600_400/img/8952/HP8952_00.jpg)
Just looking at the building does not instill confidence a millionaire lives there.
People needing government assistance live in that building:
http://www.icfhabitat.fr/patrimoine/residences/8952/beausoleil-06240
People needing government assistance tend not live in the same buildings as an millionaire and as you claimed before highly skilled well paid people like a doctor. I forget what the other career you claimed someone else had.
You continue to refuse to do something simple to offer evidence you can pay. I made a simple request to show you have just 1% of the prize money in cash. That amount is well below what you should have in cash if you can afford to pay someone if they win your "challenge".
You have demonstrated dishonesty here and other places.
Your challenge is set up in a suspicious manner. You being the judge and the person standing to lose money. The money is not in an escrow account. As it is set up and presented it is legally a wager and not legally binding so there is no legal recourse to take.
It is very reasonable to assume you are lying and do not have the money. When someone is telling the truth about their wealth it is rather easy to provide supporting evidence. You have refused for years.
-
It is no surprise, Woody. Cretins like Heiwa, scepti, etc are so poor, useless and unsocialized, that the only way for them to feel important is by posting bullshit on the internet...
-
Re the money ... it is still there ... and I am in good shape to judge my own Challenge, loser!
Liar. You've never proven you have it, you have deliberately avoided any proof, and there is evidence you live in government housing. Give it up. Nobody believes you.
Hm, what evidence is there that I live in government housing? What government? What housing?
What shall I give up? My housing?
Why would anyone believe you? Who are you? What are you doing in life? Do you have any?
If you did not create a website that appears to have taken some effort to give simplified explanations on how things are done then just say it can not be done I would lean more to you are just a troll.
So I will answer those questions:
This evidence:
You provide an address.
Here is the building at that address:
(http://www.icfhabitat.fr/hp/sites/icfhabitat.fr.hp/files/imagecache/hp_600_400/img/8952/HP8952_00.jpg)
Just looking at the building does not instill confidence a millionaire lives there.
People needing government assistance live in that building:
http://www.icfhabitat.fr/patrimoine/residences/8952/beausoleil-06240
People needing government assistance tend not live in the same buildings as an millionaire and as you claimed before highly skilled well paid people like a doctor. I forget what the other career you claimed someone else had.
You continue to refuse to do something simple to offer evidence you can pay. I made a simple request to show you have just 1% of the prize money in cash. That amount is well below what you should have in cash if you can afford to pay someone if they win your "challenge".
You have demonstrated dishonesty here and other places.
Your challenge is set up in a suspicious manner. You being the judge and the person standing to lose money. The money is not in an escrow account. As it is set up and presented it is legally a wager and not legally binding so there is no legal recourse to take.
It is very reasonable to assume you are lying and do not have the money. When someone is telling the truth about their wealth it is rather easy to provide supporting evidence. You have refused for years.
ROTFL! Of course I live at the 6th floor in that building since 1980 in a big apartment belonging to me. A very good investment. All 28 apartments/lots are privately owned. 10 are apparently owned by a company belonging to the SNCF. Sorry, you are sick making up all these, OT stories, which is obvious to the normal reader. Government assistance? Me? No, you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
I got involved in government sponsored lies 1994, when M/S Estonia sank due to sabotage killing ~1000 persons. The Swedish government ordered a cover-up! The visor had fallen off. Perfect ship, etc. All lies! I describe the hoax at my website http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. I just wanted to assist and improve safety at sea = my business. Not popular among some criminal politicians and civil servants. Imagine making up a story and present it as Truth!
After that it was easy to present other government sponsored lies: a-bombs 1945, human space travel 1958, top down global collapses 2001, fusion 2017. I pay anyone €1M to show that I am wrong about them. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Soon my web pages have been downloaded 2.3 million times! I like that.
-
Re the money ... it is still there ... and I am in good shape to judge my own Challenge, loser!
Liar. You've never proven you have it, you have deliberately avoided any proof, and there is evidence you live in government housing. Give it up. Nobody believes you.
Hm, what evidence is there that I live in government housing? What government? What housing?
What shall I give up? My housing?
Why would anyone believe you? Who are you? What are you doing in life? Do you have any?
If you did not create a website that appears to have taken some effort to give simplified explanations on how things are done then just say it can not be done I would lean more to you are just a troll.
So I will answer those questions:
This evidence:
You provide an address.
Here is the building at that address:
(http://www.icfhabitat.fr/hp/sites/icfhabitat.fr.hp/files/imagecache/hp_600_400/img/8952/HP8952_00.jpg)
Just looking at the building does not instill confidence a millionaire lives there.
People needing government assistance live in that building:
http://www.icfhabitat.fr/patrimoine/residences/8952/beausoleil-06240
People needing government assistance tend not live in the same buildings as an millionaire and as you claimed before highly skilled well paid people like a doctor. I forget what the other career you claimed someone else had.
You continue to refuse to do something simple to offer evidence you can pay. I made a simple request to show you have just 1% of the prize money in cash. That amount is well below what you should have in cash if you can afford to pay someone if they win your "challenge".
You have demonstrated dishonesty here and other places.
Your challenge is set up in a suspicious manner. You being the judge and the person standing to lose money. The money is not in an escrow account. As it is set up and presented it is legally a wager and not legally binding so there is no legal recourse to take.
It is very reasonable to assume you are lying and do not have the money. When someone is telling the truth about their wealth it is rather easy to provide supporting evidence. You have refused for years.
ROTFL! Of course I live at the 6th floor in that building since 1980 in a big apartment belonging to me. A very good investment. All 28 apartments/lots are privately owned. 10 are apparently owned by a company belonging to the SNCF. Sorry, you are sick making up all these, OT stories, which is obvious to the normal reader. Government assistance? Me? No, you suffer from cognitive dissonance.
I got involved in government sponsored lies 1994, when M/S Estonia sank due to sabotage killing ~1000 persons. The Swedish government ordered a cover-up! The visor had fallen off. Perfect ship, etc. All lies! I describe the hoax at my website http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. I just wanted to assist and improve safety at sea = my business. Not popular among some criminal politicians and civil servants. Imagine making up a story and present it as Truth!
After that it was easy to present other government sponsored lies: a-bombs 1945, human space travel 1958, top down global collapses 2001, fusion 2017. I pay anyone €1M to show that I am wrong about them. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Soon my web pages have been downloaded 2.3 million times! I like that.
So you are saying it is common in France for high income/wealthy people to live in the same apartment buildings as low income people requiring government assistance?
You keep just making claims with no evidence. YOu could offer evidence, like just showing you have 1% of the prize, €10k, in an account. Just 1% of your claimed wealth. Actually it should be a lot less than 1% unless you are putting everything you have up as the prize.
If €1m is your total wealth then there is more reason to assign another judge. Since you will be more motivated to rule an application a failure to avoid poverty.
If you are worth enough that paying a winner will not alter your lifestyle much living in the building you do is even more out of the the norm. Not generally a place a multimillionaire would live or even someone in the top 25-30% in income.
It seems odd I can show someone how much money I have in account yet you are incapable or unwilling to. You must admit people are willing to lie and you have demonstrated you are willing to mislead people. Remember how you are involved in the aerospace industry?
I have seen an interview talking about 9/11 where the claim is you were an structural engineer or when you failed to point out your experience was in marine engineering and not structural engineering. So at best you lied by omission not correcting people in an attempt to strengthen your position and credibility.
There is a reason why ever discussion on every site I have seen you post eventually has people calling you a liar. It is because you lie.
If you want to see the difference look at other people see how often when they discuss something with others do they get called liars? It is actually not that common for people to be continually called that every where they post. It is common for people who get caught lying and who are liars.
It would be rather simple to provide evidence to people who think you do not have the money if you have it.
-
So you are saying it is common in France for high income/wealthy people to live in the same apartment buildings as low income people requiring government assistance?
No, it is you that say or guess so. You probably guess so due to suffering from cognitive dissonance. It is easy to cure oneself from it. Just think clearly.
I happen to live in a private apartment building since 1980 with no low income neighbors requiring government assistance. The majority, incl. me, own their apartments and some rent them.
A subburb of Beausoleil, where I live, is the independent state of Monaco run by a real Prince with plenty high income people and no unemployment or taxes. It means that rents and property prices at Beausoleil are also quite high and higher than Menton, Nice and Cannes (which are other French towns in the vicinity).
To live in Beausoleil requires a good income also to pay French taxes like me. The poor people just moves away to places with lower living costs, e.g. up into the mountains, even if French social sevices are provided everywhere.
Re my income and net worth it is just to come by and discuss it.
-
Heiwa:
(http://)
-
Some more information about no-one being able to explain when they should launch and head for the moon or what trajectory they could use or where they were when they carried out the TLI burn.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
I agree this has all gone way OT, and I suggest the three Heiwa related threads should be merged into one "Heiwa's sack of crap" thread.
-
Some more information about no-one being able to explain when they should launch and head for the moon or what trajectory they could use or where they were when they carried out the TLI burn.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
I agree this has all gone way OT, and I suggest the three Heiwa related threads should be merged into one "Heiwa's sack of crap" thread.
Well, it seems my Challenge is a problem and the first problem is to establish the force (N) and fuel (kg) required to carry out the TLI.
For that you have to know your location, speed, altitude in orbit. With small altitude you need more force/fuel than with high altitude, etc, etc. There are many parameters to control for a successful TLI and you must do the TLI at exactly the right time and so on. If you apply the force in the wrong direction, you will miss the target.
So far nobody has been able to tell me how to do it and how it was done 1969 to win my €1M. Why not just copy/paste the 1969 NASA procedures? It is just rocket science!
-
If you apply the force in the wrong direction, you will miss the target.
I have a feeling that is what your caregiver tells you every time he puts you on the toilet.
-
So you are saying it is common in France for high income/wealthy people to live in the same apartment buildings as low income people requiring government assistance?
No, it is you that say or guess so. You probably guess so due to suffering from cognitive dissonance. It is easy to cure oneself from it. Just think clearly.
I happen to live in a private apartment building since 1980 with no low income neighbors requiring government assistance. The majority, incl. me, own their apartments and some rent them.
A subburb of Beausoleil, where I live, is the independent state of Monaco run by a real Prince with plenty high income people and no unemployment or taxes. It means that rents and property prices at Beausoleil are also quite high and higher than Menton, Nice and Cannes (which are other French towns in the vicinity).
To live in Beausoleil requires a good income also to pay French taxes like me. The poor people just moves away to places with lower living costs, e.g. up into the mountains, even if French social sevices are provided everywhere.
Re my income and net worth it is just to come by and discuss it.
Well you are a millionaire, your claim.
There are apartments in that building where people live that receive government assistance. You have acknowledged this before. Remember saying they are workers for some rail company if I am recalling the industry you mentioned correctly.
I assume high income people do not receive government assistance for housing in France or even in places run by a real prince.
So it is not my claim that happens it is yours.
Really easy to offer evidence. A simple screenshot. I even gave you a somewhat of an out. Only asking you to show 1% of the prize money in an account. If you can afford to pay the prize you should have more than that in an account somewhere. Even if you you are not worth 1m and just upper middle class you should have that amount in an account somewhere. Even if you are lower middle class it is not too unlikely you would have that in an account. Yet you seem unable to do such a simple thing.
If you remember I believe it was the first time I asked you to show a screenshot you made some claims about all your money is invested. Then did not seem to understand and denied that no one suggest you invest all your money. I selected the 1% because it is well below what is suggested even if you are investing aggressively. Even more so for someone past retirement age.
Again demonstrating a lack of understanding about something. That time about investing and how much of your wealth should be liquid and cash.
My guess you might receive a pension that allows you to live in relative comfort if you are not receiving government assistance. A design not being used on any ship, not creating a thriving business and only working as crew on a ship does not earn you millions.
-
So you are saying it is common in France for high income/wealthy people to live in the same apartment buildings as low income people requiring government assistance?
No, it is you that say or guess so. You probably guess so due to suffering from cognitive dissonance. It is easy to cure oneself from it. Just think clearly.
I happen to live in a private apartment building since 1980 with no low income neighbors requiring government assistance. The majority, incl. me, own their apartments and some rent them.
A subburb of Beausoleil, where I live, is the independent state of Monaco run by a real Prince with plenty high income people and no unemployment or taxes. It means that rents and property prices at Beausoleil are also quite high and higher than Menton, Nice and Cannes (which are other French towns in the vicinity).
To live in Beausoleil requires a good income also to pay French taxes like me. The poor people just moves away to places with lower living costs, e.g. up into the mountains, even if French social sevices are provided everywhere.
Re my income and net worth it is just to come by and discuss it.
A. Well you are a millionaire, your claim.
B. There are apartments in that building where people live that receive government assistance. You have acknowledged this before. Remember saying they are workers for some rail company if I am recalling the industry you mentioned correctly.
C. I assume high income people do not receive government assistance for housing in France or even in places run by a real prince.
D. So it is not my claim that happens it is yours.
E. Really easy to offer evidence. A simple screenshot. I even gave you a somewhat of an out. Only asking you to show 1% of the prize money in an account. If you can afford to pay the prize you should have more than that in an account somewhere. Even if you you are not worth 1m and just upper middle class you should have that amount in an account somewhere. Even if you are lower middle class it is not too unlikely you would have that in an account. Yet you seem unable to do such a simple thing.
F. If you remember I believe it was the first time I asked you to show a screenshot you made some claims about all your money is invested. Then did not seem to understand and denied that no one suggest you invest all your money. I selected the 1% because it is well below what is suggested even if you are investing aggressively. Even more so for someone past retirement age.
G. Again demonstrating a lack of understanding about something. That time about investing and how much of your wealth should be liquid and cash.
H. My guess you might receive a pension that allows you to live in relative comfort if you are not receiving government assistance. A design not being used on any ship, not creating a thriving business and only working as crew on a ship does not earn you millions.
A. Yes!
B. No!
C. Yes!
D. ?
E. Yes!
F. No!
G. No!
H. Well, it is your guess. Miles OT
You appear to suffer from cognitive dissonance and to live in a fantasy world full of dreams, guesses, wishes and assumptions. Why can't you make an on-topic post about nuclear weapons?
-
Imagine making up a story and present it as Truth!
Yeah, why do you keep doing that?
Soon my web pages have been downloaded 2.3 million times! I like that.
Bots will give you a lot of hits when you spam your website everywhere. That's why you do it. That number of hits is actually pretty low for how long your site has been up. And it says nothing about how long they stay on your site. Or whether they are there to point and laugh.
-
Re my income and net worth it is just to come by and discuss it.
translation: I'm avoiding proving it AGAIN because I can't.
-
Imagine making up a story and present it as Truth!
Yeah, why do you keep doing that?
Soon my web pages have been downloaded 2.3 million times! I like that.
Bots will give you a lot of hits when you spam your website everywhere. That's why you do it. That number of hits is actually pretty low for how long your site has been up. And it says nothing about how long they stay on your site. Or whether they are there to point and laugh.
Why can't you make an on-topic post about nuclear weapons?
-
Re my income and net worth it is just to come by and discuss it.
translation: I'm avoiding proving it AGAIN because I can't.
Why can't you make an on-topic post about nuclear weapons?
-
Imagine making up a story and present it as Truth!
Yeah, why do you keep doing that?
Soon my web pages have been downloaded 2.3 million times! I like that.
Bots will give you a lot of hits when you spam your website everywhere. That's why you do it. That number of hits is actually pretty low for how long your site has been up. And it says nothing about how long they stay on your site. Or whether they are there to point and laugh.
Why can't you make an on-topic post about nuclear weapons?
Topics change. Get over it. The topic here changed long ago to your lies and hypocrisy.
-
Re my income and net worth it is just to come by and discuss it.
translation: I'm avoiding proving it AGAIN because I can't.
Why can't you make an on-topic post about nuclear weapons?
See previous post. That is no longer the topic. Get over it.
-
My guess you might receive a pension that allows you to live in relative comfort if you are not receiving government assistance. A design not being used on any ship, not creating a thriving business and only working as crew on a ship does not earn you millions.
Why guess? My CV is public - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Having worked 45 years ashore (never as crew on a ship) I am rich and semi-retired and get various pensions + income from investments, etc. No government assistance. No, actually I assist the government by paying plenty taxes. What a nice, honest person I am. My pleasure is to offer anyone €1M to tell me how to set off an a-bomb and another €1M how to travel to the Moon. There are no takers!
I know that a-bombs do not function except to scare stupid people and that is impossible for humans to travel to the Moon and that only stupid people believe otherwise.
I don't like that people scare other people with nuclear weapons but to fool silly idiots with space travel is a great joke. Doesn't hurt anyone, though. It is so easy to fool idiots to believe anything.
-
Some more information about no-one being able to explain when they should launch and head for the moon or what trajectory they could use or where they were when they carried out the TLI burn.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
I agree this has all gone way OT, and I suggest the three Heiwa related threads should be merged into one "Heiwa's sack of crap" thread.
Well, it seems my Challenge is a problem and the first problem is to establish the force (N) and fuel (kg) required to carry out the TLI.
For that you have to know your location, speed, altitude in orbit. With small altitude you need more force/fuel than with high altitude, etc, etc. There are many parameters to control for a successful TLI and you must do the TLI at exactly the right time and so on. If you apply the force in the wrong direction, you will miss the target.
So far nobody has been able to tell me how to do it and how it was done 1969 to win my €1M. Why not just copy/paste the 1969 NASA procedures? It is just rocket science!
Ok that's a straight up lie. I did exactly that. I posted the link to all of that information and you simply ignored it. You didn't even attempt to refute it. Your challenge is a fake because you set yourself up as the judge. You have demonstrated you lack the qualifications to be so. Where did you get your doctorate in physics again? Or your masters, or degree?
-
What a nice, honest person I am.
More lies from Heiwa. You repeatedly spew insults and tell lies.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/FkaTwVr.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/UjrHWxy.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/FkaTwVr.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/UjrHWxy.jpg)
Best post of the day!!
The original was probably dress-up day at his group home.
-
Some more information about no-one being able to explain when they should launch and head for the moon or what trajectory they could use or where they were when they carried out the TLI burn.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
I agree this has all gone way OT, and I suggest the three Heiwa related threads should be merged into one "Heiwa's sack of crap" thread.
Well, it seems my Challenge is a problem and the first problem is to establish the force (N) and fuel (kg) required to carry out the TLI.
For that you have to know your location, speed, altitude in orbit. With small altitude you need more force/fuel than with high altitude, etc, etc. There are many parameters to control for a successful TLI and you must do the TLI at exactly the right time and so on. If you apply the force in the wrong direction, you will miss the target.
So far nobody has been able to tell me how to do it and how it was done 1969 to win my €1M. Why not just copy/paste the 1969 NASA procedures? It is just rocket science!
Ok that's a straight up lie. I did exactly that. I posted the link to all of that information and you simply ignored it. You didn't even attempt to refute it. Your challenge is a fake because you set yourself up as the judge. You have demonstrated you lack the qualifications to be so. Where did you get your doctorate in physics again? Or your masters, or degree?
Sorry, posting links do not win my Challenge. I just want to know what force (N) you apply to your spacecraft to go to the Moon and fuel (kg) used. Read the rules! And you post a link! But no link tells me what I ask.
Yes I am the judge of my Challenge. I don't need a doctorate for it. If you do not want to participate - forget it. Do not moan and groan all the time.
My Challenge is supposed to be fun. I have asked plenty doctors of physics and rocket sciences to have a go! Result? 0! Isn't it funny? I think it is hilarious. Swedish universities pay people to teach human space travel and when I ask them what force (N) you apply to your spacecraft to go to the Moon and fuel (kg) used they haven't got a clue. And they are doctors of rocket science.
-
What a nice, honest person I am.
More lies from Heiwa. You repeatedly spew insults and tell lies.
Hm, I just call a spade a spade and never lie at my web site http://heiwaco.com .
-
(http://i.imgur.com/FkaTwVr.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/UjrHWxy.jpg)
Best post of the day!!
The original was probably dress-up day at his group home.
It also explains why his calculations are always off. Only four fingers per hand.
-
What a nice, honest person I am.
More lies from Heiwa. You repeatedly spew insults and tell lies.
Hm, I just call a spade a spade and never lie at my web site http://heiwaco.com .
You called yourself nice. That is a lie. And of course you spam your site again. Gotta get those bot hits to boost your ego, right?
-
I'm an Engineer . . .
EVERYTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE !!!
(http://i.imgur.com/UjrHWxy.jpg)
-
I have asked plenty doctors of physics and rocket sciences to have a go! Result? 0!
Try a Doctor of Psychology. You may get the support you need.
-
What a nice, honest person I am.
More lies from Heiwa. You repeatedly spew insults and tell lies.
Hm, I just call a spade a spade and never lie at my web site http://heiwaco.com .
You called yourself nice. That is a lie. And of course you spam your site again. Gotta get those bot hits to boost your ego, right?
Well, I am nice (rich and good looking) and answers to all your questions about me you find at http://heiwaco.com . Plenty sick, poor idiots get upset about it, but it is their fault.
-
What a nice, honest person I am.
More lies from Heiwa. You repeatedly spew insults and tell lies.
Hm, I just call a spade a spade and never lie at my web site http://heiwaco.com .
You called yourself nice. That is a lie. And of course you spam your site again. Gotta get those bot hits to boost your ego, right?
Well, I am nice (rich and good looking) and answers to all your questions about me you find at http://heiwaco.com . Plenty sick, poor idiots get upset about it, but it is their fault.
The bold parts contradict each other which makes the first statement a LIE. More lies from Heiwa.
-
My guess you might receive a pension that allows you to live in relative comfort if you are not receiving government assistance. A design not being used on any ship, not creating a thriving business and only working as crew on a ship does not earn you millions.
Why guess? My CV is public - http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . Having worked 45 years ashore (never as crew on a ship) I am rich and semi-retired and get various pensions + income from investments, etc. No government assistance. No, actually I assist the government by paying plenty taxes. What a nice, honest person I am. My pleasure is to offer anyone €1M to tell me how to set off an a-bomb and another €1M how to travel to the Moon. There are no takers!
I know that a-bombs do not function except to scare stupid people and that is impossible for humans to travel to the Moon and that only stupid people believe otherwise.
I don't like that people scare other people with nuclear weapons but to fool silly idiots with space travel is a great joke. Doesn't hurt anyone, though. It is so easy to fool idiots to believe anything.
You need to start tracking your lies better.
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
The Estonia sank 22 years ago. So not quite 45 years.
So in the last couple of pages we have more lies to add to the list.
You deny acknowledging the people receiving assistance worked for some rail company. When you did. You did not claim no one receiving government assistance lived in the building.
Now you either lied about your experiment to prove the sea could not damaged the visor and ramp on the Estonia or the last time you worked on a ship's crew.
If you would stop lying people would stop calling you a liar. That or get better at keeping track and put more thought into your lies so they do not have holes in them.
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
-
Some more information about no-one being able to explain when they should launch and head for the moon or what trajectory they could use or where they were when they carried out the TLI burn.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
I agree this has all gone way OT, and I suggest the three Heiwa related threads should be merged into one "Heiwa's sack of crap" thread.
Well, it seems my Challenge is a problem and the first problem is to establish the force (N) and fuel (kg) required to carry out the TLI.
For that you have to know your location, speed, altitude in orbit. With small altitude you need more force/fuel than with high altitude, etc, etc. There are many parameters to control for a successful TLI and you must do the TLI at exactly the right time and so on. If you apply the force in the wrong direction, you will miss the target.
So far nobody has been able to tell me how to do it and how it was done 1969 to win my €1M. Why not just copy/paste the 1969 NASA procedures? It is just rocket science!
Ok that's a straight up lie. I did exactly that. I posted the link to all of that information and you simply ignored it. You didn't even attempt to refute it. Your challenge is a fake because you set yourself up as the judge. You have demonstrated you lack the qualifications to be so. Where did you get your doctorate in physics again? Or your masters, or degree?
Sorry, posting links do not win my Challenge. I just want to know what force (N) you apply to your spacecraft to go to the Moon and fuel (kg) used. Read the rules! And you post a link! But no link tells me what I ask.
Yes I am the judge of my Challenge. I don't need a doctorate for it. If you do not want to participate - forget it. Do not moan and groan all the time.
My Challenge is supposed to be fun. I have asked plenty doctors of physics and rocket sciences to have a go! Result? 0! Isn't it funny? I think it is hilarious. Swedish universities pay people to teach human space travel and when I ask them what force (N) you apply to your spacecraft to go to the Moon and fuel (kg) used they haven't got a clue. And they are doctors of rocket science.
For, like the fifth time, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. It was a discussion. And you lied again here when you claimed no one can show you those bits of information, you have been shown, multiple times. When you know you are proven wrong in a discussion you simply say the format doesn't win your challenge, even though nobody was trying to win it or participate in it at all. This forum isn't about your fake challenge. Ok, no doctorate, how about a master's? Or even a degree in physics. Without those your challenge is, in fact fake.
-
Some more information about no-one being able to explain when they should launch and head for the moon or what trajectory they could use or where they were when they carried out the TLI burn.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
I agree this has all gone way OT, and I suggest the three Heiwa related threads should be merged into one "Heiwa's sack of crap" thread.
Well, it seems my Challenge is a problem and the first problem is to establish the force (N) and fuel (kg) required to carry out the TLI.
For that you have to know your location, speed, altitude in orbit. With small altitude you need more force/fuel than with high altitude, etc, etc. There are many parameters to control for a successful TLI and you must do the TLI at exactly the right time and so on. If you apply the force in the wrong direction, you will miss the target.
So far nobody has been able to tell me how to do it and how it was done 1969 to win my €1M. Why not just copy/paste the 1969 NASA procedures? It is just rocket science!
Ok that's a straight up lie. I did exactly that. I posted the link to all of that information and you simply ignored it. You didn't even attempt to refute it. Your challenge is a fake because you set yourself up as the judge. You have demonstrated you lack the qualifications to be so. Where did you get your doctorate in physics again? Or your masters, or degree?
Sorry, posting links do not win my Challenge. I just want to know what force (N) you apply to your spacecraft to go to the Moon and fuel (kg) used. Read the rules! And you post a link! But no link tells me what I ask.
Yes I am the judge of my Challenge. I don't need a doctorate for it. If you do not want to participate - forget it. Do not moan and groan all the time.
My Challenge is supposed to be fun. I have asked plenty doctors of physics and rocket sciences to have a go! Result? 0! Isn't it funny? I think it is hilarious. Swedish universities pay people to teach human space travel and when I ask them what force (N) you apply to your spacecraft to go to the Moon and fuel (kg) used they haven't got a clue. And they are doctors of rocket science.
For, like the fifth time, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. It was a discussion. And you lied again here when you claimed no one can show you those bits of information, you have been shown, multiple times. When you know you are proven wrong in a discussion you simply say the format doesn't win your challenge, even though nobody was trying to win it or participate in it at all. This forum isn't about your fake challenge. Ok, no doctorate, how about a master's? Or even a degree in physics. Without those your challenge is, in fact fake.
Hm, it is a fact that nobody has won my Challenge! Why should I lie about it? Nobody has been able to calculate the force required to leave Earth orbit (and fuel used) to be catapulted to the Moon to arrive a couple of days later. I have been told to do it myself using info at various links but it doesn't work. The links are pseudoscience. Like everything about human space travel.
Of course I am qualified to judge my own Challenge. I used to design ship structures, which is much more complicated than astrophysics. The static and dynamic loadings on a ship structure in the interface water/air in an ocean are quite complex and to find the stresses in the structure is even more complicated.
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
-
Many persons wonder what I look like. This is when I am in my Japanese mood! Shinto!
(https://scontent-fra3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/15747616_409980766007531_4393108183080571395_n.jpg?oh=106eba24b82a52c881f73ea930806793&oe=59229BC9)
After picture was taken we all dived into the Mediterranean sea behind. It happened a couple of hours ago.
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
No, the test was regular and recorded in the log book and so on. You know that you have to test your ship at regular intervals and full storm/2 am morning is a good time. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Why not post a photo of yourself, so we know that you exist?
-
Do you often think the person you are talking to isn't real?
-
Of course I am qualified to judge my own Challenge. I used to design ship structures, which is much more complicated than astrophysics.
Let us see, the one thing (designing ship structures) you claim to understand and I am in no way able to determine the truth of that as I have absolutely no idea about ships, the other (astrophysics) I am quite familiar with and you have proven on several occasions that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (you do not even understand the basic principles of orbital mechanics).
So let us leave astrophysics to astrophysicists and designing ships to engineers, deal?
-
Some more information about no-one being able to explain when they should launch and head for the moon or what trajectory they could use or where they were when they carried out the TLI burn.
http://history.nasa.gov/afj/launchwindow/lw1.html
I agree this has all gone way OT, and I suggest the three Heiwa related threads should be merged into one "Heiwa's sack of crap" thread.
Well, it seems my Challenge is a problem and the first problem is to establish the force (N) and fuel (kg) required to carry out the TLI.
For that you have to know your location, speed, altitude in orbit. With small altitude you need more force/fuel than with high altitude, etc, etc. There are many parameters to control for a successful TLI and you must do the TLI at exactly the right time and so on. If you apply the force in the wrong direction, you will miss the target.
So far nobody has been able to tell me how to do it and how it was done 1969 to win my €1M. Why not just copy/paste the 1969 NASA procedures? It is just rocket science!
Ok that's a straight up lie. I did exactly that. I posted the link to all of that information and you simply ignored it. You didn't even attempt to refute it. Your challenge is a fake because you set yourself up as the judge. You have demonstrated you lack the qualifications to be so. Where did you get your doctorate in physics again? Or your masters, or degree?
Sorry, posting links do not win my Challenge. I just want to know what force (N) you apply to your spacecraft to go to the Moon and fuel (kg) used. Read the rules! And you post a link! But no link tells me what I ask.
Yes I am the judge of my Challenge. I don't need a doctorate for it. If you do not want to participate - forget it. Do not moan and groan all the time.
My Challenge is supposed to be fun. I have asked plenty doctors of physics and rocket sciences to have a go! Result? 0! Isn't it funny? I think it is hilarious. Swedish universities pay people to teach human space travel and when I ask them what force (N) you apply to your spacecraft to go to the Moon and fuel (kg) used they haven't got a clue. And they are doctors of rocket science.
For, like the fifth time, I wasn't trying to win your fake challenge. It was a discussion. And you lied again here when you claimed no one can show you those bits of information, you have been shown, multiple times. When you know you are proven wrong in a discussion you simply say the format doesn't win your challenge, even though nobody was trying to win it or participate in it at all. This forum isn't about your fake challenge. Ok, no doctorate, how about a master's? Or even a degree in physics. Without those your challenge is, in fact fake.
Hm, it is a fact that nobody has won my Challenge! Why should I lie about it? Nobody has been able to calculate the force required to leave Earth orbit (and fuel used) to be catapulted to the Moon to arrive a couple of days later. I have been told to do it myself using info at various links but it doesn't work. The links are pseudoscience. Like everything about human space travel.
Of course I am qualified to judge my own Challenge. I used to design ship structures, which is much more complicated than astrophysics. The static and dynamic loadings on a ship structure in the interface water/air in an ocean are quite complex and to find the stresses in the structure is even more complicated.
Why do you keep talking about your challenge? Why do you ignore the fact that I have told you multiple times we are not interested in your fake challenge? Nobody is. Why do you lie about no one being able to calculate these things? It has been shown to you numerous times. I have posted links that show you this information but you run away and say it doesn't meet the rules of your fake challenge. Please try to get it through your head NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOUR FAKE CHALLENGE.
Now that that is out of the way, are you able to have any sort of discussion without referring back to your challenge?
Why do you ignore the information given to you? You just whine that it doesn't fit the rules of your challenge and run away from it.
I do have to say though, that the line about design parts of ships being more complicated than astrophysics was pretty hilarious and certainly proves you are unqualified.
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
No, the test was regular and recorded in the log book and so on. You know that you have to test your ship at regular intervals and full storm/2 am morning is a good time. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Why not post a photo of yourself, so we know that you exist?
This is interesting, since you previously stated that you don't actually have any experience on board an actual ship. Which time were you lying?
-
Do you often think the person you are talking to isn't real?
Sometimes I wonder if they are mentally retarded.
-
Of course I am qualified to judge my own Challenge. I used to design ship structures, which is much more complicated than astrophysics.
Let us see, the one thing (designing ship structures) you claim to understand and I am in no way able to determine the truth of that as I have absolutely no idea about ships, the other (astrophysics) I am quite familiar with and you have proven on several occasions that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about (you do not even understand the basic principles of orbital mechanics).
So let us leave astrophysics to astrophysicists and designing ships to engineers, deal?
I am quite proud of http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm and http://heiwaco.com/ce_structure.htm . What do you think? Am I not an engineer?
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
No, the test was regular and recorded in the log book and so on. You know that you have to test your ship at regular intervals and full storm/2 am morning is a good time. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Why not post a photo of yourself, so we know that you exist?
This is interesting, since you previously stated that you don't actually have any experience on board an actual ship. Which time were you lying?
Did I? Sorry, you just invent lies again about me!
-
My name is Heiwa . . .
I BEAT OFF WITH THIS HAND !!!
(http://i.imgur.com/UjrHWxy.jpg)
-
So. who's going to get themselves a copy of this:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lunar-Landing-Donald-Lundy/dp/1425941974/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1483294024&sr=8-8&keywords=lunar+landing
-
Some more light reading, from 2008
http://oapt.ca/conference/2008/contributed_papers/john_berrigan_trip_to_mars.ppt
-
Of course I am qualified to judge my own Challenge. I used to design ship structures, which is much more complicated than astrophysics.
Have you actually studied astrophysics or aerospace engineering, or are you just assuming that structural engineering is the most complicated part of space flight?
-
Some more light reading, from 2008
http://oapt.ca/conference/2008/contributed_papers/john_berrigan_trip_to_mars.ppt
OK 2008! Why not? But NASA went to and landed on Mars 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#N in a different way. Both are fantasies, of course.
-
Some more light reading, from 2008
http://oapt.ca/conference/2008/contributed_papers/john_berrigan_trip_to_mars.ppt
OK 2008! Why not? But NASA went to and landed on Mars 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#N in a different way. Both are fantasies, of course.
Mars been visited many times by spacecraft, from many different countries. The method of landing may differ, and may not always work, but getting there has been achieved in the same way repeatedly.
Maybe you could explain where the person who did the presentation has gone wrong.
Perhaps you could buy the book I linked to, and explain why it is also incorrect.
Or maybe you could carry on being ignorant.
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
No, the test was regular and recorded in the log book and so on. You know that you have to test your ship at regular intervals and full storm/2 am morning is a good time. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Why not post a photo of yourself, so we know that you exist?
So it was a regular test in hurricane conditions where you, the owner and captain agreed that risking ship and passengers was acceptable and a good idea? In the most severe conditions the focus should be on reducing stress on the ship. Which a good method is slowing down.
If I do not exist who do you think is typing these post? You thinking I am in the conspiracy?
I am just someone who is capable of reading, reasoning, and remembering what you posted. Which allows me to see the inconsistencies and stuff that does not make sense in stuff you claim.
Like a captain agreeing to see if you could cause a structural failure to the visor and ramp on his ship that is carrying passengers in B12 conditions. In those conditions I would think especially for a RO/RO ferry the priority would avoid these conditions and not see if the ramp and visor could handle them while carrying passengers.
Maybe I should report this event to the EMSA. I am pretty sure they would agree that it is unacceptable to do test in those conditions with passengers aboard.
I am not going to of course, since I highly doubt you were allowed to do your test in the conditions you claimed you did. I will guess again. You likely had no authority to order a ship to speed up in rough conditions. Your test was just being on board a ship that was in rough conditions. The only part I believe is the ship slowed down due to the conditions, but that order was not given by you.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/FkaTwVr.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/UjrHWxy.jpg)
Best post of the day!!
The original was probably dress-up day at his group home.
What should Heiwa try next? Perhaps something that will prove he is rich, like this lovely Japanese robe:
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
No, the test was regular and recorded in the log book and so on. You know that you have to test your ship at regular intervals and full storm/2 am morning is a good time. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Why not post a photo of yourself, so we know that you exist?
This is interesting, since you previously stated that you don't actually have any experience on board an actual ship. Which time were you lying?
Did I? Sorry, you just invent lies again about me!
perhaps I misread it
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
No, the test was regular and recorded in the log book and so on. You know that you have to test your ship at regular intervals and full storm/2 am morning is a good time. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Why not post a photo of yourself, so we know that you exist?
This is interesting, since you previously stated that you don't actually have any experience on board an actual ship. Which time were you lying?
Did I? Sorry, you just invent lies again about me!
perhaps I misread it
He claimed previously he did his test while on duty on the bridge. If I am remembering it correctly. He said something like he was on duty on the bridge and the weather was rough and he gave the order to increase speed to see what would happen.
Now it seems the owner hired him to conduct the test in hurricane conditions with passengers on board. Conditions that any reasonable and competent captain would try to avoid. Particularly a captain of a RO/RO ferry with passengers aboard. As ships go RO/RO ferries are not considered the most seaworthy vessels. Especially when the ramp and visor are located in the bow. That is looking at them relative to other ships and not claiming they are not seaworthy just they have a weak point.
There is was an incident where the visor or ramp, can not remember which, fell off while the ship was in port. It was not the conditions in the port that caused it, but the weakening of the structure from normal operations.
Yet according to the esteemed engineer Anders it is impossible for a ramp and visor to fall off in rough conditions.
The Captain did not give the order to slow down to reduce the loads on the visor and ramp.
The crew reported something was wrong they just did not know what it was at the time since the indicator lights said the visor and ramp where closed. A flaw in the design, since those lights would indicate no problem if the visor and ramp structure failed. If I am correct I believe it was a pretty simple switch. When the ramps and visor clamps were in place the lights would indicate no problem. If the structure failed except for the clamps it would register as still closed and sealed.
The crew did not do a visual check into it was way too late to do anything. Since if a visor and ramp fail and water gets in to the car deck the ship begins to list very, very quickly and sinking follows somewhat quickly after that.
-
Some more light reading, from 2008
http://oapt.ca/conference/2008/contributed_papers/john_berrigan_trip_to_mars.ppt
OK 2008! Why not? But NASA went to and landed on Mars 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#N in a different way. Both are fantasies, of course.
Mars been visited many times by spacecraft, from many different countries. The method of landing may differ, and may not always work, but getting there has been achieved in the same way repeatedly.
Maybe you could explain where the person who did the presentation has gone wrong.
Everything he says is pseudoscientific nonsense! Ever heard of Trofim Lyssenko? Same type!
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
No, the test was regular and recorded in the log book and so on. You know that you have to test your ship at regular intervals and full storm/2 am morning is a good time. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Why not post a photo of yourself, so we know that you exist?
So it was a regular test in hurricane conditions where you, the owner and captain agreed that risking ship and passengers was acceptable and a good idea? In the most severe conditions the focus should be on reducing stress on the ship. Which a good method is slowing down.
If I do not exist who do you think is typing these post? You thinking I am in the conspiracy?
I am just someone who is capable of reading, reasoning, and remembering what you posted. Which allows me to see the inconsistencies and stuff that does not make sense in stuff you claim.
Like a captain agreeing to see if you could cause a structural failure to the visor and ramp on his ship that is carrying passengers in B12 conditions. In those conditions I would think especially for a RO/RO ferry the priority would avoid these conditions and not see if the ramp and visor could handle them while carrying passengers.
Maybe I should report this event to the EMSA. I am pretty sure they would agree that it is unacceptable to do test in those conditions with passengers aboard.
I am not going to of course, since I highly doubt you were allowed to do your test in the conditions you claimed you did. I will guess again. You likely had no authority to order a ship to speed up in rough conditions. Your test was just being on board a ship that was in rough conditions. The only part I believe is the ship slowed down due to the conditions, but that order was not given by you.
No, it wasn't a regular test. B12 + 40 m/s wind + 6 m hig waves are unusual at sea, so when it happens you take the opportunity to check.
The Swedish government, several universties and maritime experts had since 1994 (when M/S Estonia sank) maintained that wave impacts on ships bows in severe weather cannot be heard and felt by the crew, which just sail on at full speed, etc, etc. I had since that time suggested the opposite and proposed to them, many times, to test themselves.
The only result was that a government expert announced that I was :
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Imagine that! My mother really got upset! I have already reported everything to EMSA at Lisbon. They never reply to any enquiries or suggestions. So don't worry and don't try to be smart.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/FkaTwVr.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/UjrHWxy.jpg)
Best post of the day!!
The original was probably dress-up day at his group home.
What should Heiwa try next? Perhaps something that will prove he is rich, like this lovely Japanese robe:
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
Yes, the best after a hard day's work is a hot and cold bath and dressing up in a yukata drinking a cold beer.
-
...a government expert announced that I was :
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I agree with the expert.
-
...a government expert announced that I was :
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I agree with the expert.
Well, after having made this statement about me the government expert/civil servant resigned from his post - he had forgotten to file a letter he said - and was given a job to file letters at a ministry. But soon after he was given a job as a senior judge at a legal high court (hovrätt) at Stockholm, Sweden. As he had no experience as a judge, the criminals had a fantastic times! Well known drug traders/sellers were declared innocent and liberated, etc, etc.
-
Remember when you were on duty you had the ship you were crewing on increase speed in an attempt to prove the Estonia could not have sunk how we are told.. I remember that because it stood out as displaying the type of person you are. Risking ship and crew to try to prove you were right. Similar how you wanted a nuclear weapon detonated near your home. No thought for your real prince and what he would think about that.
Of course I remember the bow visor test! It was B12 - 40 m/s wind, 6 m waves in the Golfe de Lion (Mediterranean Sea) and we had slowed down to 7 knots at 2 am. To confirm that there are impacts against the bow, if you speed up, I (the onwer's representative) ordered speed 9 knots and the result was a big noisy, shaky impact waking everybody aboard. The second test was with me inside the bow visor to verify that there were no structural damages. The impact occurred - probably 140 dB inside the visor - but no structural damages. Then all 700 persons aboard was awoken so we slowed down again ... to arrive at Tanger 24 hrs delayed. An interesting test! Visors do not fall off ships in severe weather without anybody noticing as suggested by the Swedish government and their corrupt experts. The impacts are too noisy
Re a-bombs (topic) it is correct I would like to see one exploding at a test! I think it is not possible and that all 'tests' done in the past were just propaganda. The photos of the tests do not look real! Dirty mushroom clouds! ROTFL
LOL
So you test stuff with full crew and passengers? Something seems off with that. Especially a test involving something as important as a visor and ramp. You must know if they fail the ship will begin the list very, very quickly.
Seems you have very little concern about other people's safety. I am willing to bet most countries have laws or regulations that cover running test on a ships seaworthiness and they involve not having passengers and maybe limited crew in most .
Your last story about this "test" had you on watch and you gave the order to speed up to see how loud the impacts on the bow were. You did not claim you were testing the boat for the owner.
You lie. My guess you not only lie to others, but yourself.
If you are not lying about this then you should report the ship owner and let the authorities know they conduct these types of test with passengers aboard. Since by your claim your priority is safety at sea.
No, the test was regular and recorded in the log book and so on. You know that you have to test your ship at regular intervals and full storm/2 am morning is a good time. You don't know what you are talking about as usual. Why not post a photo of yourself, so we know that you exist?
So it was a regular test in hurricane conditions where you, the owner and captain agreed that risking ship and passengers was acceptable and a good idea? In the most severe conditions the focus should be on reducing stress on the ship. Which a good method is slowing down.
If I do not exist who do you think is typing these post? You thinking I am in the conspiracy?
I am just someone who is capable of reading, reasoning, and remembering what you posted. Which allows me to see the inconsistencies and stuff that does not make sense in stuff you claim.
Like a captain agreeing to see if you could cause a structural failure to the visor and ramp on his ship that is carrying passengers in B12 conditions. In those conditions I would think especially for a RO/RO ferry the priority would avoid these conditions and not see if the ramp and visor could handle them while carrying passengers.
Maybe I should report this event to the EMSA. I am pretty sure they would agree that it is unacceptable to do test in those conditions with passengers aboard.
I am not going to of course, since I highly doubt you were allowed to do your test in the conditions you claimed you did. I will guess again. You likely had no authority to order a ship to speed up in rough conditions. Your test was just being on board a ship that was in rough conditions. The only part I believe is the ship slowed down due to the conditions, but that order was not given by you.
No, it wasn't a regular test. B12 + 40 m/s wind + 6 m hig waves are unusual at sea, so when it happens you take the opportunity to check.
The Swedish government, several universties and maritime experts had since 1994 (when M/S Estonia sank) maintained that wave impacts on ships bows in severe weather cannot be heard and felt by the crew, which just sail on at full speed, etc, etc. I had since that time suggested the opposite and proposed to them, many times, to test themselves.
The only result was that a government expert announced that I was :
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Imagine that! My mother really got upset! I have already reported everything to EMSA at Lisbon. They never reply to any enquiries or suggestions. So don't worry and don't try to be smart.
yeah, the expert pretty much summed up my experience with you. So where did you say you got your degree in physics from?
-
He has a mental disorder where he thinks he has elite knowledge of events which others do not have.
-
Everything he says is pseudoscientific nonsense! Ever heard of Trofim Lyssenko? Same type!
Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger? Case in point.
-
Everything he says is pseudoscientific nonsense! Ever heard of Trofim Lyssenko? Same type!
Ever heard of Dunning-Kruger? Case in point.
Yes of course. Many people mistakenly believe in, e.g. that a-bombs work (topic) 1945 or that they can travel in space to the Moon or Mars or that Arabs landed in the WTC towers 2001 or that the visor of a ferry just fell off and nobody heard or felt it 1994. Dunning-Kruger around 1999 attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their mistakes and evaluate their incompetence accurately.
Of course these sick people believe in the fairy tales invented by various governments to scare them or to impress them or to simply hide the truth from them. The sick people just believe anything due to being stupid. They lack critical thinking.
I just try to cure these poors sods by telling them how things really work here at FES forum and at my popular website.
-
I just try to cure these poors sods by telling them how things really work here at FES forum and at my popular website.
This quote is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority.
-
I just try to cure these poors sods by telling them how things really work here at FES forum and at my popular website.
This quote is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority.
Yes, this is what I say. Many low-ability (read stupid) people here believe in a-bombs, because it makes them feel superior and then they get upset and obnoxious, when I explain to them that a-bombs are just government propaganda to scare them and doesn't work at all in the real world.
I even pay €1M to anyone proving me wrong.
-
So it shows sound judgment and mind to conduct a test in a hurricane with passengers on board instead of heading to port or avoiding the storm? If that could not be done then to take one of the most basic safety measures and slow down?
Dude. Give it up. You lied. If you did not you, the captain and owner of the ship really should be reported for endangering lives to conduct your test.
As stated before one of the first things done is to slow down when conditions get rough and certainly when the beaufort scale is 12. At that point the priority is not testing the ship and increasing speed. It is the safety of the crew and ship and trying to get through it with as little damage as possible.
Seeing how you are Sea safety expert you must know this. It is times like these I think you are just trolling. The other possibility is you are so invested in your beliefs now your ego will not let you admit you could be wrong. It also drives your behavior of lying and I think in this case stretching the truth. You where not conducting your test in an hurricane and the captain did not allow you to increase the ships speed to see if you could damage the ramp and visor while passengers where on board.
-
I just try to cure these poors sods by telling them how things really work here at FES forum and at my popular website.
This quote is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority.
Yes, this is what I say. Many low-ability (read stupid) people here believe in a-bombs, because it makes them feel superior and then they get upset and obnoxious, when I explain to them that a-bombs are just government propaganda to scare them and doesn't work at all in the real world.
I even pay €1M to anyone proving me wrong.
Besides suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect, you are also extraordinarily obtuse.
-
So it shows sound judgment and mind to conduct a test in a hurricane with passengers on board instead of heading to port or avoiding the storm? If that could not be done then to take one of the most basic safety measures and slow down?
Dude. Give it up. You lied. If you did not you, the captain and owner of the ship really should be reported for endangering lives to conduct your test.
As stated before one of the first things done is to slow down when conditions get rough and certainly when the beaufort scale is 12. At that point the priority is not testing the ship and increasing speed. It is the safety of the crew and ship and trying to get through it with as little damage as possible.
Seeing how you are Sea safety expert you must know this. It is times like these I think you are just trolling. The other possibility is you are so invested in your beliefs now your ego will not let you admit you could be wrong. It also drives your behavior of lying and I think in this case stretching the truth. You where not conducting your test in an hurricane and the captain did not allow you to increase the ships speed to see if you could damage the ramp and visor while passengers where on board.
Well, I just tell you what happened. We left Genoa for Tanger and the weather was good. And suddenly this storm broke out. The worst we had ever seen. So we had to slow down and change course. It was impossible to proceed at normal speed. It was a perfect opportunity to experience a bow impact. Bow impacts do not rip off visors. The very short term impact is due to air being suddenly compressed between the sea wave and ship surfaces. The compressed air is then released in a big splash and bang. The high pressure also elastically deforms the shell plate and stiffeners, which is felt as vibrations in the ship. It happens all the time in severe weather and you slow down to avoid it.
A wave impact has nothing to do with a freak wave, which is something completely different.
-
I just try to cure these poors sods by telling them how things really work here at FES forum and at my popular website.
This quote is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority.
Yes, this is what I say. Many low-ability (read stupid) people here believe in a-bombs, because it makes them feel superior and then they get upset and obnoxious, when I explain to them that a-bombs are just government propaganda to scare them and doesn't work at all in the real world.
I even pay €1M to anyone proving me wrong.
Besides suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect, you are also extraordinarily obtuse.
Sorry, I am in good health. Why do you call me extraordinarily obtuse (slow/stupid)? Can't you accept being fooled by your government? I know it is hard. Followers of mine got so upset after the M/S Estonia incident 1994 (the government lying them straight in their faces making up a false story and, also, making their lives a misery, if they didn't shut up) that they sold everything they had and emigrated to Canada and Australia.
Try to show that I am wrong using real arguments. Being obnoxious doesn't help you.
-
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
I just try to cure these poors sods by telling them how things really work here at FES forum and at my popular website.
This quote is an example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority.
Yes, this is what I say. Many low-ability (read stupid) people here believe in a-bombs, because it makes them feel superior and then they get upset and obnoxious, when I explain to them that a-bombs are just government propaganda to scare them and doesn't work at all in the real world.
I even pay €1M to anyone proving me wrong.
Besides suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect, you are also extraordinarily obtuse.
Try to show that I am wrong using real arguments. Being obnoxious doesn't help you.
This is exactly what everyone on this thread has been trying to tell you for ages of pages already!
Same thing at Apollohoax.
-
Bought that book yet Heiwa?
It will take you through the calculations step by step to show you where you've been going wrong.
-
Well, topic is that Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and reason is that they cannot explode and that no danger exist.
The official explanation by the US government, after years of secrecy, how they explode and why you should be afraid is that you suddenly bring two sub-critical pieces of fissionable material together by compression to double density with a free neutron in between. The compressed piece then becomes critical and the free nutron can start a runway, exponential fission reaction that transforms the piece to pure energy in a FLASH that lasts nanoseconds - to vaporize, e.g. Moscow and one million Russians.
This is in my opinion pseudoscience and complete nonsense. However president Obama has since 2010 warned the world that also terrorists (!) may use this secret weapon and produce a FLASH and that the world is in danger.
I have explained the stupid US ideas at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for many years and I also offer anyone €1M to prove me wrong. Let's discuss that instead of going OT with other ideas.
I cannot be wrong, can I? If so, tell me how you trigger an a-bomb explosion!
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
-
Some more light reading, from 2008
http://oapt.ca/conference/2008/contributed_papers/john_berrigan_trip_to_mars.ppt
OK 2008! Why not? But NASA went to and landed on Mars 2012 - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm#N in a different way. Both are fantasies, of course.
Mars been visited many times by spacecraft, from many different countries. The method of landing may differ, and may not always work, but getting there has been achieved in the same way repeatedly.
Maybe you could explain where the person who did the presentation has gone wrong.
Perhaps you could buy the book I linked to, and explain why it is also incorrect.
Or maybe you could carry on being ignorant.
It seems a John Berrigan thinks (plate 26) that you need to apply a Deltav1 of 2 900 m/s in Earth orbit to your space craft, when Mars is 46° ahead of you (plate 41), and then you will hit/crash Mars bull eyes after a certain time (to de decided), unless you apply a Deltav2 of 2 600 m/s (plate 24), when you will drop into some orbit and not crash
I have asked the writer John Berrigan to tell me the forces, times/locations in orbits and fuel required to produce the Deltavs1&2 and the trajectory (not orbit!) in between. If John can do it, he is on his way to win €1M.
You can forget the directions you apply the force, according John! Just accelerate straight out of orbit Earth (at the right time/location) towards Mars and brake backwards in the trajectory (at the right time/locations), when arriving Mars, and you are OK. If you do it at the wrong times/locations you will fly off in the wrong trajctory.
I am pretty certain he cannot do it. We will see.
-
This is in my opinion pseudoscience and complete nonsense.
Well, maybe we can call it progress now that you realize that opinions are not facts.
-
...a government expert announced that I was :
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I agree with the expert.
Sounds like the government expert had him figured out.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
-
This is in my opinion pseudoscience and complete nonsense.
Well, maybe we can call it progress now that you realize that opinions are not facts.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
You are sick. Seek help! It is a nice advice.
-
Well, topic is that Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and reason is that they cannot explode and that no danger exist.
The official explanation by the US government, after years of secrecy, how they explode and why you should be afraid is that you suddenly bring two sub-critical pieces of fissionable material together by compression to double density with a free neutron in between. The compressed piece then ecomescritical and the free nutron can start a runway, exponential fission reaction that transforms the piece to pure energy in a FLASH that lasts nanoseconds - to vaporize, e.g. Moscow and one million Russians.
Wrong. It is not the official explanation by the US government. It is the explanation by nuclear physicists. There is no official government position on how nuclear physics works. Nuclear physics is independent of political opinion. It will work equally well wherever it is used and by whomever uses it.
This is in my opinion pseudoscience and complete nonsense.
Your opinion is worthless and proves nothing.
However president Obama has since 2010 warned the world that also terrorists (!) may use this secret weapon and produce a FLASH and that the world is in danger.
The actual warning is that terrorists are likely to use nuclear material to produce a dirty bomb, not a nuclear bomb. This is not a warning unique to Obama or to US governments.
I have explained the stupid US ideas at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for many years and I also offer anyone €1M to prove me wrong. Let's discuss that instead of going OT with other ideas.
You have explained nothing. You have merely presented opinion, misinformation, distortion and lies. Whe complex material needs explaining, you just copy and paste unattributed wikipedia articles and add a couple of extra words in to make it look like you understand it, when you obviously don't.
I cannot be wrong, can I?
Yes, repeatedly, about really basic stuff.
If so, tell me how you trigger an a-bomb explosion!
You did that in the first paragraph of your post.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
You are sick. Seek help! It is a nice advice.
You are a pathological liar, a fraud, and you suffer from Dunning Kruger. I'm giving YOU help by pointing it out. YOU are sick, that is why you project your failings on everyone else. By the way, YOU are off topic. The topic is still your lies and frauds.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
You are sick. Seek help! It is a nice advice.
You are a pathological liar, a fraud, and you suffer from Dunning Kruger. I'm giving YOU help by pointing it out. YOU are sick, that is why you project your failings on everyone else. By the way, YOU are off topic. The topic is still your lies and frauds.
Thanks for your help. I don't need it.
-
I cannot be wrong, can I?
Of course you can be wrong. Why would you think that you couldn't be?
-
I cannot be wrong, can I?
Of course you can be wrong. Why would you think that you couldn't be?
Then I have to pay €1M ! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . It will be costly.
BTW - why do you love and promote fake a-bombs? Are you mad?
-
I cannot be wrong, can I?
Of course you can be wrong. Why would you think that you couldn't be?
Then I have to pay €1M ! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . It will be costly.
Oh, so then you admit that you have a financial incentive to lie? Good to know.
BTW - why do you love and promote fake a-bombs? Are you mad?
??? What makes you think that I love a-bombs, fake or real? Nuclear weapons are a fact of life. Denying that they exist in the face of overwhelming evidence (2000+ test shots and 2 used in war) is dangerously delusional.
-
I cannot be wrong, can I?
Of course you can be wrong. Why would you think that you couldn't be?
Then I have to pay €1M ! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . It will be costly.
Oh, so then you admit that you have a financial incentive to lie? Good to know.
BTW - why do you love and promote fake a-bombs? Are you mad?
??? What makes you think that I love a-bombs, fake or real? Nuclear weapons are a fact of life. Denying that they exist in the face of overwhelming evidence (2000+ test shots and 2 used in war) is dangerously delusional.
Overwheming evidence? You are really mad!
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
You are sick. Seek help! It is a nice advice.
You are a pathological liar, a fraud, and you suffer from Dunning Kruger. I'm giving YOU help by pointing it out. YOU are sick, that is why you project your failings on everyone else. By the way, YOU are off topic. The topic is still your lies and frauds.
Thanks for your help. I don't need it.
Oh but you do. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Just start with admitting that you're a pathological liar. I promise you it will help.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
You are sick. Seek help! It is a nice advice.
You are a pathological liar, a fraud, and you suffer from Dunning Kruger. I'm giving YOU help by pointing it out. YOU are sick, that is why you project your failings on everyone else. By the way, YOU are off topic. The topic is still your lies and frauds.
Thanks for your help. I don't need it.
Oh but you do. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Just start with admitting that you're a pathological liar. I promise you it will help.
Hm. My popular website http://heiwaco.com, downloaded almost 2.3 million times, is 100% correct and full interesting truths. Why would I produce Fake News? I have no problems at all of any kind. Only some twerps here inventing fantasies about my house, where I live since 1980.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
You are sick. Seek help! It is a nice advice.
You are a pathological liar, a fraud, and you suffer from Dunning Kruger. I'm giving YOU help by pointing it out. YOU are sick, that is why you project your failings on everyone else. By the way, YOU are off topic. The topic is still your lies and frauds.
Thanks for your help. I don't need it.
Oh but you do. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Just start with admitting that you're a pathological liar. I promise you it will help.
Hm. My popular website http://heiwaco.com, downloaded almost 2.3 million times, is 100% correct and full interesting truths. Why would I produce Fake News? I have no problems at all of any kind. Only some twerps here inventing fantasies about my house, where I live since 1980.
Apparently you also have problems reading and staying on topic. Nobody said anything about fake news or your website. Though it is telling that you seem to use your website and its bot traffic as a gauge of your popularity.
-
I cannot be wrong, can I?
Of course you can be wrong. Why would you think that you couldn't be?
Then I have to pay €1M ! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . It will be costly.
Oh, so then you admit that you have a financial incentive to lie? Good to know.
BTW - why do you love and promote fake a-bombs? Are you mad?
??? What makes you think that I love a-bombs, fake or real? Nuclear weapons are a fact of life. Denying that they exist in the face of overwhelming evidence (2000+ test shots and 2 used in war) is dangerously delusional.
Overwheming evidence? You are really mad!
The whole world is mad. What makes you think that you aren't?
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
You are sick. Seek help! It is a nice advice.
You are a pathological liar, a fraud, and you suffer from Dunning Kruger. I'm giving YOU help by pointing it out. YOU are sick, that is why you project your failings on everyone else. By the way, YOU are off topic. The topic is still your lies and frauds.
Thanks for your help. I don't need it.
Oh but you do. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Just start with admitting that you're a pathological liar. I promise you it will help.
Hm. My popular website http://heiwaco.com, downloaded almost 2.3 million times, is 100% correct and full interesting truths. Why would I produce Fake News? I have no problems at all of any kind. Only some twerps here inventing fantasies about my house, where I live since 1980.
Apparently you also have problems reading and staying on topic. Nobody said anything about fake news or your website. Though it is telling that you seem to use your website and its bot traffic as a gauge of your popularity.
You say I am a pathological liar, fraud, etc.
But everything I say, I do in writing at my website http://heiwaco.com and there are no lies there. I am very careful with my statements, so I do them in writing at my website. This to prevent people from inventing things that they, like you, say I say.
I can only feel sorry for you. You must be mentally ill one way or other.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
Sorry. Too bad for you the topic changed long ago to exposing your LIES.
Why can't you make an intelligent post?
You first. At least I'm staying on topic.
Why you claim you're nice again so that can continue to be a lie?
You are sick. Seek help! It is a nice advice.
You are a pathological liar, a fraud, and you suffer from Dunning Kruger. I'm giving YOU help by pointing it out. YOU are sick, that is why you project your failings on everyone else. By the way, YOU are off topic. The topic is still your lies and frauds.
Thanks for your help. I don't need it.
Oh but you do. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Just start with admitting that you're a pathological liar. I promise you it will help.
Hm. My popular website http://heiwaco.com, downloaded almost 2.3 million times, is 100% correct and full interesting truths. Why would I produce Fake News? I have no problems at all of any kind. Only some twerps here inventing fantasies about my house, where I live since 1980.
Apparently you also have problems reading and staying on topic. Nobody said anything about fake news or your website. Though it is telling that you seem to use your website and its bot traffic as a gauge of your popularity.
You say I am a pathological liar, fraud, etc.
But everything I say, I do in writing at my website http://heiwaco.com and there are no lies there. I am very careful with my statements, so I do them in writing at my website. This to prevent people from inventing things that they, like you, say I say.
I can only feel sorry for you. You must be mentally ill one way or other.
Again, nobody mentioned your website. I know you feel the need to post it so that the search bots can give you more traffic but it is off topic. You have provably lied multiple times here and on other sites. I won't bother going to your website to give you hits so I won't bother to point out the falsehoods there but it was done multiple times on apollohoax.net by people that worked in the industry. You need to admit you have a problem. One of your tells when people are getting close to the truth about you is you spew insults like you did in this post.
-
No lies?
The death sentence you claim exists is just one of them.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
Ok, go ahead. Tell us why, in a reasoned, scientific way, nuclear weapons don't exist. Not just your statement that it's impossible, but actual scientific reasons.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
Ok, go ahead. Tell us why, in a reasoned, scientific way, nuclear weapons don't exist. Not just your statement that it's impossible, but actual scientific reasons.
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm since many years. Actually I explain why US military fission does not work. And why Stalin copied it.
Real, peaceful, scientific fission works ... but not the US military, pseudoscentific, secret one.
It is much better you study it at my website. You can copy/paste what you do not like and explain your objections here and we can discuss it. The pages are split in numbered sections, etc, etc. so you cannot invent anything I haven't said. Most sections are short. Some have become long. I update all the time.
I evidently just publish what I consider true and proven facts. Sick people suggest everything I publish is invented and I have heard it before from high civil servants of many countries. These people lie on behalf of their countries in a way I do not understand.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
Ok, go ahead. Tell us why, in a reasoned, scientific way, nuclear weapons don't exist. Not just your statement that it's impossible, but actual scientific reasons.
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm since many years. Actually I explain why US military fission does not work. And why Stalin copied it.
Real, peaceful, scientific fission works ... but not the US military, pseudoscentific, secret one.
It is much better you study it at my website. You can copy/paste what you do not like and explain your objections here and we can discuss it. The pages are split in numbered sections, etc, etc. so you cannot invent anything I haven't said. Most sections are short. Some have become long. I update all the time.
Nobody wants to go to your website just to feed your ego. If you can't post it here then it might as well not exist.
I evidently just publish what I consider true and proven facts. Sick people suggest everything I publish is invented and I have heard it before from high civil servants of many countries. These people lie on behalf of their countries in a way I do not understand.
Do you actually know what the word "evidently" means? You keep using it wrong. For something to be evident you must have provided evidence for it. The most hilarious example of you using it wrong is where you repeatedly claim "evidently the money is available" without showing any evidence it is so. Maybe in your mind it is evident but the rest of us can't hear the voices in your head.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
Ok, go ahead. Tell us why, in a reasoned, scientific way, nuclear weapons don't exist. Not just your statement that it's impossible, but actual scientific reasons.
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm since many years. Actually I explain why US military fission does not work. And why Stalin copied it.
Real, peaceful, scientific fission works ... but not the US military, pseudoscentific, secret one.
It is much better you study it at my website. You can copy/paste what you do not like and explain your objections here and we can discuss it. The pages are split in numbered sections, etc, etc. so you cannot invent anything I haven't said. Most sections are short. Some have become long. I update all the time.
I evidently just publish what I consider true and proven facts. Sick people suggest everything I publish is invented and I have heard it before from high civil servants of many countries. These people lie on behalf of their countries in a way I do not understand.
No, as has been explained to you many times, you do not explain it. You show how scientists say it supposed to work and then you say that is impossible. You come to this forum, you say on this forum it can't work so explain it here on this forum without referencing your website. You make the claim here,support it here.
-
So it shows sound judgment and mind to conduct a test in a hurricane with passengers on board instead of heading to port or avoiding the storm? If that could not be done then to take one of the most basic safety measures and slow down?
Dude. Give it up. You lied. If you did not you, the captain and owner of the ship really should be reported for endangering lives to conduct your test.
As stated before one of the first things done is to slow down when conditions get rough and certainly when the beaufort scale is 12. At that point the priority is not testing the ship and increasing speed. It is the safety of the crew and ship and trying to get through it with as little damage as possible.
Seeing how you are Sea safety expert you must know this. It is times like these I think you are just trolling. The other possibility is you are so invested in your beliefs now your ego will not let you admit you could be wrong. It also drives your behavior of lying and I think in this case stretching the truth. You where not conducting your test in an hurricane and the captain did not allow you to increase the ships speed to see if you could damage the ramp and visor while passengers where on board.
Well, I just tell you what happened. We left Genoa for Tanger and the weather was good. And suddenly this storm broke out. The worst we had ever seen. So we had to slow down and change course. It was impossible to proceed at normal speed. It was a perfect opportunity to experience a bow impact. Bow impacts do not rip off visors. The very short term impact is due to air being suddenly compressed between the sea wave and ship surfaces. The compressed air is then released in a big splash and bang. The high pressure also elastically deforms the shell plate and stiffeners, which is felt as vibrations in the ship. It happens all the time in severe weather and you slow down to avoid it.
A wave impact has nothing to do with a freak wave, which is something completely different.
Just admit you lied or bent the truth.
If you were sailing prior to the existence of weather satellites, radio and chart plotters your story makes since. A storm like that could surprise you.
If storm that developed very quickly and enough to surprise the captain and yourself would not cause the conditions you claim. Just not enough time to build up to B12. For a storm to causes those conditions it needs time it just does not happen instantly or even over a short period of time.
I am just a recreational sailor and somehow know more about this stuff than you do. Unless you do know and did not think your lie through or you hoped that people would not think about your claim too much.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
Ok, go ahead. Tell us why, in a reasoned, scientific way, nuclear weapons don't exist. Not just your statement that it's impossible, but actual scientific reasons.
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm since many years. Actually I explain why US military fission does not work. And why Stalin copied it.
Real, peaceful, scientific fission works ... but not the US military, pseudoscentific, secret one.
It is much better you study it at my website. You can copy/paste what you do not like and explain your objections here and we can discuss it. The pages are split in numbered sections, etc, etc. so you cannot invent anything I haven't said. Most sections are short. Some have become long. I update all the time.
I evidently just publish what I consider true and proven facts. Sick people suggest everything I publish is invented and I have heard it before from high civil servants of many countries. These people lie on behalf of their countries in a way I do not understand.
No, as has been explained to you many times, you do not explain it. You show how scientists say it supposed to work and then you say that is impossible. You come to this forum, you say on this forum it can't work so explain it here on this forum without referencing your website. You make the claim here,support it here.
Sorry, all the explanations I provide are at my website. It seems you cannot understand them, so I can only recommend you to study them again.
If something is wrong, copy paste it with reference to section number, and tell me. But nothing is wrong.
The conclusion remains - nuclear weapons do not work! I think I have proven it. Isn't it good news?
After all Fake News we have been fed with!
-
So it shows sound judgment and mind to conduct a test in a hurricane with passengers on board instead of heading to port or avoiding the storm? If that could not be done then to take one of the most basic safety measures and slow down?
Dude. Give it up. You lied. If you did not you, the captain and owner of the ship really should be reported for endangering lives to conduct your test.
As stated before one of the first things done is to slow down when conditions get rough and certainly when the beaufort scale is 12. At that point the priority is not testing the ship and increasing speed. It is the safety of the crew and ship and trying to get through it with as little damage as possible.
Seeing how you are Sea safety expert you must know this. It is times like these I think you are just trolling. The other possibility is you are so invested in your beliefs now your ego will not let you admit you could be wrong. It also drives your behavior of lying and I think in this case stretching the truth. You where not conducting your test in an hurricane and the captain did not allow you to increase the ships speed to see if you could damage the ramp and visor while passengers where on board.
Well, I just tell you what happened. We left Genoa for Tanger and the weather was good. And suddenly this storm broke out. The worst we had ever seen. So we had to slow down and change course. It was impossible to proceed at normal speed. It was a perfect opportunity to experience a bow impact. Bow impacts do not rip off visors. The very short term impact is due to air being suddenly compressed between the sea wave and ship surfaces. The compressed air is then released in a big splash and bang. The high pressure also elastically deforms the shell plate and stiffeners, which is felt as vibrations in the ship. It happens all the time in severe weather and you slow down to avoid it.
A wave impact has nothing to do with a freak wave, which is something completely different.
Just admit you lied or bent the truth.
If you were sailing prior to the existence of weather satellites, radio and chart plotters your story makes since. A storm like that could surprise you.
If storm that developed very quickly and enough to surprise the captain and yourself would not cause the conditions you claim. Just not enough time to build up to B12. For a storm to causes those conditions it needs time it just does not happen instantly or even over a short period of time.
I am just a recreational sailor and somehow know more about this stuff than you do. Unless you do know and did not think your lie through or you hoped that people would not think about your claim too much.
Just ask the weather stations covering the Golfe de Lion outside Marseille for their statistics.
But the question is not if it were B12 or B9. The question is what is a bow impact? And is it heard and felt? According to the M/S Estonia accident investigators 1994/7 and 2005/8 nobody heard or felt the bow impacts, so the Master didn't suspect anything and ... the ship just sank. The visor dropped off, the superstructure filled up with water ... and the just ship sank.
-
If something is wrong, copy paste it with reference to section number, and tell me. But nothing is wrong.
Here you go:
The second, very nasty type of fission producing destruction was quickly invented by an American clown under military secrecy 1942/5 as follows: Until destruction is desired, the fission is kept subcritical - in the case of a uranium bomb, it is achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size. No fission occurs!
The statement in red is incorrect. Even though the Uranium is sub-critical, fission still occurs due to the natural process of radioactive decay. That the Uranium is sub-critical means that this natural radioactive decay does not produce an uncontrolled chain reaction.
-
If something is wrong, copy paste it with reference to section number, and tell me. But nothing is wrong.
Here you go:
The second, very nasty type of fission producing destruction was quickly invented by an American clown under military secrecy 1942/5 as follows: Until destruction is desired, the fission is kept subcritical - in the case of a uranium bomb, it is achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size. No fission occurs!
The statement in red is incorrect. Even though the Uranium is sub-critical, fission still occurs due to the natural process of radioactive decay. That the Uranium is sub-critical means that this natural radioactive decay does not produce an uncontrolled chain reaction.
Thanks - but you have to read the whole thing. No US, military, secret fission occurs, when the pieces are kept apart. That's the secret ... and complete nonsense.
There is only one type of fission - discovered by Ottp Hahn 1938. There is no second type of fission invented by USA 1942/5.
-
Here's another one:
Nuclear fission is only possible under moderated and controlled conditions by slow neutrons to produce energy in form of electricity and heat.
First of all, nuclear fission does not directly produce electricity. Nuclear reactors are essentially heat sources that boil water to make steam to drive a turbine that moves a copper coil through a magnetic field to generate electricity.
Secondly, I've already pointed out to you that fast neutron reactors do exist and that there are a few of these reactors on-line being used to boil water to make steam to drive a turbine that moves a copper coil through a magnetic field to generate electricity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
-
So it shows sound judgment and mind to conduct a test in a hurricane with passengers on board instead of heading to port or avoiding the storm? If that could not be done then to take one of the most basic safety measures and slow down?
Dude. Give it up. You lied. If you did not you, the captain and owner of the ship really should be reported for endangering lives to conduct your test.
As stated before one of the first things done is to slow down when conditions get rough and certainly when the beaufort scale is 12. At that point the priority is not testing the ship and increasing speed. It is the safety of the crew and ship and trying to get through it with as little damage as possible.
Seeing how you are Sea safety expert you must know this. It is times like these I think you are just trolling. The other possibility is you are so invested in your beliefs now your ego will not let you admit you could be wrong. It also drives your behavior of lying and I think in this case stretching the truth. You where not conducting your test in an hurricane and the captain did not allow you to increase the ships speed to see if you could damage the ramp and visor while passengers where on board.
Well, I just tell you what happened. We left Genoa for Tanger and the weather was good. And suddenly this storm broke out. The worst we had ever seen. So we had to slow down and change course. It was impossible to proceed at normal speed. It was a perfect opportunity to experience a bow impact. Bow impacts do not rip off visors. The very short term impact is due to air being suddenly compressed between the sea wave and ship surfaces. The compressed air is then released in a big splash and bang. The high pressure also elastically deforms the shell plate and stiffeners, which is felt as vibrations in the ship. It happens all the time in severe weather and you slow down to avoid it.
A wave impact has nothing to do with a freak wave, which is something completely different.
Just admit you lied or bent the truth.
If you were sailing prior to the existence of weather satellites, radio and chart plotters your story makes since. A storm like that could surprise you.
If storm that developed very quickly and enough to surprise the captain and yourself would not cause the conditions you claim. Just not enough time to build up to B12. For a storm to causes those conditions it needs time it just does not happen instantly or even over a short period of time.
I am just a recreational sailor and somehow know more about this stuff than you do. Unless you do know and did not think your lie through or you hoped that people would not think about your claim too much.
Just ask the weather stations covering the Golfe de Lion outside Marseille for their statistics.
But the question is not if it were B12 or B9. The question is what is a bow impact? And is it heard and felt? According to the M/S Estonia accident investigators 1994/7 and 2005/8 nobody heard or felt the bow impacts, so the Master didn't suspect anything and ... the ship just sank. The visor dropped off, the superstructure filled up with water ... and the just ship sank.
Sure the question involves the strength of the storm. You claimed B12 are you now saying you attempted to mislead people and the conditions were not as strong as you originally claimed?
So were the conditions you did your test in B12 or B9?
Your story is not making sense.
A severe storm just pops up surprising the captain and crew. Despite the existence of weather services, weather faxes, satellites and radios
This storm is so severe and special it results in B12 conditions really, really quickly.
This severe storm happened in an area that surrounded by land. There is a reason the Mediterranean does not have a lot of severe storms. There is not enough time for a storm to gather strength before it hits land. The average is one a year and the majority of those result in a strong gale or lower.
No warnings from weather services or other ships.
On a route with nearby ports to pull into for shelter.
The captain and owner of the ship decided to let you conduct your test in conditions where he should just be focused on getting through the storm with as little damage as possible. So he had to conclude that letting you see if the visor and ramp could be damaged in a hurricane with passengers on board was the right thing to do.
Like I said before if your story is true you, the owner and the captain really should be reported for endangering the ship, crew and passengers.
It is highly likely at best you were crewing on some ship in rough conditions that were nothing near B12.
-
Here's another one:
Nuclear fission is only possible under moderated and controlled conditions by slow neutrons to produce energy in form of electricity and heat.
First of all, nuclear fission does not directly produce electricity. Nuclear reactors are essentially heat sources that boil water to make steam to drive a turbine that moves a copper coil through a magnetic field to generate electricity.
Secondly, I've already pointed out to you that fast neutron reactors do exist and that there are a few of these reactors on-line being used to boil water to make steam to drive a turbine that moves a copper coil through a magnetic field to generate electricity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
Thanks - I write in a simple, popular way which includes that a nuclear power station produce, by fission, energy in the form of electricty. And not as petrol, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
Do you suggest that there are two types of fission? One that produces electricity, a second one that produces military destruction? If so, you are badly informed. The latter fission is just propaganda.
-
So it shows sound judgment and mind to conduct a test in a hurricane with passengers on board instead of heading to port or avoiding the storm? If that could not be done then to take one of the most basic safety measures and slow down?
Dude. Give it up. You lied. If you did not you, the captain and owner of the ship really should be reported for endangering lives to conduct your test.
As stated before one of the first things done is to slow down when conditions get rough and certainly when the beaufort scale is 12. At that point the priority is not testing the ship and increasing speed. It is the safety of the crew and ship and trying to get through it with as little damage as possible.
Seeing how you are Sea safety expert you must know this. It is times like these I think you are just trolling. The other possibility is you are so invested in your beliefs now your ego will not let you admit you could be wrong. It also drives your behavior of lying and I think in this case stretching the truth. You where not conducting your test in an hurricane and the captain did not allow you to increase the ships speed to see if you could damage the ramp and visor while passengers where on board.
Well, I just tell you what happened. We left Genoa for Tanger and the weather was good. And suddenly this storm broke out. The worst we had ever seen. So we had to slow down and change course. It was impossible to proceed at normal speed. It was a perfect opportunity to experience a bow impact. Bow impacts do not rip off visors. The very short term impact is due to air being suddenly compressed between the sea wave and ship surfaces. The compressed air is then released in a big splash and bang. The high pressure also elastically deforms the shell plate and stiffeners, which is felt as vibrations in the ship. It happens all the time in severe weather and you slow down to avoid it.
A wave impact has nothing to do with a freak wave, which is something completely different.
Just admit you lied or bent the truth.
If you were sailing prior to the existence of weather satellites, radio and chart plotters your story makes since. A storm like that could surprise you.
If storm that developed very quickly and enough to surprise the captain and yourself would not cause the conditions you claim. Just not enough time to build up to B12. For a storm to causes those conditions it needs time it just does not happen instantly or even over a short period of time.
I am just a recreational sailor and somehow know more about this stuff than you do. Unless you do know and did not think your lie through or you hoped that people would not think about your claim too much.
Just ask the weather stations covering the Golfe de Lion outside Marseille for their statistics.
But the question is not if it were B12 or B9. The question is what is a bow impact? And is it heard and felt? According to the M/S Estonia accident investigators 1994/7 and 2005/8 nobody heard or felt the bow impacts, so the Master didn't suspect anything and ... the ship just sank. The visor dropped off, the superstructure filled up with water ... and the just ship sank.
Sure the question involves the strength of the storm. You claimed B12 are you now saying you attempted to mislead people and the conditions were not as strong as you originally claimed?
So were the conditions you did your test in B12 or B9?
Your story is not making sense.
A severe storm just pops up surprising the captain and crew. Despite the existence of weather services, weather faxes, satellites and radios
This storm is so severe and special it results in B12 conditions really, really quickly.
This severe storm happened in an area that surrounded by land. There is a reason the Mediterranean does not have a lot of severe storms. There is not enough time for a storm to gather strength before it hits land. The average is one a year and the majority of those result in a strong gale or lower.
No warnings from weather services or other ships.
On a route with nearby ports to pull into for shelter.
The captain and owner of the ship decided to let you conduct your test in conditions where he should just be focused on getting through the storm with as little damage as possible. So he had to conclude that letting you see if the visor and ramp could be damaged in a hurricane with passengers on board was the right thing to do.
Like I said before if your story is true you, the owner and the captain really should be reported for endangering the ship, crew and passengers.
It is highly likely at best you were crewing on some ship in rough conditions that were nothing near B12.
As usual you make up things using your fantasy or sick mind.
The Golfe du Lion weather situation has the highest percentage of gales, incl. mistrals in the Mediterranean, particularly in the winter. It can still be difficult to predict a mistral very far ahead, as it seems just a slight variation in the eastward path of a depression can produce significant differences in wind strength. The mistral is a strong, cold, northwesterly wind that blows from southern France into the Golfe du Lion in the northern Mediterranean, with sustained winds often exceeding 20 m/s, sometimes reaching 50 m/s. I can assure you that, when we left Genoa (for Tanger), we were not informed that the storm was to be so severe. The ship was owned by an Egyptian friend of mine and was chartered to CoMaNav with our Egyptian crew that I knew well. The catering staff was all Maroccan. I had actually bought the ship a couple of years earlier from Greeks and was just enyoing a cruise to Tanger and back in the owners' cabin.
-
So it shows sound judgment and mind to conduct a test in a hurricane with passengers on board instead of heading to port or avoiding the storm? If that could not be done then to take one of the most basic safety measures and slow down?
Dude. Give it up. You lied. If you did not you, the captain and owner of the ship really should be reported for endangering lives to conduct your test.
As stated before one of the first things done is to slow down when conditions get rough and certainly when the beaufort scale is 12. At that point the priority is not testing the ship and increasing speed. It is the safety of the crew and ship and trying to get through it with as little damage as possible.
Seeing how you are Sea safety expert you must know this. It is times like these I think you are just trolling. The other possibility is you are so invested in your beliefs now your ego will not let you admit you could be wrong. It also drives your behavior of lying and I think in this case stretching the truth. You where not conducting your test in an hurricane and the captain did not allow you to increase the ships speed to see if you could damage the ramp and visor while passengers where on board.
Well, I just tell you what happened. We left Genoa for Tanger and the weather was good. And suddenly this storm broke out. The worst we had ever seen. So we had to slow down and change course. It was impossible to proceed at normal speed. It was a perfect opportunity to experience a bow impact. Bow impacts do not rip off visors. The very short term impact is due to air being suddenly compressed between the sea wave and ship surfaces. The compressed air is then released in a big splash and bang. The high pressure also elastically deforms the shell plate and stiffeners, which is felt as vibrations in the ship. It happens all the time in severe weather and you slow down to avoid it.
A wave impact has nothing to do with a freak wave, which is something completely different.
Just admit you lied or bent the truth.
If you were sailing prior to the existence of weather satellites, radio and chart plotters your story makes since. A storm like that could surprise you.
If storm that developed very quickly and enough to surprise the captain and yourself would not cause the conditions you claim. Just not enough time to build up to B12. For a storm to causes those conditions it needs time it just does not happen instantly or even over a short period of time.
I am just a recreational sailor and somehow know more about this stuff than you do. Unless you do know and did not think your lie through or you hoped that people would not think about your claim too much.
Just ask the weather stations covering the Golfe de Lion outside Marseille for their statistics.
But the question is not if it were B12 or B9. The question is what is a bow impact? And is it heard and felt? According to the M/S Estonia accident investigators 1994/7 and 2005/8 nobody heard or felt the bow impacts, so the Master didn't suspect anything and ... the ship just sank. The visor dropped off, the superstructure filled up with water ... and the just ship sank.
Sure the question involves the strength of the storm. You claimed B12 are you now saying you attempted to mislead people and the conditions were not as strong as you originally claimed?
So were the conditions you did your test in B12 or B9?
Your story is not making sense.
A severe storm just pops up surprising the captain and crew. Despite the existence of weather services, weather faxes, satellites and radios
This storm is so severe and special it results in B12 conditions really, really quickly.
This severe storm happened in an area that surrounded by land. There is a reason the Mediterranean does not have a lot of severe storms. There is not enough time for a storm to gather strength before it hits land. The average is one a year and the majority of those result in a strong gale or lower.
No warnings from weather services or other ships.
On a route with nearby ports to pull into for shelter.
The captain and owner of the ship decided to let you conduct your test in conditions where he should just be focused on getting through the storm with as little damage as possible. So he had to conclude that letting you see if the visor and ramp could be damaged in a hurricane with passengers on board was the right thing to do.
Like I said before if your story is true you, the owner and the captain really should be reported for endangering the ship, crew and passengers.
It is highly likely at best you were crewing on some ship in rough conditions that were nothing near B12.
As usual you make up things using your fantasy or sick mind.
The Golfe du Lion weather situation has the highest percentage of gales, incl. mistrals in the Mediterranean, particularly in the winter. It can still be difficult to predict a mistral very far ahead, as it seems just a slight variation in the eastward path of a depression can produce significant differences in wind strength. The mistral is a strong, cold, northwesterly wind that blows from southern France into the Golfe du Lion in the northern Mediterranean, with sustained winds often exceeding 20 m/s, sometimes reaching 50 m/s. I can assure you that, when we left Genoa (for Tanger), we were not informed that the storm was to be so severe. The ship was owned by an Egyptian friend of mine and was chartered to CoMaNav with our Egyptian crew that I knew well. The catering staff was all Maroccan. I had actually bought the ship a couple of years earlier from Greeks and was just enyoing a cruise to Tanger and back in the owners' cabin.
So a gale to strong gale. Do I need to post the Beaufort Scale for you?
What you are describing is B9 at most on the scale. Certainly not B12 which are hurricane conditions.
So your original claim of B12 was false.
Another instance where you demonstrate dishonesty.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
Ok, go ahead. Tell us why, in a reasoned, scientific way, nuclear weapons don't exist. Not just your statement that it's impossible, but actual scientific reasons.
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm since many years. Actually I explain why US military fission does not work. And why Stalin copied it.
Real, peaceful, scientific fission works ... but not the US military, pseudoscentific, secret one.
It is much better you study it at my website. You can copy/paste what you do not like and explain your objections here and we can discuss it. The pages are split in numbered sections, etc, etc. so you cannot invent anything I haven't said. Most sections are short. Some have become long. I update all the time.
I evidently just publish what I consider true and proven facts. Sick people suggest everything I publish is invented and I have heard it before from high civil servants of many countries. These people lie on behalf of their countries in a way I do not understand.
No, as has been explained to you many times, you do not explain it. You show how scientists say it supposed to work and then you say that is impossible. You come to this forum, you say on this forum it can't work so explain it here on this forum without referencing your website. You make the claim here,support it here.
Sorry, all the explanations I provide are at my website. It seems you cannot understand them, so I can only recommend you to study them again.
If something is wrong, copy paste it with reference to section number, and tell me. But nothing is wrong.
The conclusion remains - nuclear weapons do not work! I think I have proven it. Isn't it good news?
After all Fake News we have been fed with!
Lol, yeah, that's what I thought. You are incapable of supporting your ideas. Nice try with all the diversion to your ridiculous website though. But no, if you can't explain here, where you are making the assertion, then you can't explain it at all. You make the claims on this forum, support them here or admit you cannot.
-
So it shows sound judgment and mind to conduct a test in a hurricane with passengers on board instead of heading to port or avoiding the storm? If that could not be done then to take one of the most basic safety measures and slow down?
Dude. Give it up. You lied. If you did not you, the captain and owner of the ship really should be reported for endangering lives to conduct your test.
As stated before one of the first things done is to slow down when conditions get rough and certainly when the beaufort scale is 12. At that point the priority is not testing the ship and increasing speed. It is the safety of the crew and ship and trying to get through it with as little damage as possible.
Seeing how you are Sea safety expert you must know this. It is times like these I think you are just trolling. The other possibility is you are so invested in your beliefs now your ego will not let you admit you could be wrong. It also drives your behavior of lying and I think in this case stretching the truth. You where not conducting your test in an hurricane and the captain did not allow you to increase the ships speed to see if you could damage the ramp and visor while passengers where on board.
Well, I just tell you what happened. We left Genoa for Tanger and the weather was good. And suddenly this storm broke out. The worst we had ever seen. So we had to slow down and change course. It was impossible to proceed at normal speed. It was a perfect opportunity to experience a bow impact. Bow impacts do not rip off visors. The very short term impact is due to air being suddenly compressed between the sea wave and ship surfaces. The compressed air is then released in a big splash and bang. The high pressure also elastically deforms the shell plate and stiffeners, which is felt as vibrations in the ship. It happens all the time in severe weather and you slow down to avoid it.
A wave impact has nothing to do with a freak wave, which is something completely different.
Just admit you lied or bent the truth.
If you were sailing prior to the existence of weather satellites, radio and chart plotters your story makes since. A storm like that could surprise you.
If storm that developed very quickly and enough to surprise the captain and yourself would not cause the conditions you claim. Just not enough time to build up to B12. For a storm to causes those conditions it needs time it just does not happen instantly or even over a short period of time.
I am just a recreational sailor and somehow know more about this stuff than you do. Unless you do know and did not think your lie through or you hoped that people would not think about your claim too much.
Just ask the weather stations covering the Golfe de Lion outside Marseille for their statistics.
But the question is not if it were B12 or B9. The question is what is a bow impact? And is it heard and felt? According to the M/S Estonia accident investigators 1994/7 and 2005/8 nobody heard or felt the bow impacts, so the Master didn't suspect anything and ... the ship just sank. The visor dropped off, the superstructure filled up with water ... and the just ship sank.
Sure the question involves the strength of the storm. You claimed B12 are you now saying you attempted to mislead people and the conditions were not as strong as you originally claimed?
So were the conditions you did your test in B12 or B9?
Your story is not making sense.
A severe storm just pops up surprising the captain and crew. Despite the existence of weather services, weather faxes, satellites and radios
This storm is so severe and special it results in B12 conditions really, really quickly.
This severe storm happened in an area that surrounded by land. There is a reason the Mediterranean does not have a lot of severe storms. There is not enough time for a storm to gather strength before it hits land. The average is one a year and the majority of those result in a strong gale or lower.
No warnings from weather services or other ships.
On a route with nearby ports to pull into for shelter.
The captain and owner of the ship decided to let you conduct your test in conditions where he should just be focused on getting through the storm with as little damage as possible. So he had to conclude that letting you see if the visor and ramp could be damaged in a hurricane with passengers on board was the right thing to do.
Like I said before if your story is true you, the owner and the captain really should be reported for endangering the ship, crew and passengers.
It is highly likely at best you were crewing on some ship in rough conditions that were nothing near B12.
As usual you make up things using your fantasy or sick mind.
The Golfe du Lion weather situation has the highest percentage of gales, incl. mistrals in the Mediterranean, particularly in the winter. It can still be difficult to predict a mistral very far ahead, as it seems just a slight variation in the eastward path of a depression can produce significant differences in wind strength. The mistral is a strong, cold, northwesterly wind that blows from southern France into the Golfe du Lion in the northern Mediterranean, with sustained winds often exceeding 20 m/s, sometimes reaching 50 m/s. I can assure you that, when we left Genoa (for Tanger), we were not informed that the storm was to be so severe. The ship was owned by an Egyptian friend of mine and was chartered to CoMaNav with our Egyptian crew that I knew well. The catering staff was all Maroccan. I had actually bought the ship a couple of years earlier from Greeks and was just enyoing a cruise to Tanger and back in the owners' cabin.
So a gale to strong gale. Do I need to post the Beaufort Scale for you?
What you are describing is B9 at most on the scale. Certainly not B12 which are hurricane conditions.
So your original claim of B12 was false.
Another instance where you demonstrate dishonesty.
And you that your mind is sick.
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
Ok, go ahead. Tell us why, in a reasoned, scientific way, nuclear weapons don't exist. Not just your statement that it's impossible, but actual scientific reasons.
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm since many years. Actually I explain why US military fission does not work. And why Stalin copied it.
Real, peaceful, scientific fission works ... but not the US military, pseudoscentific, secret one.
It is much better you study it at my website. You can copy/paste what you do not like and explain your objections here and we can discuss it. The pages are split in numbered sections, etc, etc. so you cannot invent anything I haven't said. Most sections are short. Some have become long. I update all the time.
I evidently just publish what I consider true and proven facts. Sick people suggest everything I publish is invented and I have heard it before from high civil servants of many countries. These people lie on behalf of their countries in a way I do not understand.
No, as has been explained to you many times, you do not explain it. You show how scientists say it supposed to work and then you say that is impossible. You come to this forum, you say on this forum it can't work so explain it here on this forum without referencing your website. You make the claim here,support it here.
Sorry, all the explanations I provide are at my website. It seems you cannot understand them, so I can only recommend you to study them again.
If something is wrong, copy paste it with reference to section number, and tell me. But nothing is wrong.
The conclusion remains - nuclear weapons do not work! I think I have proven it. Isn't it good news?
After all Fake News we have been fed with!
Lol, yeah, that's what I thought. You are incapable of supporting your ideas. Nice try with all the diversion to your ridiculous website though. But no, if you can't explain here, where you are making the assertion, then you can't explain it at all. You make the claims on this forum, support them here or admit you cannot.
Hm, another sick mind in action. My findings are printed at my website since many years. They are all correct. I pay anyone €1M to show that I am wrong. Many twerps get upset about it and moan and groan and you are one of them. Why not simply show that I am wrong using real arguments ... and not inventions and fantasies about my person.
-
Here's another one:
Nuclear fission is only possible under moderated and controlled conditions by slow neutrons to produce energy in form of electricity and heat.
First of all, nuclear fission does not directly produce electricity. Nuclear reactors are essentially heat sources that boil water to make steam to drive a turbine that moves a copper coil through a magnetic field to generate electricity.
Secondly, I've already pointed out to you that fast neutron reactors do exist and that there are a few of these reactors on-line being used to boil water to make steam to drive a turbine that moves a copper coil through a magnetic field to generate electricity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
Thanks - I write in a simple, popular way which includes that a nuclear power station produce, by fission, energy in the form of electricty. And not as petrol, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
Do you suggest that there are two types of fission? One that produces electricity, a second one that produces military destruction? If so, you are badly informed. The latter fission is just propaganda.
Fission produces neither electricity nor "military destruction". It releases energy in the form of subatomic particles due to manipulating the strong nuclear force. This energy can produce heat which is the primary mover for either electricity in a nuclear reactor or "military destruction " in an atom bomb.
-
Do you suggest that there are two types of fission? One that produces electricity, a second one that produces military destruction? If so, you are badly informed. The latter fission is just propaganda.
No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that both slow neutrons and fast neutrons can be used for controlled fission to boil water to generate electricity.
Are you saying that that fast neutron breeder nuclear reactors are propaganda? If so, then you are the one who is badly informed.
-
Here's another one:
Nuclear fission is only possible under moderated and controlled conditions by slow neutrons to produce energy in form of electricity and heat.
First of all, nuclear fission does not directly produce electricity. Nuclear reactors are essentially heat sources that boil water to make steam to drive a turbine that moves a copper coil through a magnetic field to generate electricity.
Secondly, I've already pointed out to you that fast neutron reactors do exist and that there are a few of these reactors on-line being used to boil water to make steam to drive a turbine that moves a copper coil through a magnetic field to generate electricity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx
Thanks - I write in a simple, popular way which includes that a nuclear power station produce, by fission, energy in the form of electricty. And not as petrol, etc. Nothing wrong with that.
Do you suggest that there are two types of fission? One that produces electricity, a second one that produces military destruction? If so, you are badly informed. The latter fission is just propaganda.
Fission produces neither electricity nor "military destruction". It releases energy in the form of subatomic particles due to manipulating the strong nuclear force. This energy can produce heat which is the primary mover for either electricity in a nuclear reactor or "military destruction " in an atom bomb.
Thanks! So how to start "military destruction" fission in an atom bomb?
-
Do you suggest that there are two types of fission? One that produces electricity, a second one that produces military destruction? If so, you are badly informed. The latter fission is just propaganda.
No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that both slow neutrons and fast neutrons can be used for controlled fission to boil water to generate electricity.
Are you saying that that fast neutron breeder nuclear reactors are propaganda? If so, then you are the one who is badly informed.
No - according Wikipedia there are two sorts of fission!
1. The one discovered by Otto Hahn 1938, where slow neutrons split certain atoms and release energy, boil water, etc, etc, easy to scientifically verify in a lab; and
2. the one invented by the Manhattan team 1942/5, where two subcritical masses are compressed together with a neutron in between to become a critical mass that fissions runway exponentially in nanoseconds releasing energy in a FLASH. No scientific verifications are possible! All is military secret punishible by death if discussed openly.
Why do you change topic asking stupid, off topic questions?
-
How about you take onebigmonkey up on his offer. Have you got the book yet?
No - here I only discuss why Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist.
If you want to discuss, e.g. the real estate market at Beausoleil, where I live since 1980, start another thread about it. There I can inform that the real estate market at Beausoleil is good. My building was the first luxury apartment building in the area 1974 and the builder went bankrupt. The building was completed same year by a well known company from Monaco that managed to sell most apartments. However 10 apartments were sold en block to SNCF. I moved in 1980. Since then plenty luxury apartment buildings have been built and today you cannot build more! There is no space for new schools, services, parks, etc. Here luxury means proper bathrooms and kitchens, separate toilets, elevators, spacy balconies, parking, sea view, apart from normal rooms. Prices are very high due to vicinity of Monaco.
Ok, go ahead. Tell us why, in a reasoned, scientific way, nuclear weapons don't exist. Not just your statement that it's impossible, but actual scientific reasons.
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm since many years. Actually I explain why US military fission does not work. And why Stalin copied it.
Real, peaceful, scientific fission works ... but not the US military, pseudoscentific, secret one.
It is much better you study it at my website. You can copy/paste what you do not like and explain your objections here and we can discuss it. The pages are split in numbered sections, etc, etc. so you cannot invent anything I haven't said. Most sections are short. Some have become long. I update all the time.
I evidently just publish what I consider true and proven facts. Sick people suggest everything I publish is invented and I have heard it before from high civil servants of many countries. These people lie on behalf of their countries in a way I do not understand.
No, as has been explained to you many times, you do not explain it. You show how scientists say it supposed to work and then you say that is impossible. You come to this forum, you say on this forum it can't work so explain it here on this forum without referencing your website. You make the claim here,support it here.
Sorry, all the explanations I provide are at my website. It seems you cannot understand them, so I can only recommend you to study them again.
If something is wrong, copy paste it with reference to section number, and tell me. But nothing is wrong.
The conclusion remains - nuclear weapons do not work! I think I have proven it. Isn't it good news?
After all Fake News we have been fed with!
Lol, yeah, that's what I thought. You are incapable of supporting your ideas. Nice try with all the diversion to your ridiculous website though. But no, if you can't explain here, where you are making the assertion, then you can't explain it at all. You make the claims on this forum, support them here or admit you cannot.
Hm, another sick mind in action. My findings are printed at my website since many years. They are all correct. I pay anyone €1M to show that I am wrong. Many twerps get upset about it and moan and groan and you are one of them. Why not simply show that I am wrong using real arguments ... and not inventions and fantasies about my person.
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
-
Do you suggest that there are two types of fission? One that produces electricity, a second one that produces military destruction? If so, you are badly informed. The latter fission is just propaganda.
No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that both slow neutrons and fast neutrons can be used for controlled fission to boil water to generate electricity.
Are you saying that that fast neutron breeder nuclear reactors are propaganda? If so, then you are the one who is badly informed.
No - according Wikipedia there are two sorts of fission!
1. The one discovered by Otto Hahn 1938, where slow neutrons split certain atoms and release energy, boil water, etc, etc, easy to scientifically verify in a lab; and
2. the one invented by the Manhattan team 1942/5, where two subcritical masses are compressed together with a neutron in between to become a critical mass that fissions runway exponentially in nanoseconds releasing energy in a FLASH. No scientific verifications are possible! All is military secret punishible by death if discussed openly.
Why do you change topic asking stupid, off topic questions?
Lie. Unless you have access to actual military secrets there is no death sentence for open discussion ofatomic weapons.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/E8IM1n2.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/CNsb7jn.jpg)
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
-
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
Your misunderstanding lies in thinking that what you "consider" has any bearing of the fact of a matter.
-
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
Your misunderstanding lies in thinking that what you "consider" has any bearing of the fact of a matter.
Thanks - I only misunderstand things! The other think I lie.
In reply #1926 you suggested:
Fission produces neither electricity nor "military destruction". It releases energy in the form of subatomic particles due to manipulating the strong nuclear force. This energy can produce heat which is the primary mover for either electricity in a nuclear reactor or "military destruction " in an atom bomb.
I think you misunderstand what fission is!
-
Thanks - I only misunderstand things! The other think I lie.
You also appear to be inconsistent to the point where it is not out of line to say you lie.
In reply #1926 you suggested:
Fission produces neither electricity nor "military destruction". It releases energy in the form of subatomic particles due to manipulating the strong nuclear force. This energy can produce heat which is the primary mover for either electricity in a nuclear reactor or "military destruction " in an atom bomb.
I think you misunderstand what fission is!
Nope, and you cannot even try to explain what is wrong with what I said.
-
Thanks - I only misunderstand things! The other think I lie.
You also appear to be inconsistent to the point where it is not out of line to say you lie.
And other things are just deliberate lies that he's been corrected on multiple times.
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
So your argument is you consider it nonsense. Is that it? Because that's kind of what we've been saying your total argument is. Incredulity. It's not an argument at all. Explain, scientifically why you consider it nonsense.
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
So your argument is you consider it nonsense. Is that it? Because that's kind of what we've been saying your total argument is. Incredulity. It's not an argument at all. Explain, scientifically why you consider it nonsense.
If you study my website you'll find that there is only one type of fission discovered by Otto Hanh 1938. It can only be used to produce pure energy in a nuclear power plant. It is well tested and proven.
The other type that apparently is used in a-bombs is pure nonsense or fantasy. It was invented 1942/5 under military, secret conditions by some clowns and is pure propaganda. Plenty American boys also believe in it (see above).
The POTUS elect Donald Duck will get the surprise of his life when he orders the nuclear attack on China and his generals tell him that they don't have any a-bombs to wipe out Beiing, Shanghai and other places.
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera, looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera, looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
You saw a FLASH in the dark night (11.09 pm ?) and the streetlights went off. I assume it was thunder striking the island or the military switched off the electricity. If a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb would have exploded above you in the sky, you would have been vaporized. Luckily it cannot happen. The risk of being stricken by thunder is greater than being killed by an a-bomb. No ships in the Pacific reported any technical problems that night as far as I am concerned.
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera, looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
You saw a FLASH in the dark night (11.09 pm ?) and the streetlights went off. I assume it was thunder striking the island. If a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb would have exploded above you in the sky, you would have been vaporized. Luckily it cannot happen. The risk of being stricken by thunder is greater than being killed by an a-bomb.
LOL that is a dumb replay.
do your research Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
"Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[5]"
It is history.
-
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
No ships in the Pacific reported any technical problems that night as far as I am concerned.
As far as you are concerned? What does that even mean?
I could just as well say there wasn't any water in the ocean that night as far as I am concerned.
You weren't there but summarily dismiss the eyewitness account of someone who was because it doesn't fit with your bizarre theory.
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera, looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
You saw a FLASH in the dark night (11.09 pm ?) and the streetlights went off. I assume it was thunder striking the island. If a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb would have exploded above you in the sky, you would have been vaporized. Luckily it cannot happen. The risk of being stricken by thunder is greater than being killed by an a-bomb.
LOL that is a dumb replay.
do your research Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
"Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[5]"
It is history.
Hm, 300 streetlights switched off, telephone links broken, etc, etc, 1445 kms away from an alleged thermonuclear, atmospheric bomb explosion? And no ships in the Pacific affected? Sorry, I think you were victim of a hoax.
-
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
No ships in the Pacific reported any technical problems that night as far as I am concerned.
As far as you are concerned? What does that even mean?
I could just as well say there wasn't any water in the ocean that night as far as I am concerned.
You weren't there but summarily dismiss the eyewitness account of someone who was because it doesn't fit with your bizarre theory.
No, the bizarre (militarty, secret) theory is that you set off the fission of an a-bomb explosion by bringing two subcritical masses of fissile material together by compression to double density forming a critical mass. Free neutrons then split the atoms of this mass in nanoseconds producing a FLASH.
The only way to explode a thermonuclear, hydrogene bomb is, howeveer, to first set off an uranium a-bomb that sets off fusion of the h-bomb without blowing it apart.
I have asked many scientists to explain how to set off the fusion of an h-bomb by exploding an a-bomb with fission and I never get any reply that I understand ... except that I do not understand.
Anyway - in a few years from now France will produce fusion no far from me. I describe it at my website. It is already a financial and scientific scandal but the politicians love it.
-
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
No ships in the Pacific reported any technical problems that night as far as I am concerned.
As far as you are concerned? What does that even mean?
I could just as well say there wasn't any water in the ocean that night as far as I am concerned.
You weren't there but summarily dismiss the eyewitness account of someone who was because it doesn't fit with your bizarre theory.
I never get any reply that I understand ... except that I do not understand.
That's been apparent for awhile already.
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
So your argument is you consider it nonsense. Is that it? Because that's kind of what we've been saying your total argument is. Incredulity. It's not an argument at all. Explain, scientifically why you consider it nonsense.
If you study my website you'll find that there is only one type of fission discovered by Otto Hanh 1938. It can only be used to produce pure energy in a nuclear power plant. It is well tested and proven.
The other type that apparently is used in a-bombs is pure nonsense or fantasy. It was invented 1942/5 under military, secret conditions by some clowns and is pure propaganda. Plenty American boys also believe in it (see above).
The POTUS elect Donald Duck will get the surprise of his life when he orders the nuclear attack on China and his generals tell him that they don't have any a-bombs to wipe out Beiing, Shanghai and other places.
So, again, not interested in your website. You made the statements here, defend them here like everyone else. So far your only argument is that you don't believe it. That's not a logical argument. Have you nothing logical or scientific to offer on this forum besides your own incredulit? Can you begin to see why government officials called you unscientific?
-
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
No ships in the Pacific reported any technical problems that night as far as I am concerned.
As far as you are concerned? What does that even mean?
I could just as well say there wasn't any water in the ocean that night as far as I am concerned.
You weren't there but summarily dismiss the eyewitness account of someone who was because it doesn't fit with your bizarre theory.
No, the bizarre (militarty, secret) theory is that you set off the fission of an a-bomb explosion by bringing two subcritical masses of fissile material together by compression to double density forming a critical mass. Free neutrons then split the atoms of this mass in nanoseconds producing a FLASH.
The only way to explode a thermonuclear, hydrogene bomb is, howeveer, to first set off an uranium a-bomb that sets off fusion of the h-bomb without blowing it apart.
I have asked many scientists to explain how to set off the fusion of an h-bomb by exploding an a-bomb with fission and I never get any reply that I understand ... except that I do not understand.
Anyway - in a few years from now France will produce fusion no far from me. I describe it at my website. It is already a financial and scientific scandal but the politicians love it.
This is the root of your argument and why your challenge is a fake. No answer that you understand. You think that because you can't understand it, it must be fake
-
If you study my website you'll find that there is only one type of fission discovered by Otto Hanh 1938. It can only be used to produce pure energy in a nuclear power plant. It is well tested and proven.
The other type that apparently is used in a-bombs is pure nonsense or fantasy. It was invented 1942/5 under military, secret conditions by some clowns and is pure propaganda. Plenty American boys also believe in it (see above).
Nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs both use neutrons to split Uranium atoms. What's the difference?
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera, looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
You saw a FLASH in the dark night (11.09 pm ?) and the streetlights went off. I assume it was thunder striking the island. If a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb would have exploded above you in the sky, you would have been vaporized. Luckily it cannot happen. The risk of being stricken by thunder is greater than being killed by an a-bomb.
LOL that is a dumb replay.
do your research Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
"Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[5]"
It is history.
Hm, 300 streetlights switched off, telephone links broken, etc, etc, 1445 kms away from an alleged thermonuclear, atmospheric bomb explosion? And no ships in the Pacific affected? Sorry, I think you were victim of a hoax.
you didn't even bother to read the article that I linked, the 300 or so, relates to ones that had to be replace not just turned off.
(victim of a hoax) nearly every person on the Hawaiian Islands, saw this, if you can tell me how they staged it, I mite believe you, it would be harder to do then the real thing.
(no ships) read the article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime ; how many ships affected maybe a better question.
-
I will gladly how you where you are wrong if you will simply post your arguments here, in this forum where this discussion is taking place. As I have shown you where you are wrong concerning space flight. But you won't posts your arguments here because you are afraid. You simply pimp out your website.
When you want to post some actual content instead of pimping out your website and posting about your fake challenge let us know.
OK - to make an a-bomb explode according US military experts you must suddenly compress two subcritical masses together with a neutron in between to double density to become a critical mass. Then the neutron starts the fission of billions of atoms of this critical mass at almost speed of light, which lasts nanoseconds and releases energy in a FLASH equivalent of 20 000 000 kg TNT exploding.
I consider it nonsens. Where do I misunderstand the US miltary experts?
Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera, looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
You saw a FLASH in the dark night (11.09 pm ?) and the streetlights went off. I assume it was thunder striking the island. If a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb would have exploded above you in the sky, you would have been vaporized. Luckily it cannot happen. The risk of being stricken by thunder is greater than being killed by an a-bomb.
LOL that is a dumb replay.
do your research Starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
"Hawaii, about 1,445 kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian islands.[5]"
It is history.
Hm, 300 streetlights switched off, telephone links broken, etc, etc, 1445 kms away from an alleged thermonuclear, atmospheric bomb explosion? And no ships in the Pacific affected? Sorry, I think you were victim of a hoax.
you didn't even bother to read the article that I linked, the 300 or so, relates to ones that had to be replace not just turned off.
(victim of a hoax) nearly every person on the Hawaiian Islands, saw this, if you can tell me how they staged it, I mite believe you, it would be harder to do then the real thing.
(no ships) read the article; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime ; how many ships affected maybe a better question.
Well, it seems none of the US Navy ships were affected at all down in the water like all those US Airforce planes flying around to observe the show. Only some burglar alarms at Hawaii was set off by the EMP. LOL.
BTW - how do you make an h-bomb explode or fuse? Do you first set off an a-bomb to fission producing the hot environment for fusion to take place? Doesn't the h-bomb get blown apart by the a-bomb?
-
So apart from the eye witnesses, the measured phenomena, the films and photography there is no evidence that it happened?
Some more reading for you to ignore
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955411.pdf
and a nice documentary you can dismiss without watching
Next, you can explain (because no-one else who supports your inane theory has bothered) how it is that there are world wide marker layers containing fission products from atomic testing used by soil scientists and biologists for decades.
-
So apart from the eye witnesses, the measured phenomena, the films and photography there is no evidence that it happened?
Some more reading for you to ignore
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955411.pdf
and a nice documentary you can dismiss without watching
Next, you can explain (because no-one else who supports your inane theory has bothered) how it is that there are world wide marker layers containing fission products from atomic testing used by soil scientists and biologists for decades.
Thanks! I dismiss it because after the FLASH occurs - the a-bomb has fissioned and exploded to set off the fusion of the h-bomb in space - there is a lot of smoke (!?!?) produced. Where does it come from? There is no air, carbon or flammable material in space.
And fusion? How was it done? I pay anyone €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm to explain it.
Have a go ... monkey!
-
Next, you can explain (because no-one else who supports your inane theory has bothered) how it is that there are world wide marker layers containing fission products from atomic testing used by soil scientists and biologists for decades.
There are no world wide marker layers containing fission products from atomic bomb testing as no a-bombs have ever been tested or used. Fission products have been found but the origin is, e.g. leaks from nuclear power plants.
Why do you always link to >50 years old pseudoscientific propaganda (text and films) from a secret, now abandoned island in the North Pacific to suggest that a-bombs work?
-
I've read the last 50 posts (maybe a bit more or less) in here and it seems like some of you guys don't seem to know the science behind an atom bomb. Here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68831.0) you can find a thread about Uranium-235, the substance that was in 'Little boy'.
-
I've read the last 50 posts (maybe a bit more or less) in here and it seems like some of you guys don't seem to know the science behind an atom bomb. Here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68831.0) you can find a thread about Uranium-235, the substance that was in 'Little boy'.
LOL. The secret of the a-bomb on a piece of toilet paper?
-
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
I've read the last 50 posts (maybe a bit more or less) in here and it seems like some of you guys don't seem to know the science behind an atom bomb. Here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68831.0) you can find a thread about Uranium-235, the substance that was in 'Little boy'.
LOL. The secret of the a-bomb on a piece to toilet paper?
Let me guess. You couldn't understand it, therefore it's bullshit. LOL indeed!
-
Next, you can explain (because no-one else who supports your inane theory has bothered) how it is that there are world wide marker layers containing fission products from atomic testing used by soil scientists and biologists for decades.
There are no world wide marker layers containing fission products from atomic bomb testing as no a-bombs have ever been tested or used.
Yes there are. I have met several of the people who have done a lot of work on it in soil erosion studies.
https://hrsl.ba.ars.usda.gov/cesium137bib.htm
http://www-naweb.iaea.org/napc/ih/documents/TECDOCS/TECDOC%200828%20Soil%20erosion%20and%20siltation%201995.PDF
Fission products have been found but the origin is, e.g. leaks from nuclear power plants.
Indeed they have, but that doesn't mean that fission products haven't been found as a result of atomic testing.
Why do you always link to >50 years old pseudoscientific propaganda (text and films) from a secret, now abandoned island in the North Pacific to suggest that a-bombs work?
Because they stopped doing atmospheric testing 50+ years ago. Duh.
-
So apart from the eye witnesses, the measured phenomena, the films and photography there is no evidence that it happened?
Some more reading for you to ignore
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955411.pdf
and a nice documentary you can dismiss without watching
Next, you can explain (because no-one else who supports your inane theory has bothered) how it is that there are world wide marker layers containing fission products from atomic testing used by soil scientists and biologists for decades.
Thanks! I dismiss it because after the FLASH occurs - the a-bomb has fissioned and exploded to set off the fusion of the h-bomb in space - there is a lot of smoke (!?!?) produced. Where does it come from? There is no air, carbon or flammable material in space.
And fusion? How was it done? I pay anyone €1M at <snip> explain it.
Was the bomb encased in anything? How can you be sure it is smoke? If it was an ordinary bomb, how did that produce smoke?
Please provide plausible alternative explanations here.
-
So apart from the eye witnesses, the measured phenomena, the films and photography there is no evidence that it happened?
Some more reading for you to ignore
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955411.pdf
and a nice documentary you can dismiss without watching
Next, you can explain (because no-one else who supports your inane theory has bothered) how it is that there are world wide marker layers containing fission products from atomic testing used by soil scientists and biologists for decades.
Thanks! I dismiss it because after the FLASH occurs - the a-bomb has fissioned and exploded to set off the fusion of the h-bomb in space - there is a lot of smoke (!?!?) produced. Where does it come from? There is no air, carbon or flammable material in space.
And fusion? How was it done? I pay anyone €1M at <snip> explain it.
Was the bomb encased in anything? How can you be sure it is smoke? If it was an ordinary bomb, how did that produce smoke?
Please provide plausible alternative explanations here.
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway. This 1962 Starfish Prime hydrogen bomb was just hydrogen isotopes combined with lithium - lithiumhydrid - an alkali metal that was subject to an a-bomb explosion. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The bomb was fitted on top of a rocket that went 1100 kms straight up, stopped and dropped down again to explode at 400 kms altitude.
When the a-bomb exploded and released pure energy and free neutrons in a very hot FLASH, the free neutrons transformed the hydrogen isotopes of the lithium to helium, which released more pure energy in a second, extremely hot FLASH.
It took nanoseconds and was admired by people all over the Pacific.
Only pure energy was produced in space apart from firework effects, strange radiosignals setting off burglar alarms and shutting of streel lights at Honolulu, etc, etc.
In reality nothing happened. The public saw nothing, the weather was overcast and rainy but media reported strange effects, bla, bla, bla. Maybe thunder? Very common in the Pacific.
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
Plenty people are and have been sentenced to death in the USA 2017 and are awaiting the final injection, the firing squad, the gas chamber, electric chair or strung up in a gallows or what is proposed. Here in France chopping off the head was popular in front of a cheering crowd. The guillotine! A quick, clean end.
People revealing the secrets of US nuclear defences and any such restricted data are subject to it, if done in the land of Donald Trump.
Luckily I am not there. But I publish restricted data. No doubt about ut. Punishable by DEATH!
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
Plenty people are and have been sentenced to death in the USA 2017 and are awaiting the final injection, the firing squad, the gas chamber, electric chair or the gallows or what is proposed. Here in France chopping off the head was popular in front of a cheering crowd.
People revealing the secrets of US nuclear defences are subject to it, if done in the land of Donald Trump.
Luckily I am not there.
AGAIN, because you seem to be ignoring it every time, you can only be sentenced with a trial, which you have NOT had. You will only need a trial if you have revealed restricted or classified info, which you have NOT had access to. Therefore, you have not and will not be sentenced. Therefore, you are STILL LYING. I really think you don't get it which means you're delusional which means you need to seek help.
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
Plenty people are and have been sentenced to death in the USA 2017 and are awaiting the final injection, the firing squad, the gas chamber, electric chair or the gallows or what is proposed. Here in France chopping off the head was popular in front of a cheering crowd.
People revealing the secrets of US nuclear defences are subject to it, if done in the land of Donald Trump.
Luckily I am not there.
AGAIN, because you seem to be ignoring it every time, you can only be sentenced with a trial, which you have NOT had. You will only need a trial if you have revealed restricted or classified info, which you have NOT had access to. Therefore, you have not and will not be sentenced. Therefore, you are STILL LYING. I really think you don't get it which means you're delusional which means you need to seek help.
Sorry. You are badly informed. Restricted data is restricted date and if published, you are sentenced by DEATH.
Why would I lie about it? It is US law!
But you are right that a US judge is required to condemn you to DEATH and then you need US people executing you strapping you down or stringing you up and assisting you to the bitter end. Much easier is a cyankalium pill and a glass of water.
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
Plenty people are and have been sentenced to death in the USA 2017 and are awaiting the final injection, the firing squad, the gas chamber, electric chair or the gallows or what is proposed. Here in France chopping off the head was popular in front of a cheering crowd.
People revealing the secrets of US nuclear defences are subject to it, if done in the land of Donald Trump.
Luckily I am not there.
AGAIN, because you seem to be ignoring it every time, you can only be sentenced with a trial, which you have NOT had. You will only need a trial if you have revealed restricted or classified info, which you have NOT had access to. Therefore, you have not and will not be sentenced. Therefore, you are STILL LYING. I really think you don't get it which means you're delusional which means you need to seek help.
Sorry. You are badly informed. Restricted data is restricted date and if published, you are sentenced by DEATH.
Why would I lie about it? It is US law!
You lie because you are delusional. Seek help. You have NEVER had access to restricted data and you have NEVER had a trial. NOBODY cares about the info you have on your website because NONE of it is restricted data. Stop lying and seek help.
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
Plenty people are and have been sentenced to death in the USA 2017 and are awaiting the final injection, the firing squad, the gas chamber, electric chair or the gallows or what is proposed. Here in France chopping off the head was popular in front of a cheering crowd.
People revealing the secrets of US nuclear defences are subject to it, if done in the land of Donald Trump.
Luckily I am not there.
AGAIN, because you seem to be ignoring it every time, you can only be sentenced with a trial, which you have NOT had. You will only need a trial if you have revealed restricted or classified info, which you have NOT had access to. Therefore, you have not and will not be sentenced. Therefore, you are STILL LYING. I really think you don't get it which means you're delusional which means you need to seek help.
Sorry. You are badly informed. Restricted data is restricted date and if published, you are sentenced by DEATH.
Why would I lie about it? It is US law!
You lie because you are delusional. Seek help. You have NEVER had access to restricted data and you have NEVER had a trial. NOBODY cares about the info you have on your website because NONE of it is restricted data. Stop lying and seek help.
Sorry, everything about US nuclear weapons is restricted data including the fact that they do not work and it is punishable by DEATH to say so.
Why are you repeating your lies to the contrary all the time?
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
Plenty people are and have been sentenced to death in the USA 2017 and are awaiting the final injection, the firing squad, the gas chamber, electric chair or the gallows or what is proposed. Here in France chopping off the head was popular in front of a cheering crowd.
People revealing the secrets of US nuclear defences are subject to it, if done in the land of Donald Trump.
Luckily I am not there.
AGAIN, because you seem to be ignoring it every time, you can only be sentenced with a trial, which you have NOT had. You will only need a trial if you have revealed restricted or classified info, which you have NOT had access to. Therefore, you have not and will not be sentenced. Therefore, you are STILL LYING. I really think you don't get it which means you're delusional which means you need to seek help.
Sorry. You are badly informed. Restricted data is restricted date and if published, you are sentenced by DEATH.
Why would I lie about it? It is US law!
You lie because you are delusional. Seek help. You have NEVER had access to restricted data and you have NEVER had a trial. NOBODY cares about the info you have on your website because NONE of it is restricted data. Stop lying and seek help.
Sorry, everything about US nuclear weapons is restricted data including the fact that they do not work and it is punishable by DEATH to say so.
NOPE. You are AGAIN misinterpreting the law. Talk to a lawyer about it which I guarantee you have NOT done. You have NOT had access to restricted data and have NOT had a trial and have NOT been sentenced. Every time you say otherwise YOU are lying.
Why are you repeating your lies to the contrary all the time?
I've not told any lies. Seek help. You appear to be a broken man because your design was rejected so you are inventing ways to look more important.
-
LOL. The secret of the a-bomb on a piece to toilet paper?
So you can't tell the difference between a sheet of paper and toilet paper but you think that you can discuss nuclear weapons? By the way 2 sheets of paper, not 1 piece.
Also i didn't know that the principle behind an atomic bomb was a secret. Why would it be? Sure the exact plans of an atomic bomb will not be available to the public. But why would the principle behind it be a secret?
A quick question: do you understand what i've written down on that 'piece of toilet paper'?
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
Plenty people are and have been sentenced to death in the USA 2017 and are awaiting the final injection, the firing squad, the gas chamber, electric chair or strung up in a gallows or what is proposed. Here in France chopping off the head was popular in front of a cheering crowd. The guillotine! A quick, clean end.
People revealing the secrets of US nuclear defences and any such restricted data are subject to it, if done in the land of Donald Trump.
Luckily I am not there. But I publish restricted data. No doubt about ut. Punishable by DEATH!
And luckily you have revealed no secrets, nor do you have access to classified data. No death penalty for you!
-
It is military secret and if I tell you I will be sentenced to death but anyway.
Only if you had access to restricted (aka classified) info, which you have not. So LIAR.
Although it seems like you may genuinely believe you have been sentenced to death which points to delusion and mental illness. If that is the case then still, LIAR, but also, seek help.
Plenty people are and have been sentenced to death in the USA 2017 and are awaiting the final injection, the firing squad, the gas chamber, electric chair or the gallows or what is proposed. Here in France chopping off the head was popular in front of a cheering crowd.
People revealing the secrets of US nuclear defences are subject to it, if done in the land of Donald Trump.
Luckily I am not there.
AGAIN, because you seem to be ignoring it every time, you can only be sentenced with a trial, which you have NOT had. You will only need a trial if you have revealed restricted or classified info, which you have NOT had access to. Therefore, you have not and will not be sentenced. Therefore, you are STILL LYING. I really think you don't get it which means you're delusional which means you need to seek help.
Sorry. You are badly informed. Restricted data is restricted date and if published, you are sentenced by DEATH.
Why would I lie about it? It is US law!
You lie because you are delusional. Seek help. You have NEVER had access to restricted data and you have NEVER had a trial. NOBODY cares about the info you have on your website because NONE of it is restricted data. Stop lying and seek help.
Sorry, everything about US nuclear weapons is restricted data including the fact that they do not work and it is punishable by DEATH to say so.
Why are you repeating your lies to the contrary all the time?
Nope. You have published no restricted data. You have not demonstrated they don't work, you just claim it. You have been asked many times to back up your claims, here on this forum, not by pimping your website. You decline to do so. You are in no danger.
Not only that, in a reply to me you said you visited the US but it was just New Mexico and the FBI there are incompetent. So which is it? You can't go to the US because of an imaginary death sentence or you go freely because they won't catch you?
-
Also i didn't know that the principle behind an atomic bomb was a secret. Why would it be? Sure the exact plans of an atomic bomb will not be available to the public. But why would the principle behind it be a secret?
Just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where I explain.
Everyone knows about fission to split atoms to obtain energy in, e.g. a power plant. It is well researched and understood.
However the military suggests since 1945 there is another type of destructive fission that, after it has been started, cannot be stopped so that it in a FLASH releases enormous amounts of energy to vaporize towns and people.
Beacuse it is destructive and can be used by terrorists, details of destructive fission is restricted and secret due to national security concerns.
My contribution to the discussion is that destructive fission doesn't work at all, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. I have presented evidence about it at my website.
Plenty people get upset about it but cannot show that I am wrong, even if I pay them €1M.
Below is a North Korean missile with an a-bomb at the top sent away from a submarine in a Korean fiord witnessed by some French fishermen last year. It does not look real, IMHO. I think it is a joke.
(http://static.lexpress.fr/medias_11066/w_2000,c_limit,g_north/v1473424300/coree-du-nord-diapo-obsession-nucleaire-et-balistique-1_5666157.jpg)
Atomic bombs do not work.
-
(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)(https://s28.postimg.org/63io2zg1p/Heiwa3.png)
I've read the last 50 posts (maybe a bit more or less) in here and it seems like some of you guys don't seem to know the science behind an atom bomb. Here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68831.0) you can find a thread about Uranium-235, the substance that was in 'Little boy'.
LOL. The secret of the a-bomb on a piece to toilet paper?
Let me guess. You couldn't understand it, therefore it's bullshit. LOL indeed!
A quick question: do you understand what i've written down on that 'piece of toilet paper'?
-
Just study <snip> where I explain.
Everyone knows about fission to split atoms to obtain energy in, e.g. a power plant. It is well researched and understood.
However the military suggests since 1945 there is another type of destructive fission that, after it has been started, cannot be stopped so that it in a FLASH releases enormous amounts of energy to vaporize towns and people.
Beacuse it is destructive and can be used by terrorists, details of destructive fission is restricted and secret due to national security concerns.
My contribution to the discussion is that destructive fission doesn't work at all, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. I have presented evidence about it at my website.
Plenty people get upset about it but cannot show that I am wrong, even if I pay them €1M.
Below is a North Korean missile with an a-bomb at the top sent away from a submarine in a Korean fiord witnessed by some French fishermen last year. It does not look real, IMHO. I think it is a joke.
(http://static.lexpress.fr/medias_11066/w_2000,c_limit,g_north/v1473424300/coree-du-nord-diapo-obsession-nucleaire-et-balistique-1_5666157.jpg)
Atomic bombs do not work.
More lies from you.
This is a missile test, not an atomic bomb test. There is no atom bomb on that missile. It is a photo released by North Korea.
No-one cares about your opinion, because you do not back it up with facts.
-
Also i didn't know that the principle behind an atomic bomb was a secret. Why would it be? Sure the exact plans of an atomic bomb will not be available to the public. But why would the principle behind it be a secret?
Just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where I explain.
Everyone knows about fission to split atoms to obtain energy in, e.g. a power plant. It is well researched and understood.
However the military suggests since 1945 there is another type of destructive fission that, after it has been started, cannot be stopped so that it in a FLASH releases enormous amounts of energy to vaporize towns and people.
Beacuse it is destructive and can be used by terrorists, details of destructive fission is restricted and secret due to national security concerns.
My contribution to the discussion is that destructive fission doesn't work at all, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. I have presented evidence about it at my website.
Plenty people get upset about it but cannot show that I am wrong, even if I pay them €1M.
Below is a North Korean missile with an a-bomb at the top sent away from a submarine in a Korean fiord witnessed by some French fishermen last year. It does not look real, IMHO. I think it is a joke.
(http://static.lexpress.fr/medias_11066/w_2000,c_limit,g_north/v1473424300/coree-du-nord-diapo-obsession-nucleaire-et-balistique-1_5666157.jpg)
Atomic bombs do not work.
See, there it is again. Your contribution is just an unsupported statement. You just say they don't work without any supporting evidence. No, I don't mean pointing to your website. I mean you are on a discussion forum, making statements, you should back them up here.
-
A quick question: do you understand what i've written down on that 'piece of toilet paper'?
Yes - it explains 1938 Otto Hahn fission! One atom U235 is split by a neutron and becomes one atom Ba141 and one atom Kr92 and neutrons and energy are released under controlled conditions. It happens under controlled conditions in a lab. Niels Bohr has given other explanations and we all had a good laugh then >50 years ago!
However, it is still unclear how destructive, uncontrolled, US, Hiroshima, Nagasaki fission takes place, where billions of U235 (or Plutonium) atoms are split in nanoseconds ... in a FLASH!
Is it because you compress two pieces of U235 together to double density?
If so, win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
-
It happens under controlled conditions in a lab. Niels Bohr has given other explanations and we all had a good laugh then >50 years ago!
Who is "we" in this sentence?
However, it is still unclear how destructive, uncontrolled, US, Hiroshima, Nagasaki fission takes place, where billions of U235 (or Plutonium) atoms are split in nanoseconds ... in a FLASH!
Is it because you compress two pieces of U235 together to double density?
No it is because neutrons split uranium or plutonium atoms. Fission is fission. It becomes a runaway destructive force when the density of uranium or plutonium atoms is high enough to create a large number of collisions in a very short period of time; around 0.3 microseconds.
If so, win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
No. I, and all others here, will not patronize your shitty website.
-
Also i didn't know that the principle behind an atomic bomb was a secret. Why would it be? Sure the exact plans of an atomic bomb will not be available to the public. But why would the principle behind it be a secret?
Just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where I explain.
Everyone knows about fission to split atoms to obtain energy in, e.g. a power plant. It is well researched and understood.
However the military suggests since 1945 there is another type of destructive fission that, after it has been started, cannot be stopped so that it in a FLASH releases enormous amounts of energy to vaporize towns and people.
Beacuse it is destructive and can be used by terrorists, details of destructive fission is restricted and secret due to national security concerns.
My contribution to the discussion is that destructive fission doesn't work at all, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. I have presented evidence about it at my website.
Plenty people get upset about it but cannot show that I am wrong, even if I pay them €1M.
Below is a North Korean missile with an a-bomb at the top sent away from a submarine in a Korean fiord witnessed by some French fishermen last year. It does not look real, IMHO. I think it is a joke.
(http://static.lexpress.fr/medias_11066/w_2000,c_limit,g_north/v1473424300/coree-du-nord-diapo-obsession-nucleaire-et-balistique-1_5666157.jpg)
Atomic bombs do not work.
See, there it is again. Your contribution is just an unsupported statement. You just say they don't work without any supporting evidence. No, I don't mean pointing to your website. I mean you are on a discussion forum, making statements, you should back them up here.
No, this time my contribution is a photo taken by some French fishermen in N. Korean (NK) waters catching lobsters or whales there, when suddenly an NK intercontinental a-bomb missile shot up through the water direction Washington, DC. The fishermen immediately phoned Obama that his lobsters would be delayed and that he better ordered the missile to be shot down. However, the missile, after being photo shopped by the French, went sideways and detroyed some trees on NK coast no far away. In order to convince me a-bombs work, NK, USA and France have to shape up.
-
It happens under controlled conditions in a lab. Niels Bohr has given other explanations and we all had a good laugh then >50 years ago!
1. Who is "we" in this sentence?
However, it is still unclear how destructive, uncontrolled, US, Hiroshima, Nagasaki fission takes place, where billions of U235 (or Plutonium) atoms are split in nanoseconds ... in a FLASH!
Is it because you compress two pieces of U235 together to double density?
2. No it is because neutrons split uranium or plutonium atoms. Fission is fission. It becomes a runaway destructive force when the density of uranium or plutonium atoms is high enough to create a large number of collisions in a very short period of time; around 0.3 microseconds.
If so, win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
3. No. I, and all others here, will not patronize your shitty website.
1. It was a long time ago. We were family. Even Bohr laughed. What a stupid show he had been part of.
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
3. You sound like a loser. I offer €1M and you don't even try.
-
I offer €1M and you don't even try.
No, you don't offer anything. Everybody knows your challenge is not real and the judge is incompetent.
A REAL challenge would have the money in escrow and an impartial third-party judge.
-
I offer €1M and you don't even try.
No, you don't offer anything. Everybody knows your challenge is not real and the judge is incompetent.
A REAL challenge would have the money in escrow and an impartial third-party judge.
? Yes, plenty people do not understand that my €1M and challenge is real and that I am a comptent judge. Only losers moan and groan all the time.
Maybe you live in an area with lousy, grey, shitty, wet weather and only poor drunken sods around? I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
-
I offer €1M and you don't even try.
No, you don't offer anything. Everybody knows your challenge is not real and the judge is incompetent.
A REAL challenge would have the money in escrow and an impartial third-party judge.
? Yes, plenty people do not understand that my €1M and challenge is real and that I am a comptent judge. Only losers moan and groan all the time.
Sorry, you are delusional. If it was real it would have the money in escrow and a third-party impartial judge. You have neither.
Maybe you live in an area with lousy, grey, shitty, wet weather and only poor drunken sods around? I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Typical Heiwa. Can't back up his fraudulent challenge so he insults the opposition. You are so transparent Heiwa.
-
1. It was a long time ago. We were family. Even Bohr laughed. What a stupid show he had been part of.
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
Respectfully this shows that you don't understand what i've written down in the other topic.
Let's talk about Bohr. Do you know how he came to his model of atoms? If you want to read up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model)
-
1. It was a long time ago. We were family. Even Bohr laughed. What a stupid show he had been part of.
Does anyone else here believe Heiwa ever even knew Bohr? I'd bet this is yet another lie.
-
Also i didn't know that the principle behind an atomic bomb was a secret. Why would it be? Sure the exact plans of an atomic bomb will not be available to the public. But why would the principle behind it be a secret?
Just study <snip> where I explain.
Everyone knows about fission to split atoms to obtain energy in, e.g. a power plant. It is well researched and understood.
However the military suggests since 1945 there is another type of destructive fission that, after it has been started, cannot be stopped so that it in a FLASH releases enormous amounts of energy to vaporize towns and people.
Beacuse it is destructive and can be used by terrorists, details of destructive fission is restricted and secret due to national security concerns.
My contribution to the discussion is that destructive fission doesn't work at all, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. I have presented evidence about it at my website.
Plenty people get upset about it but cannot show that I am wrong, even if I pay them €1M.
Below is a North Korean missile with an a-bomb at the top sent away from a submarine in a Korean fiord witnessed by some French fishermen last year. It does not look real, IMHO. I think it is a joke.
(http://static.lexpress.fr/medias_11066/w_2000,c_limit,g_north/v1473424300/coree-du-nord-diapo-obsession-nucleaire-et-balistique-1_5666157.jpg)
Atomic bombs do not work.
See, there it is again. Your contribution is just an unsupported statement. You just say they don't work without any supporting evidence. No, I don't mean pointing to your website. I mean you are on a discussion forum, making statements, you should back them up here.
No, this time my contribution is a photo taken by some French fishermen in N. Korean (NK) waters catching lobsters or whales there, when suddenly an NK intercontinental a-bomb missile shot up through the water direction Washington, DC. The fishermen immediately phoned Obama that his lobsters would be delayed and that he better ordered the missile to be shot down. However, the missile, after being photo shopped by the French, went sideways and detroyed some trees on NK coast no far away. In order to convince me a-bombs work, NK, USA and France have to shape up.
And once again this is a lie.
The photo was taken by North Korea to publicise what they claim is the successful launch of a missile. It is not an atomic ICBM, no-one ever claimed it is - not even North Korea.
-
It happens under controlled conditions in a lab. Niels Bohr has given other explanations and we all had a good laugh then >50 years ago!
1. Who is "we" in this sentence?
However, it is still unclear how destructive, uncontrolled, US, Hiroshima, Nagasaki fission takes place, where billions of U235 (or Plutonium) atoms are split in nanoseconds ... in a FLASH!
Is it because you compress two pieces of U235 together to double density?
2. No it is because neutrons split uranium or plutonium atoms. Fission is fission. It becomes a runaway destructive force when the density of uranium or plutonium atoms is high enough to create a large number of collisions in a very short period of time; around 0.3 microseconds.
If so, win €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
3. No. I, and all others here, will not patronize your shitty website.
1. It was a long time ago. We were family. Even Bohr laughed. What a stupid show he had been part of.
Who was family?
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
So you say. Why can't it? You have never shown why.
3. You sound like a loser. I offer €1M and you don't even try.
No, I am smart enough to know you will never pay. Contests are extremely precise legal affairs to administrate. Nothing you have done demonstrates any sort of confidence that this contest is real. It appears to be an ego trip for a man well past his best before date.
-
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
So you say. Why can't it? You have never shown why.
I have since many years! At http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Plenty sick people are upset about it. People that love a-bombs and nuclear destruction. I can understand it.
What is wrong with peace and good human relations?
-
1. It was a long time ago. We were family. Even Bohr laughed. What a stupid show he had been part of.
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
1. Respectfully this shows that you don't understand what i've written down in the other topic.
2. Let's talk about Bohr. Do you know how he came to his model of atoms? If you want to read up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model)
1. I am not interested in what you write in other topics.
2. Why? I know he was a friend of the family and used to stay with us, when he was at Stockholm (actually sleeping in my mother's bed ... but she had left then). Another Nobel Prize winner friend of the family was Manne Siegbahn. He advised me not to study physics = bad salaries, etc! So I studied mechanical sciences. Much more fun. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . If you want to discuss with me, read first all my papers at my website. And do not tell me I do not understand. Explain instead the errors at my website. Just copy/paste and explain.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
1. I am not interested in what you write in other topics.
We are not interested in your challenge or your website.
(https://s30.postimg.org/48q0v0ekh/Heiwa4.png)(https://s30.postimg.org/48q0v0ekh/Heiwa4.png)(https://s30.postimg.org/48q0v0ekh/Heiwa4.png)(https://s30.postimg.org/48q0v0ekh/Heiwa4.png)
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had! You should have listened. You didn't listen and now you've just gone and made a monumental fool of yourself! We're all having a good laugh.
-
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
So you say. Why can't it? You have never shown why.
I have since many years! At http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Incorrect. There is no explanation on your website for why fission bombs cannot work as has been pointed out, time and again, you only assert their impossibility.
As an aside, how many Nobel laureates in physics do you know?
-
Also i didn't know that the principle behind an atomic bomb was a secret. Why would it be? Sure the exact plans of an atomic bomb will not be available to the public. But why would the principle behind it be a secret?
Just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where I explain.
Everyone knows about fission to split atoms to obtain energy in, e.g. a power plant. It is well researched and understood.
However the military suggests since 1945 there is another type of destructive fission that, after it has been started, cannot be stopped so that it in a FLASH releases enormous amounts of energy to vaporize towns and people.
Beacuse it is destructive and can be used by terrorists, details of destructive fission is restricted and secret due to national security concerns.
My contribution to the discussion is that destructive fission doesn't work at all, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. I have presented evidence about it at my website.
Plenty people get upset about it but cannot show that I am wrong, even if I pay them €1M.
Below is a North Korean missile with an a-bomb at the top sent away from a submarine in a Korean fiord witnessed by some French fishermen last year. It does not look real, IMHO. I think it is a joke.
(http://static.lexpress.fr/medias_11066/w_2000,c_limit,g_north/v1473424300/coree-du-nord-diapo-obsession-nucleaire-et-balistique-1_5666157.jpg)
Atomic bombs do not work.
See, there it is again. Your contribution is just an unsupported statement. You just say they don't work without any supporting evidence. No, I don't mean pointing to your website. I mean you are on a discussion forum, making statements, you should back them up here.
No, this time my contribution is a photo taken by some French fishermen in N. Korean (NK) waters catching lobsters or whales there, when suddenly an NK intercontinental a-bomb missile shot up through the water direction Washington, DC. The fishermen immediately phoned Obama that his lobsters would be delayed and that he better ordered the missile to be shot down. However, the missile, after being photo shopped by the French, went sideways and detroyed some trees on NK coast no far away. In order to convince me a-bombs work, NK, USA and France have to shape up.
Ok, that nonsense aside, you were the one who claimed your contribution was that nukes don't work. I am asking, yet again, to back up that statement, here on this forum. Obviously you won't, because you can't. But that is all that is being asked of you. Support your own statements.
-
Also i didn't know that the principle behind an atomic bomb was a secret. Why would it be? Sure the exact plans of an atomic bomb will not be available to the public. But why would the principle behind it be a secret?
Just study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where I explain.
Everyone knows about fission to split atoms to obtain energy in, e.g. a power plant. It is well researched and understood.
However the military suggests since 1945 there is another type of destructive fission that, after it has been started, cannot be stopped so that it in a FLASH releases enormous amounts of energy to vaporize towns and people.
Beacuse it is destructive and can be used by terrorists, details of destructive fission is restricted and secret due to national security concerns.
My contribution to the discussion is that destructive fission doesn't work at all, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. I have presented evidence about it at my website.
Plenty people get upset about it but cannot show that I am wrong, even if I pay them €1M.
Below is a North Korean missile with an a-bomb at the top sent away from a submarine in a Korean fiord witnessed by some French fishermen last year. It does not look real, IMHO. I think it is a joke.
(http://static.lexpress.fr/medias_11066/w_2000,c_limit,g_north/v1473424300/coree-du-nord-diapo-obsession-nucleaire-et-balistique-1_5666157.jpg)
Atomic bombs do not work.
See, there it is again. Your contribution is just an unsupported statement. You just say they don't work without any supporting evidence. No, I don't mean pointing to your website. I mean you are on a discussion forum, making statements, you should back them up here.
No, this time my contribution is a photo taken by some French fishermen in N. Korean (NK) waters catching lobsters or whales there, when suddenly an NK intercontinental a-bomb missile shot up through the water direction Washington, DC. The fishermen immediately phoned Obama that his lobsters would be delayed and that he better ordered the missile to be shot down. However, the missile, after being photo shopped by the French, went sideways and detroyed some trees on NK coast no far away. In order to convince me a-bombs work, NK, USA and France have to shape up.
Ok, that nonsense aside, you were the one who claimed your contribution was that nukes don't work. I am asking, yet again, to back up that statement, here on this forum. Obviously you won't, because you can't. But that is all that is being asked of you. Support your own statements.
I think he learned not to do that. It has not turned out well for him in the past. That is why he will not do much more than give a simplified explanation how something is done then say it can not be done and provide a the link to his site where he does the same thing.
-
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
So you say. Why can't it? You have never shown why.
I have since many years! At http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Incorrect. There is no explanation on your website for why fission bombs cannot work as has been pointed out, time and again, you only assert their impossibility.
Hm, I think I explain pretty convincingly at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm why fission a-bombs do not work.
The suggested method to start runway, destructive fission ending in a FLASH 1945 does not work.
Bringing two pieces of fissile material in sudden contact with each other so they make up on total critical mass, while compressing them to double density with a neutron in between is pseudoscientific nonsens. Fission does not work like that. It must be moderated.
Stalin could never build his a-bomb with uranium supplied by Wismut AG 1945/9.
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public. He knew those conditions could never be met, so the offer to build an a-bomb was withdrawn.
Look at the alleged 'scientists' of the Manhattan project 1942/5. Simple charlatans. Boring types (incl. Bohr).
Etc, etc.
It seems you never bother to study my webpage. So please tell me the three first words of section 2.14 of my paper.
Then we can discuss.
-
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
So you say. Why can't it? You have never shown why.
I have since many years! At http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Incorrect. There is no explanation on your website for why fission bombs cannot work as has been pointed out, time and again, you only assert their impossibility.
Hm, I think I explain pretty convincingly at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm why fission a-bombs do not work.
The suggested method to start runway, destructive fission ending in a FLASH 1945 does not work.
Bringing two pieces of fissile material in sudden contact with each other so they make up on total critical mass, while compressing them to double density with a neutron in between is pseudoscientific nonsens. Fission does not work like that. It must be moderated.
Stalin could never build his a-bomb with uranium supplied by Wismut AG 1945/9.
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public. He knew those conditions could never be met, so the offer to build an a-bomb was withdrawn.
Case in point. None of this explains why a-bombs don't work.
Look at the alleged 'scientists' of the Manhattan project 1942/5. Simple charlatans. Boring types (incl. Bohr).
Etc, etc.
It seems you never bother to study my webpage. So please tell me the three first words of section 2.14 of my paper.
"More good news"
Then we can discuss.
Go on then... You were about to tell me why a-bombs don't work.
-
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
So you say. Why can't it? You have never shown why.
I have since many years! At http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Incorrect. There is no explanation on your website for why fission bombs cannot work as has been pointed out, time and again, you only assert their impossibility.
Hm, I think I explain pretty convincingly at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm why fission a-bombs do not work.
The suggested method to start runway, destructive fission ending in a FLASH 1945 does not work.
Bringing two pieces of fissile material in sudden contact with each other so they make up on total critical mass, while compressing them to double density with a neutron in between is pseudoscientific nonsens. Fission does not work like that. It must be moderated.
Stalin could never build his a-bomb with uranium supplied by Wismut AG 1945/9.
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public. He knew those conditions could never be met, so the offer to build an a-bomb was withdrawn.
Look at the alleged 'scientists' of the Manhattan project 1942/5. Simple charlatans. Boring types (incl. Bohr).
Etc, etc.
It seems you never bother to study my webpage. So please tell me the three first words of section 2.14 of my paper.
Then we can discuss.
And you've done it again. No evidence to support your claim. Claims you made and should be able to support here. But you won't because you can't. No one is interested in your website. Show your work here, where you made the claims.
You really do seem to think you saying it can't be done is evidence of, well, anything.
-
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
So you say. Why can't it? You have never shown why.
I have since many years! At http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Incorrect. There is no explanation on your website for why fission bombs cannot work as has been pointed out, time and again, you only assert their impossibility.
Hm, I think I explain pretty convincingly at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm why fission a-bombs do not work.
The suggested method to start runway, destructive fission ending in a FLASH 1945 does not work.
Bringing two pieces of fissile material in sudden contact with each other so they make up on total critical mass, while compressing them to double density with a neutron in between is pseudoscientific nonsens. Fission does not work like that. It must be moderated.
Stalin could never build his a-bomb with uranium supplied by Wismut AG 1945/9.
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public. He knew those conditions could never be met, so the offer to build an a-bomb was withdrawn.
Look at the alleged 'scientists' of the Manhattan project 1942/5. Simple charlatans. Boring types (incl. Bohr).
Etc, etc.
It seems you never bother to study my webpage. So please tell me the three first words of section 2.14 of my paper.
Then we can discuss.
And you've done it again. No evidence to support your claim. Claims you made and should be able to support here. But you won't because you can't. No one is interested in your website. Show your work here, where you made the claims.
You really do seem to think you saying it can't be done is evidence of, well, anything.
No evidence? So you believe that the Manhattan prject team 1942/5 from scratch managed to develop, design and manufacture three a-bombs using an unproven, destructive, runway fission principle that could not be stopped after being started? That when started, at almost the speed of light, the result was a FLASH and a dirty mushroom cloud? Well, there is no evidence for it. Just plenty fake photos, etc.
And then we have the Stalin a-bomb. Built from scratch 1945/9 with uranium from Wismut AG mined by German slaves and later minimally paid workers in Saxony, East Germany under GULAG/KGB control. Stalin just copied/pasted the US Manhattan nonsense that some spies provided, while FBI/CIA was sleeping.
Well, there is no evidence for it either. Just propaganda.
After 1945 USA has lost every war it has started and it has never used its nuclear arms for the simple reason it does not work and has never worked. The problem is that it is a military secret by Executive order of the POTUS in the name of national security since 71 years. Donald T can scream, shout and threaten as he likes but it will not change anything. USA has no nuclear arms.
-
Hm, I think I explain pretty convincingly at <snip> why fission a-bombs do not work.
No, you don't. You tell lies there, like the lies about the photo of the North Korean missile test.
The suggested method to start runway, destructive fission ending in a FLASH 1945 does not work.
Why?
Bringing two pieces of fissile material in sudden contact with each other so they make up on total critical mass, while compressing them to double density with a neutron in between is pseudoscientific nonsens. Fission does not work like that. It must be moderated.
Fission does not need moderating to happen. Fission happens naturally - it's effectively what radioactive decay is. Fission needs moderating if we want to control it. What happens if we do not control it?
Stalin could never build his a-bomb with uranium supplied by Wismut AG 1945/9.
Again, you keep saying this with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it was not possible to build an a-bomb. The best you can hope for is the ambiguity in your statement that Wismut was not the source of the USSR's nuclear material.
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public. He knew those conditions could never be met, so the offer to build an a-bomb was withdrawn.
There is only one source for this claim, and that source is you. We know from experience that you fabricate things. There is no evidence that it is true, not even from you. Siegbahn was not capable of building a bomb, it was not his area of expertise. The person who could have done it worked for him once, and she did refuse involvement in atomic weapons research because she knew it was possible and knew what the implications were.
Look at the alleged 'scientists' of the Manhattan project 1942/5. Simple charlatans. Boring types (incl. Bohr).
Make your mind up. You name-dropped Bohr earlier as if he was someone else who supported your claims but he was one of the key figures in the research that built the atomic bomb in the Manhattan Project.
I think those Nobel laureates that you supposedly got drunk with asked you not to go near nuclear physics because they knew it was way beyond your capabilities. They suggested instead that you get on a boat and keep going. There, I've made up a fact - that makes it true.
Etc, etc.
It seems you never bother to study my webpage. So please tell me the three first words of section 2.14 of my paper.
Then we can discuss.
I've seen it. The formatting makes it unreadable, the lies make it contemptible, the mistakes make it laughable.
-
1. It was a long time ago. We were family. Even Bohr laughed. What a stupid show he had been part of.
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
1. Respectfully this shows that you don't understand what i've written down in the other topic.
2. Let's talk about Bohr. Do you know how he came to his model of atoms? If you want to read up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model)
1. I am not interested in what you write in other topics.
2. Why?
1: because there i explain the principle behind an atomic bomb
2: Because the experiment bohr did to make his atomic model is very interesting. He 'exited' atoms, essentially he added energy to the atom. He then watched what happend. Do you know what happend? They emitted light. Pls tell me that you can see why this is similar to a nuclear explosion. (Similar not equal)
Now why do i see you claiming that a nuclear bomb can't be real just because there is a flash right after the explosion? That's just complete bulshit. An example: if you light a candle you'll start a chemical reaction that releases energy. In the case of the candle 2 types of energy: first light and second heat.
-
Stalin could never build his a-bomb with uranium supplied by Wismut AG 1945/9.
Again, you keep saying this with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it was not possible to build an a-bomb. The best you can hope for is the ambiguity in your statement that Wismut was not the source of the USSR's nuclear material.
I agree. It is suggested that you need uranium to build an a-bomb. The uranium is then enriched, etc, so you get the U235 that can form two subcritical masses that you keep apart to avoid disaster. And then you compress the two subcritical masses together to double density with a neutron in between to form a critical mass and ... FLASH ... destruction! There is no evidence anywhere that compressing U235 masses will produce anything.
But Stalin believed it 1945 and needed uranium. And it was rumoured it existed in Saxony. The only place in Stalin's empire. And it was correct. The ore contained 0.02% uranite (an oxide), but the experts said it was much too little for enrichment, etc, etc. Stalin didn't like that answer. To avoid being shot on the spot, the experts agreed with Stalin. And uranium mining started. It didn't matter that the ore was useless. The whole Stalin bomb was a fake from A to Z. Fake uranium ore fitted perfectly. And all got medals and certificates later having assisted building the Stalin bomb that exploded 1949. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is evidence that the (Stalin) a-bomb didn't work.
-
1. It was a long time ago. We were family. Even Bohr laughed. What a stupid show he had been part of.
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
1. Respectfully this shows that you don't understand what i've written down in the other topic.
2. Let's talk about Bohr. Do you know how he came to his model of atoms? If you want to read up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model)
1. I am not interested in what you write in other topics.
2. Why?
1: because there i explain the principle behind an atomic bomb
2: Because the experiment bohr did to make his atomic model is very interesting. He 'exited' atoms, essentially he added energy to the atom. He then watched what happend. Do you know what happend? They emitted light. Pls tell me that you can see why this is similar to a nuclear explosion. (Similar not equal)
Now why do i see you claiming that a nuclear bomb can't be real just because there is a flash right after the explosion? That's just complete bulshit. An example: if you light a candle you'll start a chemical reaction that releases energy. In the case of the candle 2 types of energy: first light and second heat.
1. But I already explain why a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ! Show that I am wrong and earn €1M.
2. Bohr had many crazy ideas in the end incl. 'exiting' (sic) atoms so they split. Others thought a moderated (slow) neutron split the atom. Bohr & Oppenheimer invented that a fast neutron could do it much faster in an a-bomb. I think it was disgusting. Lying like that!
Start a new thread about it. It is very exciting stuff.
-
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
So you say. Why can't it? You have never shown why.
I have since many years! At http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Incorrect. There is no explanation on your website for why fission bombs cannot work as has been pointed out, time and again, you only assert their impossibility.
Hm, I think I explain pretty convincingly at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm why fission a-bombs do not work.
The suggested method to start runway, destructive fission ending in a FLASH 1945 does not work.
Bringing two pieces of fissile material in sudden contact with each other so they make up on total critical mass, while compressing them to double density with a neutron in between is pseudoscientific nonsens. Fission does not work like that. It must be moderated.
Stalin could never build his a-bomb with uranium supplied by Wismut AG 1945/9.
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public. He knew those conditions could never be met, so the offer to build an a-bomb was withdrawn.
Look at the alleged 'scientists' of the Manhattan project 1942/5. Simple charlatans. Boring types (incl. Bohr).
Etc, etc.
It seems you never bother to study my webpage. So please tell me the three first words of section 2.14 of my paper.
Then we can discuss.
And you've done it again. No evidence to support your claim. Claims you made and should be able to support here. But you won't because you can't. No one is interested in your website. Show your work here, where you made the claims.
You really do seem to think you saying it can't be done is evidence of, well, anything.
No evidence? So you believe that the Manhattan prject team 1942/5 from scratch managed to develop, design and manufacture three a-bombs using an unproven, destructive, runway fission principle that could not be stopped after being started? That when started, at almost the speed of light, the result was a FLASH and a dirty mushroom cloud? Well, there is no evidence for it. Just plenty fake photos, etc.
And then we have the Stalin a-bomb. Built from scratch 1945/9 with uranium from Wismut AG mined by German slaves and later minimally paid workers in Saxony, East Germany under GULAG/KGB control. Stalin just copied/pasted the US Manhattan nonsense that some spies provided, while FBI/CIA was sleeping.
Well, there is no evidence for it either. Just propaganda.
After 1945 USA has lost every war it has started and it has never used its nuclear arms for the simple reason it does not work and has never worked. The problem is that it is a military secret by Executive order of the POTUS in the name of national security since 71 years. Donald T can scream, shout and threaten as he likes but it will not change anything. USA has no nuclear arms.
And you've done it again. You have offered no evidence to support your claim. Only a statement that it can't work. Do you have any evidence at all you can post here without referring to your own website.
-
Stalin could never build his a-bomb with uranium supplied by Wismut AG 1945/9.
Again, you keep saying this with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it was not possible to build an a-bomb. The best you can hope for is the ambiguity in your statement that Wismut was not the source of the USSR's nuclear material.
I agree. It is suggested that you need uranium to build an a-bomb. The uranium is then enriched, etc, so you get the U235 that can form two subcritical masses that you keep apart to avoid disaster. And then you compress the two subcritical masses together to double density with a neutron in between to form a critical mass and ... FLASH ... destruction! There is no evidence anywhere that compressing U235 masses will produce anything.
You should have asked Bohrm he could have told you that your gross over-simplification of the science is nonsense. I'm not surprised they were desperate to keep you away from civilisation and send you away on a boat. There is ample proof that fission and fusion bombs work. Your deliberate avoidance of the proof is not evidence that it doesn't exist.
But Stalin believed it 1945 and needed uranium. And it was rumoured it existed in Saxony. The only place in Stalin's empire.
Not true. There are many sources of uranium in the former USSR and its satellites, Wismut just happened to be the biggest. Sovier research into the atom bomb commenced long before 1945 and their first source of uranium was a large amount captured from the Germans. Did you leave your history books behind when you were banished to the boat?
And it was correct. The ore contained 0.02% uranite (an oxide), but the experts said it was much too little for enrichment, etc, etc. Stalin didn't like that answer. To avoid being shot on the spot, the experts agreed with Stalin. And uranium mining started. It didn't matter that the ore was useless. The whole Stalin bomb was a fake from A to Z. Fake uranium ore fitted perfectly. And all got medals and certificates later having assisted building the Stalin bomb that exploded 1949. I describe it at <snip> . It is evidence that the (Stalin) a-bomb didn't work.
and then you started lying again.
-
1. It was a long time ago. We were family. Even Bohr laughed. What a stupid show he had been part of.
2. Fission is only possible under controlled conditions. Military, runway, uncontrolled, unstoppable fission doesn't exist. And it does not become a force, ever.
1. Respectfully this shows that you don't understand what i've written down in the other topic.
2. Let's talk about Bohr. Do you know how he came to his model of atoms? If you want to read up on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model)
1. I am not interested in what you write in other topics.
2. Why?
1: because there i explain the principle behind an atomic bomb
2: Because the experiment bohr did to make his atomic model is very interesting. He 'exited' atoms, essentially he added energy to the atom. He then watched what happend. Do you know what happend? They emitted light. Pls tell me that you can see why this is similar to a nuclear explosion. (Similar not equal)
Now why do i see you claiming that a nuclear bomb can't be real just because there is a flash right after the explosion? That's just complete bulshit. An example: if you light a candle you'll start a chemical reaction that releases energy. In the case of the candle 2 types of energy: first light and second heat.
1. But I already explain why a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ! Show that I am wrong and earn €1M.
2. Bohr had many crazy ideas in the end incl. 'exiting' (sic) atoms so they split. Others thought a moderated (slow) neutron split the atom. Bohr & Oppenheimer invented that a fast neutron could do it much faster in an a-bomb. I think it was disgusting. Lying like that!
Start a new thread about it. It is very exciting stuff.
No you don't explain it on your website, you just claim it. Just like you do here. I will keep asking as long as you keep posting this stuff. Please show some actual evidence to support your claims.
-
No you don't explain it on your website, you just claim it. Just like you do here. I will keep asking as long as you keep posting this stuff. Please show some actual evidence to support your claims.
Sorry, I claim nothing at my website. I explain my understanding of variout things of which plenty people are badly informed. And some of them including you, the ones suffering from cognitive dissonance, get upset. But they are warned at the top of the pages.
To encourage people to understand better, I offer them €1M to show I am wrong.
Nobody has claimed that prize.
Reason? I am not wrong!
-
No you don't explain it on your website, you just claim it. Just like you do here. I will keep asking as long as you keep posting this stuff. Please show some actual evidence to support your claims.
Sorry, I claim nothing at my website. I explain my understanding of variout things of which plenty people are badly informed. And some of them including you, the ones suffering from cognitive dissonance, get upset. But they are warned at the top of the pages.
To encourage people to understand better, I offer them €1M to show I am wrong.
Nobody has claimed that prize.
Reason? I am not wrong!
Ok, first you make lots of claims on your website, like nuclear weapons don't work and space flight is impossible. So you saying you don't is a straight up lie. Secondly, you have yet to support any of the claims you have made on this forum. You simply say nukes don't work. You have shown no evidence to back that up at all.
Can you, please, show some evidence here, on this forum, to support your statements or not? You keep dodging that central point. Why?
-
Ok, first you make lots of claims on your website, like nuclear weapons don't work and space flight is impossible. So you saying you don't is a straight up lie. Secondly, you have yet to support any of the claims you have made on this forum. You simply say nukes don't work. You have shown no evidence to back that up at all.
Can you, please, show some evidence here, on this forum, to support your statements or not? You keep dodging that central point. Why?
? I am sorry that you don't understand may explanations about fake a-bombs, fake human space trips, fake bow visors falling off ships and fake Arabs landing in the top of NY towers.
I don't claim anything. I just explain that you cannot start destrutive fission by compressing two pieces of metal = an a-bomb 1945. I explain how a Russian, Y Gagarin, faked his space trip 1961 and how USA copied/pasted the nonsense. I explain the impacts against bows of ships and associated noices and vibrations. You hear and feel them. And I describe in some scientific papers that no structure globally collapses from top.
And I offer anyone proving me wrong €1M.
And what is the result?
An anonymous, nobody like you make a stupid post above ignoring my €1M offer. You seem utterly stupid. So who pays you to be stupid. Who are you?
-
Your page is not difficult to understand content-wise; it just doesn't prove anything you say it does. The reason for this has been stated time after time, your conclusions are based on only incredulity. If there is any more substance to your conclusions, it is not on those pages.
-
Your page is not difficult to understand content-wise; it just doesn't prove anything you say it does. The reason for this has been stated time after time, your conclusions are based on only incredulity. If there is any more substance to your conclusions, it is not on those pages.
Thanks that you understand what I write and say. What shall I prove? What I say is correct. If you don't believe it, it is your problem. Cognitive dissonance!
I pay you €1M to prove me wrong.
It seems you have not collected it.
-
You should have asked Bohrm he could have told you that your gross over-simplification of the science is nonsense. I'm not surprised they were desperate to keep you away from civilisation and send you away on a boat. There is ample proof that fission and fusion bombs work. Your deliberate avoidance of the proof is not evidence that it doesn't exist.
Well Bohr died 1962 and I didn't have time to discuss with him. People considered him, a Dane, a war criminal having assisted killing innocent civilians at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A civilian scientist should not assist designing weapons of mass destruction, IMHO.
It was only 1964 I discussed with M. Siegbahn what to do with my life and ... he didn't recommend physics! I explain why at my website. Manne had won the Nobel Prize 1923 but after that? Did he discover anything new? 1945 he was asked by the Swedish government to design and build a Swedish a-bomb to kill civilians. Manne was clever! He agreed ... subject to ... .
Imagine anyone asking me to design a weapon of mass destruction.
No, there is no evidence that military destructive bombs using sudden, runway, unstoppable fission works and that they can be used to ignite hydrogen bombs. I show it at my website.
Prove me wrong and collect €1M, monkey! You chatter a lot. You are not very bright, are you?
-
Your page is not difficult to understand content-wise; it just doesn't prove anything you say it does. The reason for this has been stated time after time, your conclusions are based on only incredulity. If there is any more substance to your conclusions, it is not on those pages.
Thanks that you understand what I write and say. What shall I prove? What I say is correct. If you don't believe it, it is your problem. Cognitive dissonance!
I pay you €1M to prove me wrong.
It seems you have not collected it.
I don't have cognitive dissonance, I just don't take you at your word. If you could substantiate your claims, I might believe you!
-
Heiwa you assume nobody came to collect that 1 million euros because you aren't wrong. Have you considered any other reasons?
I'll list a few:
-People think it's too good to be true so there must be a catch
-people think you don't have a million euros so don't bother
-people think you're not going to pay up because you won't accept any evidence/proof
-people think you don't have them all in a row and don't want to do business with you
-people don't want to explain to the government were that 1 million comes from
-...
Finding nobody to prove you're wrong doesn't proof you right. Keep that in mind
-
Ok, first you make lots of claims on your website, like nuclear weapons don't work and space flight is impossible. So you saying you don't is a straight up lie. Secondly, you have yet to support any of the claims you have made on this forum. You simply say nukes don't work. You have shown no evidence to back that up at all.
Can you, please, show some evidence here, on this forum, to support your statements or not? You keep dodging that central point. Why?
? I am sorry that you don't understand may explanations about fake a-bombs, fake human space trips, fake bow visors falling off ships and fake Arabs landing in the top of NY towers.
I don't claim anything. I just explain that you cannot start destrutive fission by compressing two pieces of metal = an a-bomb 1945. I explain how a Russian, Y Gagarin, faked his space trip 1961 and how USA copied/pasted the nonsense. I explain the impacts against bows of ships and associated noices and vibrations. You hear and feel them. And I describe in some scientific papers that no structure globally collapses from top.
And I offer anyone proving me wrong €1M.
And what is the result?
An anonymous, nobody like you make a stupid post above ignoring my €1M offer. You seem utterly stupid. So who pays you to be stupid. Who are you?
Support your statements here, where you made them. You have not done that you have only said it doesn't work. Show us why it doesn't work.
-
You seem to be under the impression that we give a shit about your biography. All that matters here is whether you can tell the truth or not, and the evidence is that you can't.
The only source for the claim that Siegbahn was asked to design an atomic weapon is you. The only source for the claim that he refused is you.
There are many sources that show that was not capable of designing such a weapon because it was not his area of expertise.
As you provide no source for your claims other than your drunken imagination, I'm saying you made it up: it's a lie.
-
You seem to be under the impression that we give a shit about your biography. All that matters here is whether you can tell the truth or not, and the evidence is that you can't.
The only source for the claim that Siegbahn was asked to design an atomic weapon is you. The only source for the claim that he refused is you.
There are many sources that show that was not capable of designing such a weapon because it was not his area of expertise.
As you provide no source for your claims other than your drunken imagination, I'm saying you made it up: it's a lie.
You really have to study my web site where I provide the sources of what I say, as usual. Siegbahn, then 59, was 1945 asked by the Swedish socialdemocratic government to create and become head of a Swedish defence research agency, FOA, to develop weapons of mass destruction, incl. a-bombs. Siegbahn replied in a long letter/report that he would do so, if all findings about WMDs were peer reviewed and made public. Siegbahn didn't like secrecy. You find the letter/report in the archive of the Swedish Armed Forces, Stockholm. Siegbahn didn't get the job (and didn't need it) but got US$ 1M from Rockefeller Foundation to develop his cyclotron at Frescati (outside Stockholm), which needed plenty staff to be operated, at his own research institute. It seems any interesting sccientific findings by the cyclotron were limited. And FOA never developed any a-bomb. They only stated that they had the capability to do so ... but there is no evidence in the archives that they had. I have looked, you see. My conclusion is that Sweden never could build an a-bomb because it was simple propaganda and pseudoscience. I later served >500 days in the Swedish Navy and no sign of any WMDs, half the time below ground in an a-bomb proof shipyard, which seems to have been a bad/stupid investment as a-bombs do not work and ship repairs/maintenance is best done in the open.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Glad to hear you have found your "special happy place." I just think the caretakers should control your access to, and use of the internet a little closer.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Glad to hear you have found your "special happy place." I just think the caretakers should control your access to, and use of the internet a little closer.
Yes, Beausoleil is a nice place. With no caretakers of any kind. We take care of ourselves. No need to accept orders from above about all sorts of nonsense; nuclear bombs, manned space travel, Arabs landing in tops of skyscrapers, wave impacts at sea and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, ITER at Cadarache, down the road from here. The latter is really a laugh.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Glad to hear you have found your "special happy place." I just think the caretakers should control your access to, and use of the internet a little closer.
The latter is really a laugh.
So are you. Not in a good way.
-
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Yep, well manicured lawns, high electric fences, clean linens, polite orderlies, group activities, toys with no sharp edges, a mattress in your cell if you behave. Life is grand.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Glad to hear you have found your "special happy place." I just think the caretakers should control your access to, and use of the internet a little closer.
The latter is really a laugh.
So are you. Not in a good way.
I had changed topic to ITER - it doesn't look good - https://www.iter.org/newsline/-/2610 - still unfinished. Have a laugh. People believe it will produce 500 MW one day.
-
You seem to be under the impression that we give a shit about your biography. All that matters here is whether you can tell the truth or not, and the evidence is that you can't.
The only source for the claim that Siegbahn was asked to design an atomic weapon is you. The only source for the claim that he refused is you.
There are many sources that show that was not capable of designing such a weapon because it was not his area of expertise.
As you provide no source for your claims other than your drunken imagination, I'm saying you made it up: it's a lie.
You really have to study my web site where I provide the sources of what I say, as usual. Siegbahn, then 59, was 1945 asked by the Swedish socialdemocratic government to create and become head of a Swedish defence research agency, FOA, to develop weapons of mass destruction, incl. a-bombs. Siegbahn replied in a long letter/report that he would do so, if all findings about WMDs were peer reviewed and made public. Siegbahn didn't like secrecy. You find the letter/report in the archive of the Swedish Armed Forces, Stockholm. Siegbahn didn't get the job (and didn't need it) but got US$ 1M from Rockefeller Foundation to develop his cyclotron at Frescati (outside Stockholm), which needed plenty staff to be operated, at his own research institute. It seems any interesting sccientific findings by the cyclotron were limited. And FOA never developed any a-bomb. They only stated that they had the capability to do so ... but there is no evidence in the archives that they had. I have looked, you see. My conclusion is that Sweden never could build an a-bomb because it was simple propaganda and pseudoscience. I later served >500 days in the Swedish Navy and no sign of any WMDs, half the time below ground in an a-bomb proof shipyard, which seems to have been a bad/stupid investment as a-bombs do not work and ship repairs/maintenance is best done in the open.
So once again, you cannot actually defend your positions with evidence, just a statement that they are wrong.
-
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Yep, well manicured lawns, high electric fences, clean linens, polite orderlies, group activities, toys with no sharp edges, a mattress in your cell if you behave. Life is grand.
You are as dumb as you look. Here we have a friendly discussion and then this dumb shit.
-
You seem to be under the impression that we give a shit about your biography. All that matters here is whether you can tell the truth or not, and the evidence is that you can't.
The only source for the claim that Siegbahn was asked to design an atomic weapon is you. The only source for the claim that he refused is you.
There are many sources that show that was not capable of designing such a weapon because it was not his area of expertise.
As you provide no source for your claims other than your drunken imagination, I'm saying you made it up: it's a lie.
You really have to study my web site where I provide the sources of what I say, as usual. Siegbahn, then 59, was 1945 asked by the Swedish socialdemocratic government to create and become head of a Swedish defence research agency, FOA, to develop weapons of mass destruction, incl. a-bombs. Siegbahn replied in a long letter/report that he would do so, if all findings about WMDs were peer reviewed and made public. Siegbahn didn't like secrecy. You find the letter/report in the archive of the Swedish Armed Forces, Stockholm. Siegbahn didn't get the job (and didn't need it) but got US$ 1M from Rockefeller Foundation to develop his cyclotron at Frescati (outside Stockholm), which needed plenty staff to be operated, at his own research institute. It seems any interesting sccientific findings by the cyclotron were limited. And FOA never developed any a-bomb. They only stated that they had the capability to do so ... but there is no evidence in the archives that they had. I have looked, you see. My conclusion is that Sweden never could build an a-bomb because it was simple propaganda and pseudoscience. I later served >500 days in the Swedish Navy and no sign of any WMDs, half the time below ground in an a-bomb proof shipyard, which seems to have been a bad/stupid investment as a-bombs do not work and ship repairs/maintenance is best done in the open.
So once again, you cannot actually defend your positions with evidence, just a statement that they are wrong.
Hm, my evidence is at my website incl. a generous offer of €1M to anyone showing that I am wrong.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Glad to hear you have found your "special happy place." I just think the caretakers should control your access to, and use of the internet a little closer.
The latter is really a laugh.
So are you. Not in a good way.
Have a laugh.
Everyone in this thread is having a laugh - at you.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Glad to hear you have found your "special happy place." I just think the caretakers should control your access to, and use of the internet a little closer.
The latter is really a laugh.
So are you. Not in a good way.
Have a laugh.
Everyone in this thread is having a laugh - at you.
Is that so? In the meantime I have 100's of visitors to my website http://heiwaco.com . That is really fun.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
I have the luck to live where the sun shines 300/360, people are happy, no unemployment, no beggars, good food, perfect medical facilities, etc, etc.
Glad to hear you have found your "special happy place." I just think the caretakers should control your access to, and use of the internet a little closer.
The latter is really a laugh.
So are you. Not in a good way.
Have a laugh.
Everyone in this thread is having a laugh - at you.
Is that so? In the meantime I have 100's of visitors to [shameless plug]. That is really fun.
Most cyber scam artists get 100's of visitors to their websites and think it's fun scamming people.
In the real world you are nothing but a joke.
-
In the real world you are nothing but a joke.
If it makes you happy to believe so, believe so. I think you suffer from cognitive dissonance and that nuclear weapons are a stupid joke. Luckily they do not even work. But some people are scared. Sad. You are not scared. You are sick. It is even worse.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
In the real world you are nothing but a joke.
I think... that nuclear weapons are a stupid joke.
I have never met an engineer who would express their opinion in that fashion. And nuclear weapons aren't the joke here. You are.
-
In the real world you are nothing but a joke.
If it makes you happy to believe so, believe so. I think you suffer from cognitive dissonance and that nuclear weapons are a stupid joke. Luckily they do not even work. But some people are scared. Sad. You are not scared. You are sick. It is even worse.
Another example of the logical fallacies with which you surround yourself: Someone believes nuclear weapons exist therefore they are happy about it. These two statements do not follow. It's just another way you can sugar coat your belief system by tainting everyone with whom you disagree.
It's far more dangerous to believe that they don't work, and I'm glad you're not in any kind of position to make political decisions based on that assumption.
-
In the real world you are nothing but a joke.
If it makes you happy to believe so, believe so. I think you suffer from cognitive dissonance and that nuclear weapons are a stupid joke. Luckily they do not even work. But some people are scared. Sad. You are not scared. You are sick. It is even worse.
Another example of the logical fallacies with which you surround yourself: Someone believes nuclear weapons exist therefore they are happy about it. These two statements do not follow. It's just another way you can sugar coat your belief system by tainting everyone with whom you disagree.
It's far more dangerous to believe that they don't work, and I'm glad you're not in any kind of position to make political decisions based on that assumption.
Monkey, I describe the development of the a-bombs used 1945 at my website and it seems the US/Danish inventors were quite happy of the result and celebrated it. I think it was a hoax and a sad joke to scare. I pay you €1M to prove me wrong. I also describe the Stalin a-bomb 1949. A friend of mine helped Stalin then! But it was just communist propaganda. No bomb! If my friend had informed that 1949, he would have been shot at once. Under such circumstances it was quite ease to fake it.
Fake News is also popular today. According CIA the Russians (!) manipulated the US presidential election 2016!
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
baby ... don't you need your speed?
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
baby ... don't you need your speed?
I kicked Adderall 6 months after I graduated....Plus always left me with a nasty headache, or perhaps it was from lack of sleep.
But that you for the offer heiwa baby...A decade ago I would have said yes please.
-
You seem to be under the impression that we give a shit about your biography. All that matters here is whether you can tell the truth or not, and the evidence is that you can't.
The only source for the claim that Siegbahn was asked to design an atomic weapon is you. The only source for the claim that he refused is you.
There are many sources that show that was not capable of designing such a weapon because it was not his area of expertise.
As you provide no source for your claims other than your drunken imagination, I'm saying you made it up: it's a lie.
You really have to study my web site where I provide the sources of what I say, as usual. Siegbahn, then 59, was 1945 asked by the Swedish socialdemocratic government to create and become head of a Swedish defence research agency, FOA, to develop weapons of mass destruction, incl. a-bombs. Siegbahn replied in a long letter/report that he would do so, if all findings about WMDs were peer reviewed and made public. Siegbahn didn't like secrecy. You find the letter/report in the archive of the Swedish Armed Forces, Stockholm. Siegbahn didn't get the job (and didn't need it) but got US$ 1M from Rockefeller Foundation to develop his cyclotron at Frescati (outside Stockholm), which needed plenty staff to be operated, at his own research institute. It seems any interesting sccientific findings by the cyclotron were limited. And FOA never developed any a-bomb. They only stated that they had the capability to do so ... but there is no evidence in the archives that they had. I have looked, you see. My conclusion is that Sweden never could build an a-bomb because it was simple propaganda and pseudoscience. I later served >500 days in the Swedish Navy and no sign of any WMDs, half the time below ground in an a-bomb proof shipyard, which seems to have been a bad/stupid investment as a-bombs do not work and ship repairs/maintenance is best done in the open.
So once again, you cannot actually defend your positions with evidence, just a statement that they are wrong.
Hm, my evidence is at my website incl. a generous offer of €1M to anyone showing that I am wrong.
And again you can provide no evidence to support your statements. We aren't talking about your website or your fake challenge. You made claims here, support them here. So far this thread has gone on for many pages and you have failed to provide any evidence to support your claims. Not once. Can you provide any evidence here to support your claims?
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
baby ... don't you need your speed?
Heiwa, how do you feel talking to a real engineer?
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
baby ... don't you need your speed?
Heiwa, how do you feel talking to a real engineer?
I bet he feels epic.
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
baby ... don't you need your speed?
Heiwa, how do you feel talking to a real engineer?
You mean the drug addict? Waste of time. When I was a boy I was curious how bombs worked. Gun powder! Details were easy to find. And also the ingredients! So we bought them at the chemist, mixed them and ... our Intelligent Explosive Devices, IED, were ready. Same stuff that blow up US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past. They call them Improvised! We were 13! We didn't improvise! We frightened old ladies around 40 and their dogs in the neighborhood. Great fun. Later I became a warrior seaman handling real stuff blowing up bridges and top of the pop ... the seamine ... that easily would sink an aircraft carrier. So I got interested in nukes! Uranium, plutonium, you know. But I could never figure out how to make the thing explode. There were secret info available - critical masses, sudden compression to double density, neutrons being released, bla, bla, bla. It was easy to understand it was all nonsense. A-bombs do not work.
-
You all realize Heiwa wacks his punie pud with his left hand while he types with his right?
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
baby ... don't you need your speed?
Heiwa, how do you feel talking to a real engineer?
I bet he feels epic.
I must agree that I am proud of my work to educate - as a hobby - all these fools in the world that believe in a-bombs since 1945, space travel since 1961 and Arabs landing planes in tops of skyscrapers 2001.
-
But I could never figure out how to make the thing explode.
The crux of the whole thread right there.
There were secret info available - critical masses, sudden compression to double density, neutrons being released, bla, bla, bla.
The science behind a-bombs is not secret. It is all derived from Quantum Mechanics. The secret part is how the bombs are engineered.
It was easy to understand it was all nonsense.
Once you realized you didn't understand them it must have been easy to decide they were fake, yes.
A-bombs do not work.
That or you don't know what you are talking about. I vote for the latter.
[/quote]
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
baby ... don't you need your speed?
Heiwa, how do you feel talking to a real engineer?
You mean the drug addict? Waste of time. When I was a boy I was curious how bombs worked. Gun powder! Details were easy to find. And also the ingredients! So we bought them at the chemist, mixed them and ... our Intelligent Explosive Devices, IED, were ready. Same stuff that blow up US soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq in the past. They call them Improvised! We were 13! We didn't improvise! We frightened old ladies around 40 and their dogs in the neighborhood. Great fun. Later I became a warrior seaman handling real stuff blowing up bridges and top of the pop ... the seamine ... that easily would sink an aircraft carrier. So I got interested in nukes! Uranium, plutonium, you know. But I could never figure out how to make the thing explode. There were secret info available - critical masses, sudden compression to double density, neutrons being released, bla, bla, bla. It was easy to understand it was all nonsense. A-bombs do not work.
Why don't they work. No, I'm going to your website. You made the claim here you should be able to defend it here.
-
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or do you just expect us to take your word for it?
-
You seem to be under the impression that we give a shit about your biography. All that matters here is whether you can tell the truth or not, and the evidence is that you can't.
The only source for the claim that Siegbahn was asked to design an atomic weapon is you. The only source for the claim that he refused is you.
There are many sources that show that was not capable of designing such a weapon because it was not his area of expertise.
As you provide no source for your claims other than your drunken imagination, I'm saying you made it up: it's a lie.
You really have to study my web site where I provide the sources of what I say, as usual. Siegbahn, then 59, was 1945 asked by the Swedish socialdemocratic government to create and become head of a Swedish defence research agency, FOA, to develop weapons of mass destruction, incl. a-bombs. Siegbahn replied in a long letter/report that he would do so, if all findings about WMDs were peer reviewed and made public. Siegbahn didn't like secrecy. You find the letter/report in the archive of the Swedish Armed Forces, Stockholm. Siegbahn didn't get the job (and didn't need it) but got US$ 1M from Rockefeller Foundation to develop his cyclotron at Frescati (outside Stockholm), which needed plenty staff to be operated, at his own research institute. It seems any interesting sccientific findings by the cyclotron were limited. And FOA never developed any a-bomb. They only stated that they had the capability to do so ... but there is no evidence in the archives that they had. I have looked, you see. My conclusion is that Sweden never could build an a-bomb because it was simple propaganda and pseudoscience. I later served >500 days in the Swedish Navy and no sign of any WMDs, half the time below ground in an a-bomb proof shipyard, which seems to have been a bad/stupid investment as a-bombs do not work and ship repairs/maintenance is best done in the open.
So once again, you cannot actually defend your positions with evidence, just a statement that they are wrong.
Hm, my evidence is at my website incl. a generous offer of €1M to anyone showing that I am wrong.
And again you fail to show any evidence on this forum, where you made the claims. Frankly your failures are beginning to stack up. You made the claims here, support them here.
-
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or do you just expect us to take your word for it?
Of course I have evidence to support what I say. Just read the report/answer of Siegbahn to the Swedish government about FOA 1945. It is in the archive of the Armed Defence Forces, Stockholm. You, like me, have to register to see it. Why would I make it up?
FOA has later stated that they/Sweden were/are capable of building an a-bomb but there is no evidence anywhere for it.
FOA/FMA are famous for faking their work. They were 2001/3 asked to describe the 1994 sinking of M/S Estonia and invented an amazing fairy tale (which I describe at my website).
-
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or do you just expect us to take your word for it?
Of course I have evidence to support what I say. Just read the report/answer of Siegbahn to the Swedish government about FOA 1945. It is in the archive of the Armed Defence Forces, Stockholm. You, like me, have to register to see it. Why would I make it up?
FOA has later stated that they/Sweden were/are capable of building an a-bomb but there is no evidence anywhere for it.
FOA/FMA are famous for faking their work. They were 2001/3 asked to describe the 1994 sinking of M/S Estonia and invented an amazing fairy tale (which I describe at my website).
Great, paste it here
-
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or do you just expect us to take your word for it?
Of course I have evidence to support what I say. Just read the report/answer of Siegbahn to the Swedish government about FOA 1945. It is in the archive of the Armed Defence Forces, Stockholm. You, like me, have to register to see it. Why would I make it up?
FOA has later stated that they/Sweden were/are capable of building an a-bomb but there is no evidence anywhere for it.
FOA/FMA are famous for faking their work. They were 2001/3 asked to describe the 1994 sinking of M/S Estonia and invented an amazing fairy tale (which I describe at my website).
Great, paste it here
It is quite a lot of text and enclosures - see http://heiwaco.com/epunkt151.htm .
-
The science behind a-bombs is not secret. It is all derived from Quantum Mechanics. The secret part is how the bombs are engineered.
So how do you start the runway fission that then cannot be stopped? Is it secret?
-
So how do you start the runway fission that then cannot be stopped? Is it secret?
Just visit my website . . . www.Non-Stop-Fission.com (http://www.misterfixit.com/lastpage.html)
-
Manne Siegbahn, Nobel Prize winner physics, was right, when he agreed to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945, if all info was (a) peer revewied and (b) made public.
Do you have any evidence to support this claim, or do you just expect us to take your word for it?
Of course I have evidence to support what I say. Just read the report/answer of Siegbahn to the Swedish government about FOA 1945. It is in the archive of the Armed Defence Forces, Stockholm. You, like me, have to register to see it. Why would I make it up?
FOA has later stated that they/Sweden were/are capable of building an a-bomb but there is no evidence anywhere for it.
FOA/FMA are famous for faking their work. They were 2001/3 asked to describe the 1994 sinking of M/S Estonia and invented an amazing fairy tale (which I describe at my website).
Great, paste it here
It is quite a lot of text and enclosures - see http://heiwaco.com/epunkt151.htm .
Yeah, I've read it. Most of it is you explaining how they are supposed to work, the rest is you just saying it can't work like that. Post the part here where you explain why. If you can. Again, you made the claim here, support it here. Stop referring to your website, that's a cheap cop out.
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
-
He advised me not to study physics
That was probably the best advice you've ever had!
This is the best quote of the thread....
Not only that..Shouldn't this about end it?
baby ... don't you need your speed?
Heiwa, how do you feel talking to a real engineer?
You mean the drug addict?
Well this is at least a little more clever than your usual attempted insult. At least a change of pace...
You know, we all have had rejected and just bad designs anders..
You suck it up and move on..Keep creating. You don't lose your mind and create your own alternate reality.
Hell, in 2015 I became so close to an attempted patent extension I missed something so obvious it was embarrassing. It was so over designed, so multi functional that I failed to have it perform its designated primary function efficiently and effectively.
Not only did I lose a ton of man hours in R & D, I felt like a complete fucking moron...Something a first year engineering student would have said ..."um excuse me"....Just got too close.
A literal missing the forest for the trees moment. You learn from it not lose it...
I am sure none of this will sink in, but I hope it does.
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
-
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
Yes, keep telling yourself that. ::)
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
-
Atomic bombs are luckily not real, one of the few reliefs of all the hoaxes they play on us.
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
-
Atomic bombs are luckily not real, one of the few reliefs of all the hoaxes they play on us.
Great, show some evidence of why it won't work.
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
Well, I have to ask you to study the evidence at the link provided.
Example.
How to start the atomic explosion? The (militarty) secret is to to keep two subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium apart, but when the bomb shall explode, shall these two parts be suddenly brought in contact with each other and be compressed to double density with a neutron in between. The compression is mechanical but produced by chemicals.
The two parts are then suddenly one critical mass and the neutron starts runway fission and in nano-seconds the critical mass is transformed into pure energy at high temperature in a FLASH! The bomb explodes.
At my website I show this is ridiculous pseudoscience. All scientific references provided about critical masses, compression to double density, runway fission, FLASHes, etc, etc, are just nonsense.
If you can provide a scientific explanation how to explode an a-bomb pls do so.
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
Well, I have to ask you to study the evidence at the link provided.
Example.
How to start the atomic explosion? The (militarty) secret is to to keep two subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium apart, but when the bomb shall explode, shall these two parts be suddenly brought in contact with each other and be compressed to double density with a neutron in between. The compression is mechanical but produced by chemicals.
The two parts are then suddenly one critical mass and the neutron starts runway fission and in nano-seconds the critical mass is transformed into pure energy at high temperature in a FLASH! The bomb explodes.
At my website I show this is ridiculous pseudoscience. All scientific references provided about critical masses, compression to double density, runway fission, FLASHes, etc, etc, are just nonsense.
If you can provide a scientific explanation how to explode an a-bomb pls do so.
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
-
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
You'll soon learn that if Heiwa can't understand it, then it can't happen. There seem to be a lot of things that Heiwa can't understand.
Still, he understands steel ships and has even worked out why they don't sink - very often. And even when they do, he is an expert at finding out why. (Really!)
-
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
You'll soon learn that if Heiwa can't understand it, then it can't happen. There seem to be a lot of things that Heiwa can't understand.
Still, he understands steel ships and has even worked out why they don't sink - very often. And even when they do, he is an expert at finding out why. (Really!)
Except for when the government examiners explain that he is ignorant and unscientific.
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
Well, I have to ask you to study the evidence at the link provided.
Example.
How to start the atomic explosion? The (militarty) secret is to to keep two subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium apart, but when the bomb shall explode, shall these two parts be suddenly brought in contact with each other and be compressed to double density with a neutron in between. The compression is mechanical but produced by chemicals.
The two parts are then suddenly one critical mass and the neutron starts runway fission and in nano-seconds the critical mass is transformed into pure energy at high temperature in a FLASH! The bomb explodes.
At my website I show this is ridiculous pseudoscience. All scientific references provided about critical masses, compression to double density, runway fission, FLASHes, etc, etc, are just nonsense.
If you can provide a scientific explanation how to explode an a-bomb pls do so.
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
I note you cannot explain how to start an a-bomb explosion. It seems you take runway fission ending in a FLASH as a scientific proven fact.
But how do you compress any metal to double density? And why do you have to do it. And critical masses? Does two halves of critical masses make up one critical mass ... that explodes in a FLASH?
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
Well, I have to ask you to study the evidence at the link provided.
Example.
How to start the atomic explosion? The (militarty) secret is to to keep two subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium apart, but when the bomb shall explode, shall these two parts be suddenly brought in contact with each other and be compressed to double density with a neutron in between. The compression is mechanical but produced by chemicals.
The two parts are then suddenly one critical mass and the neutron starts runway fission and in nano-seconds the critical mass is transformed into pure energy at high temperature in a FLASH! The bomb explodes.
At my website I show this is ridiculous pseudoscience. All scientific references provided about critical masses, compression to double density, runway fission, FLASHes, etc, etc, are just nonsense.
If you can provide a scientific explanation how to explode an a-bomb pls do so.
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
I note you cannot explain how to start an a-bomb explosion. It seems you take runway fission ending in a FLASH as a scientific proven fact.
But how do you compress any metal to double density? And why do you have to do it. And critical masses? Does two halves of critical masses make up one critical mass ... that explodes in a FLASH?
Again, nothing. I note you cannot explain why it doesn't work. You fail, again, repeatedly, to support your claim. Please prove to me you aren't a joke. Please support your claim with something other than, it can't work. You made the claim, the onerous is on you to support it. You have failed, for like the 15th time. You can't do it. Admit it. You cannot support your claims. Youmfail at every attempt.
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
Well, I have to ask you to study the evidence at the link provided.
Example.
How to start the atomic explosion? The (militarty) secret is to to keep two subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium apart, but when the bomb shall explode, shall these two parts be suddenly brought in contact with each other and be compressed to double density with a neutron in between. The compression is mechanical but produced by chemicals.
The two parts are then suddenly one critical mass and the neutron starts runway fission and in nano-seconds the critical mass is transformed into pure energy at high temperature in a FLASH! The bomb explodes.
At my website I show this is ridiculous pseudoscience. All scientific references provided about critical masses, compression to double density, runway fission, FLASHes, etc, etc, are just nonsense.
If you can provide a scientific explanation how to explode an a-bomb pls do so.
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
I note you cannot explain how to start an a-bomb explosion. It seems you take runway fission ending in a FLASH as a scientific proven fact.
But how do you compress any metal to double density? And why do you have to do it. And critical masses? Does two halves of critical masses make up one critical mass ... that explodes in a FLASH?
Again, nothing. I note you cannot explain why it doesn't work. You fail, again, repeatedly, to support your claim. Please prove to me you aren't a joke. Please support your claim with something other than, it can't work. You made the claim, the onerous is on you to support it. You have failed, for like the 15th time. You can't do it. Admit it. You cannot support your claims. Youmfail at every attempt.
Well, at my website I provide plenty indications that a-bombs do not work (fission must be moderated) and are fake, i.e. propaganda and disinformation to scare you. I even offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong.
And you? You cannot even explain how to trigger an a-bomb!
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
Well, I have to ask you to study the evidence at the link provided.
Example.
How to start the atomic explosion? The (militarty) secret is to to keep two subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium apart, but when the bomb shall explode, shall these two parts be suddenly brought in contact with each other and be compressed to double density with a neutron in between. The compression is mechanical but produced by chemicals.
The two parts are then suddenly one critical mass and the neutron starts runway fission and in nano-seconds the critical mass is transformed into pure energy at high temperature in a FLASH! The bomb explodes.
At my website I show this is ridiculous pseudoscience. All scientific references provided about critical masses, compression to double density, runway fission, FLASHes, etc, etc, are just nonsense.
If you can provide a scientific explanation how to explode an a-bomb pls do so.
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
I note you cannot explain how to start an a-bomb explosion. It seems you take runway fission ending in a FLASH as a scientific proven fact.
But how do you compress any metal to double density? And why do you have to do it. And critical masses? Does two halves of critical masses make up one critical mass ... that explodes in a FLASH?
Again, nothing. I note you cannot explain why it doesn't work. You fail, again, repeatedly, to support your claim. Please prove to me you aren't a joke. Please support your claim with something other than, it can't work. You made the claim, the onerous is on you to support it. You have failed, for like the 15th time. You can't do it. Admit it. You cannot support your claims. Youmfail at every attempt.
Well, at my website I provide plenty indications that a-bombs do not work (fission must be moderated) and are fake, i.e. propaganda and disinformation to scare you. I even offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong.
And you? You cannot even explain how to trigger an a-bomb!
Again you fail to provide any evidence here. Not one shred. You are clearly a fake
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
Well, I have to ask you to study the evidence at the link provided.
Example.
How to start the atomic explosion? The (militarty) secret is to to keep two subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium apart, but when the bomb shall explode, shall these two parts be suddenly brought in contact with each other and be compressed to double density with a neutron in between. The compression is mechanical but produced by chemicals.
The two parts are then suddenly one critical mass and the neutron starts runway fission and in nano-seconds the critical mass is transformed into pure energy at high temperature in a FLASH! The bomb explodes.
At my website I show this is ridiculous pseudoscience. All scientific references provided about critical masses, compression to double density, runway fission, FLASHes, etc, etc, are just nonsense.
If you can provide a scientific explanation how to explode an a-bomb pls do so.
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
I note you cannot explain how to start an a-bomb explosion. It seems you take runway fission ending in a FLASH as a scientific proven fact.
But how do you compress any metal to double density? And why do you have to do it. And critical masses? Does two halves of critical masses make up one critical mass ... that explodes in a FLASH?
Again, nothing. I note you cannot explain why it doesn't work. You fail, again, repeatedly, to support your claim. Please prove to me you aren't a joke. Please support your claim with something other than, it can't work. You made the claim, the onerous is on you to support it. You have failed, for like the 15th time. You can't do it. Admit it. You cannot support your claims. Youmfail at every attempt.
Well, at my website I provide plenty indications that a-bombs do not work (fission must be moderated) and are fake, i.e. propaganda and disinformation to scare you. I even offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong.
And you? You cannot even explain how to trigger an a-bomb!
Again you fail to provide any evidence here. Not one shred. You are clearly a fake
No, here we only discuss why nuclear weapons do not exist and are fake. Clear evidence and good news that a-bombs cannot possibly explode is given at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . If you can prove me wrong, I'll pay you €1M. I exist since 1946. My telephone number is in the link.
-
You could not possibly provide a calculation showing that the reaction rate created in an a-bomb is not sufficient to create an explosion. If you could, I would take that seriously.
-
You could not possibly provide a calculation showing that the reaction rate created in an a-bomb is not sufficient to create an explosion. If you could, I would take that seriously.
But I do at 3.8.2 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm !
In an a-bomb you start with 4x1026 U235 atoms that are compressed to double density with a neutron in between to start the not moderated fission. Then two or three freen neutrons are released.
The two or three free neutrons miss 120-150 metal U235 atoms in the vicinity because the nuclei are very small compared to the atom itself but still manage to collide with 2 or 3 U235 nuclei that become U236 atoms that fission in turn and split into more fragments and another 2 or 3 neutrons that again miss 120-150 U235 atoms in the vicinity but manage to collide with 2 or 3 U235 nuclei, and so on until only 6x1024 U235 atoms (1.5% of total) have become 6x1024 U236 atoms that fissioned during a few nanoseconds chain reaction.
The result is the famous FLASH but no dirty smoke or mushroom cloud, please!
-
Why would I make it up?
Cognitive dissonance, perhaps.
No, if you study my website, you'll find that I cured myself from it many years ago.
You sound to be a serious case still suffering.
And still no actual evidence is presented here to support your claims. Seriously don't you have anything at all?
There are plenty evidences that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Maybe you do not understand them? Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong.
Again you show no evidence on this site, where you make the claims. All I've been asking you is to show some evidence here, where you are posting. You claim, on this site, that nukes don't work, yet you consistently refuse to support this claim. I've been to your website and I'm not going back.
You don't actually give any evidence there either you just say it's impossible.
So after you have failed, yet again to support your claims I will ask you, yet again, what evidence do you have?
Well, I have to ask you to study the evidence at the link provided.
Example.
How to start the atomic explosion? The (militarty) secret is to to keep two subcritical masses of uranium or plutonium apart, but when the bomb shall explode, shall these two parts be suddenly brought in contact with each other and be compressed to double density with a neutron in between. The compression is mechanical but produced by chemicals.
The two parts are then suddenly one critical mass and the neutron starts runway fission and in nano-seconds the critical mass is transformed into pure energy at high temperature in a FLASH! The bomb explodes.
At my website I show this is ridiculous pseudoscience. All scientific references provided about critical masses, compression to double density, runway fission, FLASHes, etc, etc, are just nonsense.
If you can provide a scientific explanation how to explode an a-bomb pls do so.
And again you fail to support the claims you made here. Again you simply claim it's pseudoscience. Again, I'm going to your website, there is no evidence there either. Show your evidence here, where you made the claim.
You can't do it can you? You cannot show any evidence here, on this forum, where you are making the claim, to support said claim.
I note you cannot explain how to start an a-bomb explosion. It seems you take runway fission ending in a FLASH as a scientific proven fact.
But how do you compress any metal to double density? And why do you have to do it. And critical masses? Does two halves of critical masses make up one critical mass ... that explodes in a FLASH?
Again, nothing. I note you cannot explain why it doesn't work. You fail, again, repeatedly, to support your claim. Please prove to me you aren't a joke. Please support your claim with something other than, it can't work. You made the claim, the onerous is on you to support it. You have failed, for like the 15th time. You can't do it. Admit it. You cannot support your claims. Youmfail at every attempt.
Well, at my website I provide plenty indications that a-bombs do not work (fission must be moderated) and are fake, i.e. propaganda and disinformation to scare you. I even offer anyone €1 M to show I am wrong.
And you? You cannot even explain how to trigger an a-bomb!
Again you fail to provide any evidence here. Not one shred. You are clearly a fake
No, here we only discuss why nuclear weapons do not exist and are fake. Clear evidence and good news that a-bombs cannot possibly explode is given at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . If you can prove me wrong, I'll pay you €1M. I exist since 1946. My telephone number is in the link.
No here you make unsupported claims. Most other people at least try to support their claims. You never do. Support your claims here where you made them. But you can't. Just like you can't one your website. You just say it's impossible.
That's my challenge to you actually support your claims here, where you made them.
-
No here you make unsupported claims. Most other people at least try to support their claims. You never do. Support your claims here where you made them. But you can't. Just like you can't one your website. You just say it's impossible.
That's my challenge to you actually support your claims here, where you made them.
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
-
No here you make unsupported claims. Most other people at least try to support their claims. You never do. Support your claims here where you made them. But you can't. Just like you can't one your website. You just say it's impossible.
That's my challenge to you actually support your claims here, where you made them.
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
Great. Show us some of that proof. Again you have only made a claim with no supporting evidence.
-
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
You know there is a reason why i made my U235 topic and linked it here. It proves what you're asking in theory. Want to see it in reality? Make a time travel machine and go back to 1945. (Or give North korea some U235, they'll probably let you attend the testing of their first atomic bomb)
-
Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
And I have shown you several times that fast neutron reactors do not need to be moderated. How many times must you be told before it starts to sink in?
Nuclear Waste can be a solution not a problem
Advanced Fast Neutron Reactors (AFR) are fast breeder reactors that can use nuclear “waste” for fuel — the spent nuclear fuel that has been discarded from conventional nuclear plants can power AFR's, producing clean electricity while destroying radioactive waste.
“Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated.
-
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
You know there is a reason why i made my U235 topic and linked it here. It proves what you're asking in theory. Want to see it in reality? Make a time travel machine and go back to 1945. (Or give North korea some U235, they'll probably let you attend the testing of their first atomic bomb)
Hm, I describe it at my website. June 1942 to July 1945 FDR & Co built an a-bomb from scratch at great cost and then August 1945 (actually April 1946) to August 1949 Stalin built one too. Also from scratch! It exploded August 1949 in a big dirty cloud reaching the stratsophere. With uranium from Wismut AG. Mined by slave labour, incl. a friend of mine! It seems to be very easy to build an a-bomb in the 1940's, if all is secret, etc, etc. But it was all propaganda. Sweden later said it could also easily build an a-bomb in shorter time ... but there is no trace of it in the archives. Maybe they just made it up?
-
Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
And I have shown you several times that fast neutron reactors do not need to be moderated. How many times must you be told before it starts to sink in?
Nuclear Waste can be a solution not a problem
Advanced Fast Neutron Reactors (AFR) are fast breeder reactors that can use nuclear “waste” for fuel — the spent nuclear fuel that has been discarded from conventional nuclear plants can power AFR's, producing clean electricity while destroying radioactive waste.
“Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated.
You have? Right now we discuss how to fission one critical mass of 4x1026 U235 atoms in nano-seconds using fast neutrons. It seems to be a lot of atoms and neutrons.
You know, if it is only 4x1025 atoms, it is not a critical mass and it will not fission at all. Please explain that!
-
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
You know there is a reason why i made my U235 topic and linked it here. It proves what you're asking in theory. Want to see it in reality? Make a time travel machine and go back to 1945. (Or give North korea some U235, they'll probably let you attend the testing of their first atomic bomb)
Hm, I describe it at my website. June 1942 to July 1945 FDR & Co built an a-bomb from scratch at great cost and then August 1945 (actually April 1946) to August 1949 Stalin built one too. Also from scratch! It exploded August 1949 in a big dirty cloud reaching the stratsophere. With uranium from Wismut AG. Mined by slave labour, incl. a friend of mine! It seems to be very easy to build an a-bomb in the 1940's, if all is secret, etc, etc. But it was all propaganda. Sweden later said it could also easily build an a-bomb in shorter time ... but there is no trace of it in the archives. Maybe they just made it up?
Wow another friend. Two Nobel laureates and now a friend who was forced to work in a uranium mine by the Russians.
Did you have any friends your age or were they all at least 20-30 years older than you?
-
Hi, I'm Heiwa,
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
The Poster Boy For The Dunning Kruger Effect.
(Dunning, Kruger and I were actually pals. We figured out this effect while drinking fine French wine and smoking Cuban cigars in Bora Bora.)
-
You have? Right now we discuss how to fission one critical mass of 4x1026 U235 atoms in nano-seconds using fast neutrons. It seems to be a lot of atoms and neutrons.
You know, if it is only 4x1025 atoms, it is not a critical mass and it will not fission at all. Please explain that!
Not a physicist, so wont pretend to know. But I am guessing the word critical mass has something to do with it.
Also, there is a massive difference between 4x1026 and 4x1025, as in literally 10 times.
-
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
You know there is a reason why i made my U235 topic and linked it here. It proves what you're asking in theory. Want to see it in reality? Make a time travel machine and go back to 1945. (Or give North korea some U235, they'll probably let you attend the testing of their first atomic bomb)
Hm, I describe it at my website. June 1942 to July 1945 FDR & Co built an a-bomb from scratch at great cost and then August 1945 (actually April 1946) to August 1949 Stalin built one too. Also from scratch! It exploded August 1949 in a big dirty cloud reaching the stratsophere. With uranium from Wismut AG. Mined by slave labour, incl. a friend of mine! It seems to be very easy to build an a-bomb in the 1940's, if all is secret, etc, etc. But it was all propaganda. Sweden later said it could also easily build an a-bomb in shorter time ... but there is no trace of it in the archives. Maybe they just made it up?
I say again
starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
How did thy light up the hole island of Oahu and others, to fake it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/9-july-1962starfish-prime-outer-space
-
You have? Right now we discuss how to fission one critical mass of 4x1026 U235 atoms in nano-seconds using fast neutrons. It seems to be a lot of atoms and neutrons.
You know, if it is only 4x1025 atoms, it is not a critical mass and it will not fission at all. Please explain that!
Not a physicist, so wont pretend to know. But I am guessing the word critical mass has something to do with it.
Also, there is a massive difference between 4x1026 and 4x1025, as in literally 10 times.
Correct - an a-bomb to work must consist of 4x1026 and not 4x1025 uranium atoms to runway fission with a FLASH when compressed together. Don't ask me why.
-
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
You know there is a reason why i made my U235 topic and linked it here. It proves what you're asking in theory. Want to see it in reality? Make a time travel machine and go back to 1945. (Or give North korea some U235, they'll probably let you attend the testing of their first atomic bomb)
Hm, I describe it at my website. June 1942 to July 1945 FDR & Co built an a-bomb from scratch at great cost and then August 1945 (actually April 1946) to August 1949 Stalin built one too. Also from scratch! It exploded August 1949 in a big dirty cloud reaching the stratsophere. With uranium from Wismut AG. Mined by slave labour, incl. a friend of mine! It seems to be very easy to build an a-bomb in the 1940's, if all is secret, etc, etc. But it was all propaganda. Sweden later said it could also easily build an a-bomb in shorter time ... but there is no trace of it in the archives. Maybe they just made it up?
I say again
starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
How did thy light up the hole island of Oahu and others, to fake it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/9-july-1962starfish-prime-outer-space
Yes, yes. It was an a- or h-bomb exploding in space at 400 000 m altitude in space and you saw it. ROTFL! Or maybe it was a magnesium flash bomb fired a little south of Oahu?
-
Don't ask me why.
Seeing that your just a boat mechanic, I dont think it would be wise for anyone to ask you about nuclear physics.
-
Don't ask me why.
Seeing that your just a boat mechanic, I dont think it would be wise for anyone to ask you about nuclear physics.
(http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/laughing/roflmao.gif)
-
Don't ask me why.
Seeing that your just a boat mechanic, I dont think it would be wise for anyone to ask you about nuclear physics.
You are right. I am not a boat mechanic, whatever it is: http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm
What do you want? Sell me the Brooklyn Bridge? The Eiffel Tower? The Trump Tower?
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com . Google sends me 100 000's of visitors all the time.
Doesn't cost me anything.
-
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
You know there is a reason why i made my U235 topic and linked it here. It proves what you're asking in theory. Want to see it in reality? Make a time travel machine and go back to 1945. (Or give North korea some U235, they'll probably let you attend the testing of their first atomic bomb)
Hm, I describe it at my website. June 1942 to July 1945 FDR & Co built an a-bomb from scratch at great cost and then August 1945 (actually April 1946) to August 1949 Stalin built one too. Also from scratch! It exploded August 1949 in a big dirty cloud reaching the stratsophere. With uranium from Wismut AG. Mined by slave labour, incl. a friend of mine! It seems to be very easy to build an a-bomb in the 1940's, if all is secret, etc, etc. But it was all propaganda. Sweden later said it could also easily build an a-bomb in shorter time ... but there is no trace of it in the archives. Maybe they just made it up?
Great show us some evidence it was only propaganda. Show some actual evidence here to support your position. Because after pages and pages of you making these claims you have provided zero support for them.
-
Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
And I have shown you several times that fast neutron reactors do not need to be moderated. How many times must you be told before it starts to sink in?
Nuclear Waste can be a solution not a problem
Advanced Fast Neutron Reactors (AFR) are fast breeder reactors that can use nuclear “waste” for fuel — the spent nuclear fuel that has been discarded from conventional nuclear plants can power AFR's, producing clean electricity while destroying radioactive waste.
“Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated.
You have? Right now we discuss how to fission one critical mass of 4x1026 U235 atoms in nano-seconds using fast neutrons. It seems to be a lot of atoms and neutrons.
You know, if it is only 4x1025 atoms, it is not a critical mass and it will not fission at all. Please explain that!
I can explain it: you don't know what you are talking about. A sub-critical mass of uranium will fission, just not at a rate that will cause a nuclear explosion.
-
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com
Of all the lies you have told until today that is - by far - the biggest. You do that in at least half of your posts.
As for Correct - an a-bomb to work must consist of 4x1026 and not 4x1025 uranium atoms to runway fission with a FLASH when compressed together. Don't ask me why.
I am no expert on nuclear physics, but here is what I know:
When a neutron hits an uranium atom, nuclear fission happens, the uranium splits into Baryon and Krypton and releases 3 neutrons (and a bit of energy). Those 3 neutrons are now able to hit other uranium atoms. Now there are two possibilities:
1. Those three neutrons hit, on average, less than 1 new uranium atom. Then the reaction rate is an exponential decay (remember - exponentials are fast) and the reaction quickly dies out
2. The three neutrons hit, on average, more than 1 new uranium atom. Then the reaction rate is an exponential growth (remember - exponentials are fast), producing your dear flash.
The critical mass is the mass required for the second possibility to happen.
-
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com . Google sends me 100 000's of visitors all the time.
You spend your entire day googling yourself - no sooner than your name is mentioned on a website than there you are tarting yourself like a common whore. You are desperate for the attention. Most of the visitors are reading your gibberish in open-mouthed amazement at the lies and stupidity, not admiration.
-
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com . Google sends me 100 000's of visitors all the time.
You spend your entire day googling yourself - no sooner than your name is mentioned on a website than there you are tarting yourself like a common whore. You are desperate for the attention. Most of the visitors are reading your gibberish in open-mouthed amazement at the lies and stupidity, not admiration.
and the majority of the traffic likely bots. Everytime the address is posted somewhere new then various search engines will send bots there to catalog it. The more he posts it the more hits he gets. It just keeps feeding his ego.
-
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com
Of all the lies you have told until today that is - by far - the biggest. You do that in at least half of your posts.
As for Correct - an a-bomb to work must consist of 4x1026 and not 4x1025 uranium atoms to runway fission with a FLASH when compressed together. Don't ask me why.
I am no expert on nuclear physics, but here is what I know:
When a neutron hits an uranium atom, nuclear fission happens, the uranium splits into Baryon and Krypton and releases 3 neutrons (and a bit of energy). Those 3 neutrons are now able to hit other uranium atoms. Now there are two possibilities:
1. Those three neutrons hit, on average, less than 1 new uranium atom. Then the reaction rate is an exponential decay (remember - exponentials are fast) and the reaction quickly dies out
2. The three neutrons hit, on average, more than 1 new uranium atom. Then the reaction rate is an exponential growth (remember - exponentials are fast), producing your dear flash.
The critical mass is the mass required for the second possibility to happen.
Hm, there are plenty neutrons and uranium atoms around on Earth. But no flashes all the time.
So the uranium atoms must form a critical mass and then ONE neutron can produce the flash hitting it.
So how do you prevent a naughty neutron to - PING - hit this critical mass?
Do you, like Einstein, Bohr, FDR, Stalin & Co keep the critical mass split in half?
And screw them together just before the neutron shall hit?
You sound like what you say "I am no expert".
So why do you waste your time here?
-
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com . Google sends me 100 000's of visitors all the time.
You spend your entire day googling yourself - no sooner than your name is mentioned on a website than there you are tarting yourself like a common whore. You are desperate for the attention. Most of the visitors are reading your gibberish in open-mouthed amazement at the lies and stupidity, not admiration.
?? Why would I Google myself, when Google sends me 100 000's of visitors typing certain 'key words' and PING ... Google send them to me with me doing nothing? It seems Google earns money that way.
I don't even know what 'key words' are used.
Other visitors come because I am being linked to by them at various sites worldwide.
Visitors from the FES forum are very few.
Most comments I receive are very positive and they are all signed. I am not surprised. I get some negative comments ... all anonymous.
-
Hm, there are plenty neutrons and uranium atoms around on Earth. But no flashes all the time.
Because they aren't at critical mass obviously. But you already knew that.
So the uranium atoms must form a critical mass and then ONE neutron can produce the flash hitting it.
No, an exponential chain of fission reactions causes the atomic explosion.
So how do you prevent a naughty neutron to - PING - hit this critical mass?
By keeping the uranium at sub-crtical mass and shielded until you want the bomb to go off.
Do you, like Einstein, Bohr, FDR, Stalin & Co keep the critical mass split in half?
That is one way of doing it.
And screw them together just before the neutron shall hit?
One neutron could hit a subcritical mass and not set off a chain reaction. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
-
Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
And I have shown you several times that fast neutron reactors do not need to be moderated. How many times must you be told before it starts to sink in?
Nuclear Waste can be a solution not a problem
Advanced Fast Neutron Reactors (AFR) are fast breeder reactors that can use nuclear “waste” for fuel — the spent nuclear fuel that has been discarded from conventional nuclear plants can power AFR's, producing clean electricity while destroying radioactive waste.
“Fast-neutron reactors could extract much more energy from recycled nuclear fuel, minimize the risks of weapons proliferation and markedly reduce the time nuclear waste must be isolated.
You have?
Yes, I have.
Right now we discuss how to fission one critical mass of 4x1026 U235 atoms in nano-seconds using fast neutrons. It seems to be a lot of atoms and neutrons.
You know, if it is only 4x1025 atoms, it is not a critical mass and it will not fission at all. Please explain that!
I seem to remember telling you that critical mass depends on a number of factors, not just the number of atoms. Other factors include (but are not limited to) temperature, purity and neutron reflectors/absorbers.
Also, as an FYI, uncontrolled chain reactions have occurred a number of times:
A criticality accident is an uncontrolled nuclear chain reaction. It is sometimes referred to as a critical excursion or a critical power excursion and represents the unintentional assembly of a critical mass of a given fissile material, such as enriched uranium or plutonium, in an unprotected environment. A critical or supercritical fission reaction (one that is sustained in power or increasing in power) generally only occurs inside reactor cores and occasionally within test environments; a criticality accident occurs when the same reaction is achieved unintentionally and in an unsafe environment. Though dangerous and frequently lethal to humans within the immediate area, the critical mass formed is still incapable of producing a nuclear detonation of the type seen in fission bombs, as the reaction lacks the many engineering elements that are necessary to induce explosive supercriticality. The heat released by the nuclear reaction will typically cause the fissile material to expand, so that the nuclear reaction becomes subcritical again within a few seconds.
In the history of atomic power development, 60 criticality accidents have occurred, including 22 in collections of fissile materials located in process environments outside of a nuclear reactor or critical experiments assembly. Although process accidents occurring outside of reactors are characterized by a large release of radiation, the release is localized and has caused fatal radiation exposure only to persons very near to the event (less than 1 metre), resulting in 14 fatalities. No criticality accidents have resulted in nuclear explosions
-
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com
Of all the lies you have told until today that is - by far - the biggest. You do that in at least half of your posts.
As for Correct - an a-bomb to work must consist of 4x1026 and not 4x1025 uranium atoms to runway fission with a FLASH when compressed together. Don't ask me why.
I am no expert on nuclear physics, but here is what I know:
When a neutron hits an uranium atom, nuclear fission happens, the uranium splits into Baryon and Krypton and releases 3 neutrons (and a bit of energy). Those 3 neutrons are now able to hit other uranium atoms. Now there are two possibilities:
1. Those three neutrons hit, on average, less than 1 new uranium atom. Then the reaction rate is an exponential decay (remember - exponentials are fast) and the reaction quickly dies out
2. The three neutrons hit, on average, more than 1 new uranium atom. Then the reaction rate is an exponential growth (remember - exponentials are fast), producing your dear flash.
The critical mass is the mass required for the second possibility to happen.
Hm, there are plenty neutrons and uranium atoms around on Earth. But no flashes all the time.
So the uranium atoms must form a critical mass and then ONE neutron can produce the flash hitting it.
So how do you prevent a naughty neutron to - PING - hit this critical mass?
Do you, like Einstein, Bohr, FDR, Stalin & Co keep the critical mass split in half?
And screw them together just before the neutron shall hit?
You sound like what you say "I am no expert".
So why do you waste your time here?
Well, although I am no expert on nuclear physics, I have some general knowledge about physics and math. You are obviously an expert for safety at sea, why do you waste your time discussing 9/11, nuclear physics, orbital mechanics, ...?
The flashes are exponentially growing reactions when enough uranium is in one spot that the neutrons released by one reaction ignite, on average, more than one further reaction. This only happens when a lot of uranium (a critical mass) is present in one spot.
Of course neutrons hit uranium atoms all the time and there happen nuclear reactions. The difference is that there is not enough uranium nearby to spark this exponential reaction; maybe two or three more atoms ignite fission, then it stops.
Please, stay at your expertise or educate yourself; this is emberassing for you.
-
Well, if you think you can fission 1.5% of 4x1026 U235 atoms in an a-bomb in nano-seconds to set off an explosion, be my guest. Fission does not work like that. Fission must always be moderated. It is as easy as that. It has been proven long ago.
The military FLASH fission has not been proven anywhere.
You know there is a reason why i made my U235 topic and linked it here. It proves what you're asking in theory. Want to see it in reality? Make a time travel machine and go back to 1945. (Or give North korea some U235, they'll probably let you attend the testing of their first atomic bomb)
Hm, I describe it at my website. June 1942 to July 1945 FDR & Co built an a-bomb from scratch at great cost and then August 1945 (actually April 1946) to August 1949 Stalin built one too. Also from scratch! It exploded August 1949 in a big dirty cloud reaching the stratsophere. With uranium from Wismut AG. Mined by slave labour, incl. a friend of mine! It seems to be very easy to build an a-bomb in the 1940's, if all is secret, etc, etc. But it was all propaganda. Sweden later said it could also easily build an a-bomb in shorter time ... but there is no trace of it in the archives. Maybe they just made it up?
I say again
starfish prime July 1962 11.09 Honolulu time
As an eyewitness to starfish prime at the age 12, what I saw, was the lighting on the front yard and across the street that was bright as if it were flash White from a camera looking into the back side of the house it was the same the tree casting a black sharp shadow. I ran to the pool area that overlooked the House and the valley, what I saw was the streetlights coming back on, all across the valley. Only the flash of a nuclear bomb would be able to light the entire valley turning off the lights. There's nothing that you can say that could convince me otherwise, nuclear bombs exist, I pray to God, that I don't see, such a thing again in my life.
How did thy light up the hole island of Oahu and others, to fake it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime
https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/9-july-1962starfish-prime-outer-space
Yes, yes. It was an a- or h-bomb exploding in space at 400 000 m altitude in space and you saw it. ROTFL! Or maybe it was a magnesium flash bomb fired a little south of Oahu?
LOL you're kidding (magnesium flash bomb), Oahu was not the only island lit up (the faking of a thing needs the real thing, as a model ) and there is the E.M.P. that happen that the time.
It was a much bigger show than expected, how would you do that, If you were faking it?
Again your feeble method Is laughable.
-
I seem to remember telling you that critical mass depends on a number of factors, not just the number of atoms. Other factors include (but are not limited to) temperature, purity and neutron reflectors/absorbers.
Yes - temperature is important. It is suggested that it becomes very high during a runway exponential flash fission reaction. But shouldn't the a-bomb melt before ... and fizzle?
Netutron reflectors are also important. They are fitted around the a-bomb to prevent the neutrons from flying away. But again - doesn't they melt due to fission energy ... so the abomb fizzles. And how does this reflector work? Like a mirror? So what reflects the neutron? Do you know what a neutron is?
You are just repeating the a-bomb nonsense from 1945!
And you forget that you must also suddenly mechanically compress your critical mass to double density for any flash to occur. For this you use gunpowder!
-
I seem to remember telling you that critical mass depends on a number of factors, not just the number of atoms. Other factors include (but are not limited to) temperature, purity and neutron reflectors/absorbers.
Yes - temperature is important. It is suggested that it becomes very high during a runway exponential flash fission reaction. But shouldn't the a-bomb melt before ... and fizzle?
Netutron reflectors are also important. They are fitted around the a-bomb to prevent the neutrons from flying away. But again - doesn't they melt due to fission energy ... so the abomb fizzles. And how does this reflector work? Like a mirror? So what reflects the neutron? Do you know what a neutron is?
You are just repeating the a-bomb nonsense from 1945!
And you forget that you must also suddenly mechanically compress your critical mass to double density for any flash to occur. For this you use gunpowder!
Ah heiwa, heiwa. 70 pages into the tread, filled with you making claims you can't support. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. You obviously can't provide any evidence here. All you can't do is make up stuff and dodge and weave whenever anyone asks to see your evidence.
It's sad really
-
I decided to do some really back of the napkin calculations to see if one of Heiwa's major objections stands up scrutiny. Namely that The claimed chain reaction time to create a nuclear detonation (approx. 3 microseconds) is far too short. I am happy to show my sloppy notation to anyone who asks, but I used the following inputs:
Neutron speed: 2.00x107m/s (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64204/speed-of-neutrons-in-a-nuclear-reactor)
Distance from one uranium nucleus to the next in a critical mass: 2.77x-10m (https://www.webelements.com/uranium/atom_sizes.html)
This makes the time for one complete generation of fission reactions 1.39x10-17seconds
If each generation n of reactions produces 2n reactions, it would take about 80 generations to fission a mole of U235. This would happen in 1.11x10-15 seconds. The little boy bomb only fissioned 3.86 moles (http://gizmodo.com/less-than-2-of-the-uranium-in-the-hiroshima-bomb-actua-1624444762) of U235, so there was plenty of time for that chain reaction to take place. In reality this bomb was likely extremely inefficient yielding just over 1 reaction/generation.
Please feel free to make substantive criticisms of my conclusion, but I hope I have shown that Heiwa's claim that 3 microseconds is too short a time to create a nuclear detonation is unreasonable.
-
I decided to do some really back of the napkin calculations to see if one of Heiwa's major objections stands up scrutiny. Namely that The claimed chain reaction time to create a nuclear detonation (approx. 3 microseconds) is far too short. I am happy to show my sloppy notation to anyone who asks, but I used the following inputs:
Neutron speed: 2.00x107m/s (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64204/speed-of-neutrons-in-a-nuclear-reactor)
Distance from one uranium nucleus to the next in a critical mass: 2.77x-10m (https://www.webelements.com/uranium/atom_sizes.html)
This makes the time for one complete generation of fission reactions 1.39x10-17seconds
If each generation n of reactions produces 2n reactions, it would take about 80 generations to fission a mole of U235. This would happen in 1.11x10-15 seconds. The little boy bomb only fissioned 3.86 moles (http://gizmodo.com/less-than-2-of-the-uranium-in-the-hiroshima-bomb-actua-1624444762) of U235, so there was plenty of time for that chain reaction to take place. In reality this bomb was likely extremely inefficient yielding just over 1 reaction/generation.
Please feel free to make substantive criticisms of my conclusion, but I hope I have shown that Heiwa's claim that 3 microseconds is too short a time to create a nuclear detonation is unreasonable.
Thanks. As you know quantum mechanics does not in general permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths. So here we have neutrons flying around at great speed in a critical mass hitting atom nuclei in great, increasing number - 80 generations!
The temperature must be increasing all the time.
Say that it was 250 K at the first fission. Tell me how much it was at the 10th, 20th, 30th ... and 80th fission?
Doesn't the critical mass melt?
-
Thanks. As you know quantum mechanics does not in general permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.
Seeing as I only ever referred to the space between atoms, I am not sure what the relevance is.
So here we have neutrons flying around at great speed in a critical mass hitting atom nuclei in great, increasing number - 80 generations!
The temperature must be increasing all the time.
Say that it was 250 K at the first fission. Tell me how much it was at the 10th, 20th, 30th ... and 80th fission?
Doesn't the critical mass melt?
Yeah, let's say it does; I don't really know. Now you have a uranium liquid, gas or plasma that is being fissioned. Are you saying that this would affect the fission reaction? How would it affect the reaction?
-
I seem to remember telling you that critical mass depends on a number of factors, not just the number of atoms. Other factors include (but are not limited to) temperature, purity and neutron reflectors/absorbers.
Yes - temperature is important. It is suggested that it becomes very high during a runway exponential flash fission reaction. But shouldn't the a-bomb melt before ... and fizzle?
Believe it or not, that's how fast neutron breeder reactors self-moderate. As the reaction rate increases, the material heats up and expands. As the material expands, the distance between the atoms increases and the chance of neutrons hitting nuclei decreases, thereby slowing the reaction rate and lowering the temperature. Atom bombs just need to have the purity high enough where enough reactions can happen before the material has time to heat up and expand.
Netutron reflectors are also important. They are fitted around the a-bomb to prevent the neutrons from flying away. But again - doesn't they melt due to fission energy ... so the abomb fizzles.
Again, the trick is to have enough reactions happen before the reflector has time to melt. This is why every 3rd world cournty doesn't have a-bombs, because getting enough reactions to happen fast enough is very difficult.
And how does this reflector work? Like a mirror? So what reflects the neutron? Do you know what a neutron is?
Why don't you read about neutron reflectors in moderated, slow neutron nuclear reactors?
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-reactor/neutron-reflector/
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-reactor/neutron-reflectorAnd you forget that you must also suddenly mechanically compress your critical mass to double density for any flash to occur. For this you use gunpowder![/quote]
Where did you get the idea that the fissile material needs to be compressed to double its density? Even if you did need to, gunpowder is a low explosive, so it would be a terrible way to do that. High explosives like C-4 would be much more practical.
-
Thanks. As you know quantum mechanics does not in general permit particles to inhabit a space smaller than their wavelengths.
Seeing as I only ever referred to the space between atoms, I am not sure what the relevance is.
So here we have neutrons flying around at great speed in a critical mass hitting atom nuclei in great, increasing number - 80 generations!
The temperature must be increasing all the time.
Say that it was 250 K at the first fission. Tell me how much it was at the 10th, 20th, 30th ... and 80th fission?
Doesn't the critical mass melt?
Yeah, let's say it does; I don't really know. Now you have a uranium liquid, gas or plasma that is being fissioned. Are you saying that this would affect the fission reaction? How would it affect the reaction?
Hm, the uranium is solid, metal, ambient temperature and in the centre of an a-bomb. Question is how to make it explode, i.e, how to start any nuclear reaction.
IMO if you heat it up, it will melt and fizzle.
-
Again, the trick is to have enough reactions happen before the reflector has time to melt. This is why every 3rd world cournty doesn't have a-bombs, because getting enough reactions to happen fast enough is very difficult.
So you suggest Stalin did it 1949? Prove it.
I think he faked it? Like FDR/Truman did 1945. Just to scare us shitting in our pants.
-
Again, the trick is to have enough reactions happen before the reflector has time to melt. This is why every 3rd world cournty doesn't have a-bombs, because getting enough reactions to happen fast enough is very difficult.
So you suggest Stalin did it 1949? Prove it.
If the countless films and eye witness accounts of atomic explosions aren't enough for you, then I'm not sure what else I could possibly do or say to convince you. Have you ever talked with someone who actually witnessed a nuclear explosion?
-
Again, the trick is to have enough reactions happen before the reflector has time to melt. This is why every 3rd world cournty doesn't have a-bombs, because getting enough reactions to happen fast enough is very difficult.
So you suggest Stalin did it 1949? Prove it.
I think he faked it? Like FDR/Truman did 1945. Just to scare us shitting in our pants.
And yet again heiwa makes claims he cannot support. Nothing ne here
-
Hm, the uranium is solid, metal, ambient temperature and in the centre of an a-bomb. Question is how to make it explode, i.e, how to start any nuclear reaction.
IMO if you heat it up, it will melt and fizzle.
I know what you think, you opinion is worth nothing. Prove it now.
-
I decided to do some really back of the napkin calculations to see if one of Heiwa's major objections stands up scrutiny. Namely that The claimed chain reaction time to create a nuclear detonation (approx. 3 microseconds) is far too short. I am happy to show my sloppy notation to anyone who asks, but I used the following inputs:
Neutron speed: 2.00x107m/s (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64204/speed-of-neutrons-in-a-nuclear-reactor)
Distance from one uranium nucleus to the next in a critical mass: 2.77x-10m (https://www.webelements.com/uranium/atom_sizes.html)
This makes the time for one complete generation of fission reactions 1.39x10-17seconds
If each generation n of reactions produces 2n reactions, it would take about 80 generations to fission a mole of U235. This would happen in 1.11x10-15 seconds. The little boy bomb only fissioned 3.86 moles (http://gizmodo.com/less-than-2-of-the-uranium-in-the-hiroshima-bomb-actua-1624444762) of U235, so there was plenty of time for that chain reaction to take place. In reality this bomb was likely extremely inefficient yielding just over 1 reaction/generation.
Please feel free to make substantive criticisms of my conclusion, but I hope I have shown that Heiwa's claim that 3 microseconds is too short a time to create a nuclear detonation is unreasonable.
Sure - none of the things you are blabbing about exist.
-
Sure - none of the things you are blabbing about exist.
Hey! Thanks for showing up!
-
Again, the trick is to have enough reactions happen before the reflector has time to melt. This is why every 3rd world cournty doesn't have a-bombs, because getting enough reactions to happen fast enough is very difficult.
So you suggest Stalin did it 1949? Prove it.
If the countless films and eye witness accounts of atomic explosions aren't enough for you, then I'm not sure what else I could possibly do or say to convince you. Have you ever talked with someone who actually witnessed a nuclear explosion?
Films are easy to fake and eyewitnesses cost very little particularly in Japan 1945/52 and USSR 1949/89. My dear général De Gaulle faked a- and h-bomb explosions in the 1960's to prove that France was as good as FDR and Stalin. But nobody has been able to win my 2017 €1M Challenge to show scientifically that a-bombs work. Of course, I explain why it is impossible at my website but still ... here ... at FES forum, a-bomb loving shills copy/paste the old shit from 1945 onwards. They must ... if you don't agree with the POTUS' Executive orders you are sentenced to death.
-
<tedious bullshit snipped>
Stop boring the piss out of everyone & get back to being 'patrix' on cluesforum, fakeologist, reddit, etc, you boring & obvious spook.
Let's look at how one of Uncle Walt's fake bullshit Nazi scientists explained the fake bullshit 'atomic chain reaction':
LOL!!!
Lotsa billiard-balls banging about in a box...
Same way you freaks explain gravity, rockets in a vacuum, orbits, etc, etc, etc...
GET A NEW GIMMICK FFS!!!
-
<tedious bullshit snipped>
Stop boring the piss out of everyone & get back to being 'patrix' on cluesforum, fakeologist, reddit, etc, you boring & obvious spook.
Let's look at how one of Uncle Walt's fake bullshit Nazi scientists explained the fake bullshit 'atomic chain reaction':
LOL!!!
Lotsa billiard-balls banging about in a box...
Same way you freaks explain gravity, rockets in a vacuum, orbits, etc, etc, etc...
GET A NEW GIMMICK FFS!!!
Billiard balls? Walt used ping-pong ones. Or table tennis ones. More working class. Billiard balls are upper class and maffia. I wonder why he didn't use golf balls?
-
I wonder why he didn't use golf balls?
'cause they were all with Stanley in the Apollo studio.
-
You do know that video was a fake, right?
-
SHILL-PANIC!!!
OH SHIT THEY'VE FOUND OUT OUR M.O!!!!!
ALL HANDS TO THE PUMPS WE'RE FUCKING BUSTED!!!
SHITPOST NOW!!!
NOW!!!
NOW!!!
Just fuck off eh?
-
Again, the trick is to have enough reactions happen before the reflector has time to melt. This is why every 3rd world cournty doesn't have a-bombs, because getting enough reactions to happen fast enough is very difficult.
So you suggest Stalin did it 1949? Prove it.
If the countless films and eye witness accounts of atomic explosions aren't enough for you, then I'm not sure what else I could possibly do or say to convince you. Have you ever talked with someone who actually witnessed a nuclear explosion?
Films are easy to fake and eyewitnesses cost very little particularly in Japan 1945/52 and USSR 1949/89. My dear général De Gaulle faked a- and h-bomb explosions in the 1960's to prove that France was as good as FDR and Stalin. But nobody has been able to win my 2017 €1M Challenge to show scientifically that a-bombs work. Of course, I explain why it is impossible at my website but still ... here ... at FES forum, a-bomb loving shills copy/paste the old shit from 1945 onwards. They must ... if you don't agree with the POTUS' Executive orders you are sentenced to death.
Such bullshit. You are the one who has failed time and again to support your claim with any scientific evidence. And no one has ever been sentenced to death for denying nukes work.
-
Again, the trick is to have enough reactions happen before the reflector has time to melt. This is why every 3rd world cournty doesn't have a-bombs, because getting enough reactions to happen fast enough is very difficult.
So you suggest Stalin did it 1949? Prove it.
If the countless films and eye witness accounts of atomic explosions aren't enough for you, then I'm not sure what else I could possibly do or say to convince you. Have you ever talked with someone who actually witnessed a nuclear explosion?
Films are easy to fake and eyewitnesses cost very little particularly in Japan 1945/52 and USSR 1949/89. My dear général De Gaulle faked a- and h-bomb explosions in the 1960's to prove that France was as good as FDR and Stalin. But nobody has been able to win my 2017 €1M Challenge to show scientifically that a-bombs work. Of course, I explain why it is impossible at my website but still ... here ... at FES forum, a-bomb loving shills copy/paste the old shit from 1945 onwards. They must ... if you don't agree with the POTUS' Executive orders you are sentenced to death.
Such bullshit. You are the one who has failed time and again to support your claim with any scientific evidence. And no one has ever been sentenced to death for denying nukes work.
Hm, all the scientific evidence is at my website incl. the €1M Challenge about me being wrong. And the US law is the law! Telling the truth about nuclear weapons is sentenced by death in USA. I live in France.
-
Hm, all the scientific evidence is at my website incl. the €1M Challenge about me being wrong. And the US law is the law! Telling the truth about nuclear weapons is sentenced by death in USA. I live in France.
"IMO it does not work" is not scientific evidence.
And please quote the law saying that denying H-bombs is punishable by death, as you so often claim.
-
Again, the trick is to have enough reactions happen before the reflector has time to melt. This is why every 3rd world cournty doesn't have a-bombs, because getting enough reactions to happen fast enough is very difficult.
So you suggest Stalin did it 1949? Prove it.
If the countless films and eye witness accounts of atomic explosions aren't enough for you, then I'm not sure what else I could possibly do or say to convince you. Have you ever talked with someone who actually witnessed a nuclear explosion?
Films are easy to fake and eyewitnesses cost very little particularly in Japan 1945/52 and USSR 1949/89. My dear général De Gaulle faked a- and h-bomb explosions in the 1960's to prove that France was as good as FDR and Stalin. But nobody has been able to win my 2017 €1M Challenge to show scientifically that a-bombs work. Of course, I explain why it is impossible at my website but still ... here ... at FES forum, a-bomb loving shills copy/paste the old shit from 1945 onwards. They must ... if you don't agree with the POTUS' Executive orders you are sentenced to death.
Such bullshit. You are the one who has failed time and again to support your claim with any scientific evidence. And no one has ever been sentenced to death for denying nukes work.
Hm, all the scientific evidence is at my website incl. the €1M Challenge about me being wrong. And the US law is the law! Telling the truth about nuclear weapons is sentenced by death in USA. I live in France.
And yet another lie and another fail. Show your evidence here, no one is going to dig through the pages and pages of nonsense on your website. Only to find no actual evidence, simply you say it is impossible. I have challenged to do this, you have failed because you cannot.
How many times must you be called out on your continual failures? It would be so easy for you to beat this challenge. Just post your evidence here.
-
Hm, all the scientific evidence is at my website incl. the €1M Challenge about me being wrong. And the US law is the law! Telling the truth about nuclear weapons is sentenced by death in USA. I live in France.
Hi, I'm Heiwa,
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
The Poster Boy For The Dunning Kruger Effect.
(Dunning, Kruger and I were actually pals. We figured out this effect while drinking fine French wine and smoking Cuban cigars in Bora Bora.)
-
And yet another lie and another fail. Show your evidence here, no one is going to dig through the pages and pages of nonsense on your website. Only to find no actual evidence, simply you say it is impossible. I have challenged to do this, you have failed because you cannot.
How many times must you be called out on your continual failures? It would be so easy for you to beat this challenge. Just post your evidence here.
Well, I present my scientific and other evidence that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com with links, etc, etc. If you don't agree with my findings, you just have to copy/paste any text there and explain what is wrong. Nothing to get upset about. Try to focus on the topic. Don't try to be smart questioning my personal abilities.
It seems noone knows how to start an a-bomb explosion. Is it to suddenly compress two subcritical masses of uranium metal into one critical mass that then explodes in a flash due to runway, superfast fission? Is it science?
It sounds like pseudoscience to me.
-
Well, I present my scientific and other evidence that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com with links, etc, etc. You just have to copy/paste and explain what is wrong, if you don't agree with my findings. Nothing to get upset about.
Just post your evidence here.
Also:
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com .
Fuck, you are terrible.
-
Well, I present my scientific and other evidence that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com with links, etc, etc. You just have to copy/paste and explain what is wrong, if you don't agree with my findings. Nothing to get upset about.
Just post your evidence here.
Also:
Anyway, I don't ask people to visit my website http://heiwaco.com .
Fuck, you are terrible.
Hm, I am just a nice, friendly person educating on the Internet others about a-bombs, etc. To educate yourself you really must study what I say at my website. I cannot copy/past all my findings here. And then - focus on topic - and not on my personality. My CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
Focus on topic - and not on my personality.
You have the most distinct case of the Dunning Kruger Effect ever. It's hard not to focus on it. Plus, if you want us to focus on the evidence for your claims why don't you post some already?!
-
Hm, I am just a nice, friendly person educating on the Internet others about a-bombs, etc. To educate yourself you really must study what I say at my website. I cannot copy/past all my findings here. And then - focus on topic - and not on my personality. My CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm
I spent 30 minutes doing simple math and destroyed one of your arguments. You have not been able to rebut it. I did it on this website, despite the volumes of data and evidence that contravenes your paranoid position, because we are having a conversation here. At the end of the day, I understand there is a deep, dark pit of desperation that fuels you, and this is inevitably going nowhere, but maybe, just maybe, this conversation, along with a neighbor intervening as you try to skinny dip with your imaginary nobel laureate friends, thereby preventing you from drowning, will lead to some sort of awareness that you are fucking terrible.
-
And yet another lie and another fail. Show your evidence here, no one is going to dig through the pages and pages of nonsense on your website. Only to find no actual evidence, simply you say it is impossible. I have challenged to do this, you have failed because you cannot.
How many times must you be called out on your continual failures? It would be so easy for you to beat this challenge. Just post your evidence here.
Well, I present my scientific and other evidence that a-bombs do not work at http://heiwaco.com with links, etc, etc. If you don't agree with my findings, you just have to copy/paste any text there and explain what is wrong. Nothing to get upset about. Try to focus on the topic. Don't try to be smart questioning my personal abilities.
It seems noone knows how to start an a-bomb explosion. Is it to suddenly compress two subcritical masses of uranium metal into one critical mass that then explodes in a flash due to runway, superfast fission? Is it science?
It sounds like pseudoscience to me.
And he fails again, and again, and again. Why do you refuse to support your own claims? We are led to the inevitable conclusion that you, in fact, cannot. Something sounding wrong to you is not evidence and that is all you ever produce. Support it here where you made the claim.
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png) <unmitigated incomprehension>
Of all the ignorant posts from you, this kind is by far the most obtuse. This is the type of thing a catty grade school girl would post. You might as well say "I know you are but what am I?" This is the kind of post that got you kicked out of apollohoax and probably more sites than that.
You know very well that we won't copy and paste from your website and that we don't care about your ridiculous self-judged challenge! And you know why! It's been explained to you a hundred times. So why would you make a post like that, which ignorantly ignores everything we've just been talking about? Why?
For the 101st time: We're not interested in your challenge, we're not interested in your website, and we certainly aren't interested in having you spam this site with links to your shitty site! If you want to debate here fine. If you want to make and defend a controversial claim here, then do it here. If you want to use material from your site that's fine too. But you go find the relevant information yourself and post it here.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
unmitigated incomprehension
Of all the ignorant posts from you, this kind is by far the most obtuse. This is the type of thing a catty grade school girl would post. You might as well say "I know you are but what am I?" This is the kind of post that got you kicked out of apollohoax and probably more sites than that.
You know very well that we won't copy and paste from your website and that we don't care about your ridiculous self-judged challenge! And you know why! It's been explained to you a hundred times. So why would you make a post like that, which ignorantly ignores everything we've just been talking about? Why?
For the 101st time: We're not interested in your challenge, we're not interested in your website, and we certainly aren't interested in having you spam this site with links to your shitty site! If you want to debate here fine. If you want to make and defend a controversial claim here, then do it here. If you want to use material from your site that's fine too. But you go find the relevant information yourself and post it here.
Hm, topic is Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and I explain why - they do not work. I have done it for many years on the Internet. Many people get upset about it. I assume they suffer from cognitive dissonance. Actually a doctor explained that to me years ago.
I provide the evidence of my position at my website and you get upset and refuse to copy/paste what I say/write and explain what is wrong.
You don't win a debate in such a way.
-
The stupidest way to try and win a debate is to insist you're right and paste a link to your website as proof!
-
The stupidest way to try and win a debate is to insist you're right and paste a link to your website as proof!
Hm, I think it is a great way to publish findings on a website on the Internet in my own name, which anyone can study free of charge and comment upon. If you don't think the findings are correct, you are free to show it.
I don't insist that I am right. I just suggest that the findings are correct and that I will pay €1M to anyone proving me wrong. It took me a long time to conclude that a-bombs do not work. I spent years in Japan discussing it. Then I met a German that had helped Stalin to build the USSR a-bomb. Actually, he helped Stalin to fake it. Then I remembered that Manne Siegbahn had told me a long time ago to avoid physics. I know he and his sons had been involved with the Swedish a-bomb after the war. A little reserch in the archives showed that Manne had been asked 1945 to build a Swedish a-bomb and that Manne agreed subject to all being peer reviewed and made public. No secrets. The government didn't like it and said it could build one anyway. But there is no evidence of the latter anywhere. Just statements without facts = propaganda. And then I found out why. The Americans (+ Bohr) had faked it 1942/5 by inventing the fairy tale of runway, exponential fission that after mysteriously being started could't be stopped but ended in a FLASH!
But it was not true. It was and is propaganda since 1945! Donald Trump will be disappointed tomorrow, when he finds out he cannot kill a fly with his a-bombs.
Why do you get so upset? Do you want Donald to wipe out Mexico City, Beiing, Moscow and Toronto? But he cannot!
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
The stupidest way to try and win a debate is to insist you're right and paste a link to your website as proof!
Why do you get so upset?
I am more laughing at you than upset at you.
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
Do you want Donald to wipe out Mexico City, Beiing, Moscow and Toronto?
How does this follow from anything I've said????
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
The stupidest way to try and win a debate is to insist you're right and paste a link to your website as proof!
Why do you get so upset?
I am more laughing at you than upset at you.
Hm, you should have a good laugh at what I say. It is pretty funny but ... to scare innocent people like that? Being vaporized by a FLASH. Not my style of a joke.
Human space travel is really fun - http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm . Most Americans believe that some conutrymen of theirs have been on the Moon! Almost 50 years ago.
It is a GREAT JOKE.
Always gives me a laugh.
And Valentina is the most beautiful woman that never was in space. She is still around. She is fun!
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
The stupidest way to try and win a debate is to insist you're right and paste a link to your website as proof!
Why do you get so upset?
I am more laughing at you than upset at you.
Hm, you should have a good laugh at what I say. It is pretty funny but ... to scare innocent people like that? Being vaporized by a FLASH. Not my style of a joke.
Human space travel is really fun. Most Americans believe that some conutrymen of theirs have been on the Moon! Almost 50 years ago.
It is a GREAT JOKE.
Always gives me a laugh.
And Valentina is the most beautiful woman that never was in space. She is still around. She is fun!
Are you drunk?
-
We still expect him to return to normal. Maybe the world is an unbearable place for him, unless drinking.
-
We still expect him to return to normal.
Hope springs eternal.
-
We still expect him to return to normal.
Hope springs eternal.
No, but the 2nd man on the Moon, dr Buzz liked moonshine. Poor sod. I describe him at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel1.htm ?
Re topic there is no scientific info available to support that a-bombs work. All work 1942/5 was secret because nothing scientific was done. Bohr was learning skiing in the winters. In the summers they were all drinking all the time. All scientific work to document the first FLASH at Alamogordo, NM, July 45 was pure nonsense. I describe it at my website. Same at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nobody died due to some sudden FLASHES! People died due to being napalm carpet bombed and burning to death.
There is nothing scientific at all about a-bombs. It is 100% pseudoscience. Propaganda.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
We still expect him to return to normal.
Hope springs eternal.
No,
No what? Hope does not spring eternal?
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
but the 2nd man on the Moon, dr Buzz liked moonshine.
Are you responding to a previous post? Then why did you quote this one? Are you sure you're sober?
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
There is nothing scientific at all about a-bombs.
At least not that you know of - but that's not saying much.
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
And yet another post where you fail to support your positions. You made the claim here, support it here and stop pimping your website. But you can't because you have no evidence.
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
And yet another post where you fail to support your positions. You made the claim here, support it here and stop pimping your website. But you can't because you have no evidence.
Well, the a-bomb lovers suggest that Father Christmas exists because some children have seen him (maybe) - a flash in the sky? - and you suggest that I shall scientifically prove with evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.
This I do at my website that you refuse to study. I suggest that Father Christmas is an invention to fool children. Etc, etc. But you really have to study my website about it
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
And yet another post where you fail to support your positions. You made the claim here, support it here and stop pimping your website. But you can't because you have no evidence.
Well, the a-bomb lovers suggest that Father Christmas exists because some children have seen him (maybe) - a flash in the sky? - and you suggest that I shall scientifically prove with evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.
This I do at my website that you refuse to study. I suggest that Father Christmas is an invention to fool children. Etc, etc. But you really have to study my website about it
More failure. You cannot support your own statements. I've been to your website. There is no proof there either. Just more claims that it is impossible. Show your proof here or be known as a liar.
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
And yet another post where you fail to support your positions. You made the claim here, support it here and stop pimping your website. But you can't because you have no evidence.
Well, the a-bomb lovers suggest that Father Christmas exists because some children have seen him (maybe) - a flash in the sky? - and you suggest that I shall scientifically prove with evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.
This I do at my website that you refuse to study. I suggest that Father Christmas is an invention to fool children. Etc, etc. But you really have to study my website about it
More failure. You cannot support your own statements. I've been to your website. There is no proof there either. Just more claims that it is impossible. Show your proof here or be known as a liar.
Good! Just copy/paste what you don't understand or think is wrong and I will explain. Where do I claim something is impossible?
I claim, e.g. that fission produces pure energy and not dirty smoke and mushroom clouds. I claim that it is not possible to compress metal to double density ... and wonder why a-bomb scientists suggest the opposite. Etc, etc.
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
And yet another post where you fail to support your positions. You made the claim here, support it here and stop pimping your website. But you can't because you have no evidence.
Well, the a-bomb lovers suggest that Father Christmas exists because some children have seen him (maybe) - a flash in the sky? - and you suggest that I shall scientifically prove with evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.
This I do at my website that you refuse to study. I suggest that Father Christmas is an invention to fool children. Etc, etc. But you really have to study my website about it
More failure. You cannot support your own statements. I've been to your website. There is no proof there either. Just more claims that it is impossible. Show your proof here or be known as a liar.
Good! Just copy/paste what you don't understand or think is wrong and I will explain. Where do I claim something is impossible?
I claim, e.g. that fission produces pure energy and not dirty smoke and mushroom clouds. I claim that it is not possible to compress metal to double density ... and wonder why a-bomb scientists suggest the opposite. Etc, etc.
wow, that was hilarious. You ask where you claim something is impossible, then go on to say something is impossible. Really freaking funny.
More failure by Heiwa. You still have not once posted any evidence here to support your positions. Nothing but failure as far as the eye can see.
And you can stop referring to that crazy website. Post your evidence here where you made the claim or admit you are a liar.
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
And yet another post where you fail to support your positions. You made the claim here, support it here and stop pimping your website. But you can't because you have no evidence.
Well, the a-bomb lovers suggest that Father Christmas exists because some children have seen him (maybe) - a flash in the sky? - and you suggest that I shall scientifically prove with evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.
This I do at my website that you refuse to study. I suggest that Father Christmas is an invention to fool children. Etc, etc. But you really have to study my website about it
More failure. You cannot support your own statements. I've been to your website. There is no proof there either. Just more claims that it is impossible. Show your proof here or be known as a liar.
Good! Just copy/paste what you don't understand or think is wrong and I will explain. Where do I claim something is impossible?
I claim, e.g. that fission produces pure energy and not dirty smoke and mushroom clouds. I claim that it is not possible to compress metal to double density ... and wonder why a-bomb scientists suggest the opposite. Etc, etc.
wow, that was hilarious. You ask where you claim something is impossible, then go on to say something is impossible. Really freaking funny.
More failure by Heiwa. You still have not once posted any evidence here to support your positions. Nothing but failure as far as the eye can see.
And you can stop referring to that crazy website. Post your evidence here where you made the claim or admit you are a liar.
Well, to show that nuclear weapons do not work takes little time and much space to explain, so I do it at my popular website. All nuclear weapons science 1945-2017 is pseudoscience, i.e. no evidence for anything. All is propaganda to scare you. I cannot understand why that old nonsense is taught as reality at schools and presented as such in MSM. Anyway, all people having studied my website agree with me.
Hopefully the POTUS elect will make a change tomorrow! I like Donald. Of course he wants to test the a-bombs put at his disposal and when it cannot be done, he will ensure that the situation is corrected.
-
So basically still directing people to his web site where he says things are impossible without any evidence except him saying it.
I do not think he knows what evidence is.
Hewia since you are an engineer argue your position like an engineer not someone who is ignorant of math and physics.
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
And yet another post where you fail to support your positions. You made the claim here, support it here and stop pimping your website. But you can't because you have no evidence.
Well, the a-bomb lovers suggest that Father Christmas exists because some children have seen him (maybe) - a flash in the sky? - and you suggest that I shall scientifically prove with evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.
This I do at my website that you refuse to study. I suggest that Father Christmas is an invention to fool children. Etc, etc. But you really have to study my website about it
More failure. You cannot support your own statements. I've been to your website. There is no proof there either. Just more claims that it is impossible. Show your proof here or be known as a liar.
Good! Just copy/paste what you don't understand or think is wrong and I will explain. Where do I claim something is impossible?
I claim, e.g. that fission produces pure energy and not dirty smoke and mushroom clouds. I claim that it is not possible to compress metal to double density ... and wonder why a-bomb scientists suggest the opposite. Etc, etc.
wow, that was hilarious. You ask where you claim something is impossible, then go on to say something is impossible. Really freaking funny.
More failure by Heiwa. You still have not once posted any evidence here to support your positions. Nothing but failure as far as the eye can see.
And you can stop referring to that crazy website. Post your evidence here where you made the claim or admit you are a liar.
Well, to show that nuclear weapons do not work takes little time and much space to explain, so I do it at my popular website. All nuclear weapons science 1945-2017 is pseudoscience, i.e. no evidence for anything. All is propaganda to scare you. I cannot understand why that old nonsense is taught as reality at schools and presented as such in MSM. Anyway, all people having studied my website agree with me.
Hopefully the POTUS elect will make a change tomorrow! I like Donald. Of course he wants to test the a-bombs put at his disposal and when it cannot be done, he will ensure that the situation is corrected.
Not nearly as much time and space as you have used up dodging and failing. Yet another fall on the face fail from Heiwa. You could have posted your proof here at any point but you did not, showing yourself to be a fake and a liar.
Post your evidence here where you made the claim, or continue failing. It's actually kind of funny to watch you dodge and weave like a child.
-
Well, it seems you all fail to copy/past anything that is wrong at my website http://heiwaco.com , in spite of me offering a generous €1M, if you can do so in five clear cases.
What is wrong with you? Cognitive dissonance? I know it is difficult to accept having been fooled by untrue stories and magic tricks for years, but that's life. If you believe in a-bombs, you should know how to make them explode, shouldn't you? But you can't. Why is that?
And yet another post where you fail to support your positions. You made the claim here, support it here and stop pimping your website. But you can't because you have no evidence.
Well, the a-bomb lovers suggest that Father Christmas exists because some children have seen him (maybe) - a flash in the sky? - and you suggest that I shall scientifically prove with evidence that Father Christmas does not exist.
This I do at my website that you refuse to study. I suggest that Father Christmas is an invention to fool children. Etc, etc. But you really have to study my website about it
More failure. You cannot support your own statements. I've been to your website. There is no proof there either. Just more claims that it is impossible. Show your proof here or be known as a liar.
Good! Just copy/paste what you don't understand or think is wrong and I will explain. Where do I claim something is impossible?
I claim, e.g. that fission produces pure energy and not dirty smoke and mushroom clouds. I claim that it is not possible to compress metal to double density ... and wonder why a-bomb scientists suggest the opposite. Etc, etc.
wow, that was hilarious. You ask where you claim something is impossible, then go on to say something is impossible. Really freaking funny.
More failure by Heiwa. You still have not once posted any evidence here to support your positions. Nothing but failure as far as the eye can see.
And you can stop referring to that crazy website. Post your evidence here where you made the claim or admit you are a liar.
Well, to show that nuclear weapons do not work takes little time and much space to explain, so I do it at my popular website. All nuclear weapons science 1945-2017 is pseudoscience, i.e. no evidence for anything. All is propaganda to scare you. I cannot understand why that old nonsense is taught as reality at schools and presented as such in MSM. Anyway, all people having studied my website agree with me.
Hopefully the POTUS elect will make a change tomorrow! I like Donald. Of course he wants to test the a-bombs put at his disposal and when it cannot be done, he will ensure that the situation is corrected.
Also, I really want to point out the hilarity of you saying "Where do I say something is impossible" and then, literally the next paragraph say something is impossible. Did you not even catch that? Do you not see how funny you are? I mean, or crazy and that would just be sad.
-
So basically still directing people to his web site where he says things are impossible without any evidence except him saying it.
I do not think he knows what evidence is.
Hewia since you are an engineer argue your position like an engineer not someone who is ignorant of math and physics.
No, Google directs peope to me. And unknowns. That's Internet. I just update my website. As a web master!
My little site informs about impossible things that are made possible only by Pseudoscience!. It is great fun! Atom bombs! Pseudoscience! Manned space travel! Pseudoscience! Ships floating on deck houses. Pseudoscience! 911 Arabs landing planes in tops of skyscrapers. Pseudoscience! And FUSION to take place down the road from me. Pseudoscience!
It is great FUN!
Don't blame me.
-
So basically still directing people to his web site where he says things are impossible without any evidence except him saying it.
I do not think he knows what evidence is.
Hewia since you are an engineer argue your position like an engineer not someone who is ignorant of math and physics.
No, Google directs peope to me. And unknowns. That's Internet. I just update my website. As a web master!
My little site informs about impossible things that are made possible only by Pseudoscience!. It is great fun! Atom bombs! Pseudoscience! Manned space travel! Pseudoscience! Ships floating on deck houses. Pseudoscience! 911 Arabs landing planes in tops of skyscrapers. Pseudoscience! And FUSION to take place down the road from me. Pseudoscience!
It is great FUN!
Don't blame me.
You ignored the part where he asked for actual evidence. You could post it here, you know, where you make the claim. Or you could refer us back to your website. But then that would make you a liar when you just denied doing that.
Quite the conundrum it seems.
Actually post some evidence, or prove yourself a liar and simply refer back to your website.
Since you have no evidence, I am going to guess that you will prove yourself a liar again and refer back to your website. You know, the one you just denied that you refer people to.
-
Here is something that should be interesting to see.
Heiwa why not post a screenshot of your sites stats?
My guess the majority are from bots and crawlers when people search for Heiwa. Which is a term shared by several different sites and businesses.
I got curious and looked at google trends, Alexa and Quantcast. Seems there is not enough data for his popular website to analyze. At least that is what all 3 results I got said.
-
So basically still directing people to his web site where he says things are impossible without any evidence except him saying it.
I do not think he knows what evidence is.
Hewia since you are an engineer argue your position like an engineer not someone who is ignorant of math and physics.
No, Google directs peope to me. And unknowns. That's Internet. I just update my website. As a web master!
My little site informs about impossible things that are made possible only by Pseudoscience!. It is great fun! Atom bombs! Pseudoscience! Manned space travel! Pseudoscience! Ships floating on deck houses. Pseudoscience! 911 Arabs landing planes in tops of skyscrapers. Pseudoscience! And FUSION to take place down the road from me. Pseudoscience!
It is great FUN!
Don't blame me.
You ignored the part where he asked for actual evidence. You could post it here, you know, where you make the claim. Or you could refer us back to your website. But then that would make you a liar when you just denied doing that.
Quite the conundrum it seems.
Actually post some evidence, or prove yourself a liar and simply refer back to your website.
Since you have no evidence, I am going to guess that you will prove yourself a liar again and refer back to your website. You know, the one you just denied that you refer people to.
There is plenty evidence that a-bombs are fake at my website all true and easy to verify.
You have failed to copy/paste anything incorrect and just invent things about me.
There is only one type of fission. The peaceful, moderated one discovered 1938 by Otto Hahn and used in nuclear power plants. Atoms are split and release energy/heat. No smoke!
The second type of fission - the military, secret type invented later by some clowns 1942/5 that one way or other can be started and then not be stopped - is pure pseudoscience to scare. If you ask for details how to start the fake, military fission of an a-bomb you are threatened to be sentenced to death. The second type produces a FLASH, dirty smoke and a mushroom cloud. Popular to fake using photoshop, etc, etc. Testing of this fission is always secret at remote locations, bla, bla, bla.
I really recommend you to take your time and study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It took me plenty time to write it.
-
Here is something that should be interesting to see.
Heiwa why not post a screenshot of your sites stats?
My guess the majority are from bots and crawlers when people search for Heiwa. Which is a term shared by several different sites and businesses.
I got curious and looked at google trends, Alexa and Quantcast. Seems there is not enough data for his popular website to analyze. At least that is what all 3 results I got said.
Why not? According my Statcounter I have >500 unique visits/day lately. The total is seen at the bottom of each page - 2286701 when I just looked. Imagine that almost 2.3 million page views.
Page Views Unique Visits First Time Visits Returning Visits
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 158 117 98 19
Thur, 19 Jan 2017 669 484 401 83
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 702 491 400 91
Tues, 17 Jan 2017 825 643 537 106
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 846 617 527 90
Sun, 15 Jan 2017 921 697 597 100
Half of them Google send me. The others find me other ways.
You can also download pdf copies of my books and papers - free of charge. Quite popular, too.
-
There is only one type of fission. The peaceful, moderated one discovered 1938 by Otto Hahn and used in nuclear power plants. Atoms are split and release energy/heat. No smoke!
The second type of fission - the military, secret type invented later by some clowns 1942/5 that one way or other can be started and then not be stopped - is pure pseudoscience to scare. If you ask for details how to start the fake, military fission of an a-bomb you are threatened to be sentenced to death. The second type produces a FLASH, dirty smoke and a mushroom cloud. Popular to fake using photoshop, etc, etc. Testing of this fission is always secret at remote locations, bla, bla, bla.
All these posts explaining it to you and you still don't get where the dirty smoke and cloud comes from. And you think photoshop was invented in the 1940s? For film? You think the testing wasn't witnessed by thousands? In locations that weren't well known?
No wonder so many people go to your site - they need the laughs.
-
There is only one type of fission. The peaceful, moderated one discovered 1938 by Otto Hahn and used in nuclear power plants. Atoms are split and release energy/heat. No smoke!
The second type of fission - the military, secret type invented later by some clowns 1942/5 that one way or other can be started and then not be stopped - is pure pseudoscience to scare. If you ask for details how to start the fake, military fission of an a-bomb you are threatened to be sentenced to death. The second type produces a FLASH, dirty smoke and a mushroom cloud. Popular to fake using photoshop, etc, etc. Testing of this fission is always secret at remote locations, bla, bla, bla.
All these posts explaining it to you and you still don't get where the dirty smoke and cloud comes from. And you think photoshop was invented in the 1940s? For film? You think the testing wasn't witnessed by thousands? In locations that weren't well known?
No wonder so many people go to your site - they need the laughs.
Let's start with explosion #1 - 16 July 1945 Alamogordo, NM. There are plenty pictures on the Internet - plenty dirty smoke! But the explosion took place at the top of a tower 30 m above desert ground that remained intact! No crater - no sand blown away. Only the tower was vaporized. Nothing could burn in the desert. Of course the temperature was 1 000 000 K for a while destroying all life (flowers/insects) but anyway. So where did the smoke come from?
Explosion #2 - 6 August 1945 Hiroshima, Japan, took place at 600 m altitude when the bomb was dropping down at the speed of sound. Had the explosion taken place 2 seconds later it would have been at -50 m altitude! Had the bomb then landed in the water nearby - I wonder what have happened.
I describe the fake nonsense in chapters 2.4 and 2.5 of my report at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Nothing to laugh about.
-
So basically still directing people to his web site where he says things are impossible without any evidence except him saying it.
I do not think he knows what evidence is.
Hewia since you are an engineer argue your position like an engineer not someone who is ignorant of math and physics.
No, Google directs peope to me. And unknowns. That's Internet. I just update my website. As a web master!
My little site informs about impossible things that are made possible only by Pseudoscience!. It is great fun! Atom bombs! Pseudoscience! Manned space travel! Pseudoscience! Ships floating on deck houses. Pseudoscience! 911 Arabs landing planes in tops of skyscrapers. Pseudoscience! And FUSION to take place down the road from me. Pseudoscience!
It is great FUN!
Don't blame me.
You ignored the part where he asked for actual evidence. You could post it here, you know, where you make the claim. Or you could refer us back to your website. But then that would make you a liar when you just denied doing that.
Quite the conundrum it seems.
Actually post some evidence, or prove yourself a liar and simply refer back to your website.
Since you have no evidence, I am going to guess that you will prove yourself a liar again and refer back to your website. You know, the one you just denied that you refer people to.
There is plenty evidence that a-bombs are fake at my website all true and easy to verify.
You have failed to copy/paste anything incorrect and just invent things about me.
There is only one type of fission. The peaceful, moderated one discovered 1938 by Otto Hahn and used in nuclear power plants. Atoms are split and release energy/heat. No smoke!
The second type of fission - the military, secret type invented later by some clowns 1942/5 that one way or other can be started and then not be stopped - is pure pseudoscience to scare. If you ask for details how to start the fake, military fission of an a-bomb you are threatened to be sentenced to death. The second type produces a FLASH, dirty smoke and a mushroom cloud. Popular to fake using photoshop, etc, etc. Testing of this fission is always secret at remote locations, bla, bla, bla.
I really recommend you to take your time and study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It took me plenty time to write it.
As I predicted younopted to fail and prove yourself a liar. No evidence at all and you demonstrate that you are in fact a liar.
-
So basically still directing people to his web site where he says things are impossible without any evidence except him saying it.
I do not think he knows what evidence is.
Hewia since you are an engineer argue your position like an engineer not someone who is ignorant of math and physics.
No, Google directs peope to me. And unknowns. That's Internet. I just update my website. As a web master!
My little site informs about impossible things that are made possible only by Pseudoscience!. It is great fun! Atom bombs! Pseudoscience! Manned space travel! Pseudoscience! Ships floating on deck houses. Pseudoscience! 911 Arabs landing planes in tops of skyscrapers. Pseudoscience! And FUSION to take place down the road from me. Pseudoscience!
It is great FUN!
Don't blame me.
You ignored the part where he asked for actual evidence. You could post it here, you know, where you make the claim. Or you could refer us back to your website. But then that would make you a liar when you just denied doing that.
Quite the conundrum it seems.
Actually post some evidence, or prove yourself a liar and simply refer back to your website.
Since you have no evidence, I am going to guess that you will prove yourself a liar again and refer back to your website. You know, the one you just denied that you refer people to.
There is plenty evidence that a-bombs are fake at my website all true and easy to verify.
You have failed to copy/paste anything incorrect and just invent things about me.
There is only one type of fission. The peaceful, moderated one discovered 1938 by Otto Hahn and used in nuclear power plants. Atoms are split and release energy/heat. No smoke!
The second type of fission - the military, secret type invented later by some clowns 1942/5 that one way or other can be started and then not be stopped - is pure pseudoscience to scare. If you ask for details how to start the fake, military fission of an a-bomb you are threatened to be sentenced to death. The second type produces a FLASH, dirty smoke and a mushroom cloud. Popular to fake using photoshop, etc, etc. Testing of this fission is always secret at remote locations, bla, bla, bla.
I really recommend you to take your time and study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It took me plenty time to write it.
As I predicted younopted to fail and prove yourself a liar. No evidence at all and you demonstrate that you are in fact a liar.
Hm, all I say (write) is found at my website http://heiwaco.com. If you can find any lies there, just copy/paste them and publish them here at FES forum.
I cannot understand your attitude. Whatever I say, you come back and say I am a liar. Without any further explanations.
Are you all right? To me it seems you are sick or ill or both or not in good shape. Stress? Suggest you try to cure yourself now. Sorry I can't help!
Actually, I don't give a damn about your sick mind. Cognitive dissonance?
-
Hey Heiwa! Have you seen this challenge?:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69040.msg1861187#msg1861187
-
Here is something that should be interesting to see.
Heiwa why not post a screenshot of your sites stats?
My guess the majority are from bots and crawlers when people search for Heiwa. Which is a term shared by several different sites and businesses.
I got curious and looked at google trends, Alexa and Quantcast. Seems there is not enough data for his popular website to analyze. At least that is what all 3 results I got said.
Why not? According my Statcounter I have >500 unique visits/day lately. The total is seen at the bottom of each page - 2286701 when I just looked. Imagine that almost 2.3 million page views.
Page Views Unique Visits First Time Visits Returning Visits
Fri, 20 Jan 2017 158 117 98 19
Thur, 19 Jan 2017 669 484 401 83
Wed, 18 Jan 2017 702 491 400 91
Tues, 17 Jan 2017 825 643 537 106
Mon, 16 Jan 2017 846 617 527 90
Sun, 15 Jan 2017 921 697 597 100
Half of them Google send me. The others find me other ways.
You can also download pdf copies of my books and papers - free of charge. Quite popular, too.
Do not know how to do a screenshot?
You have demonstrated your word can not be trusted or at the very least everything you say should be viewed with a high amount of skepticism.
Like you have the money, but for some reason have not offered any evidence except you saying it.
-
So basically still directing people to his web site where he says things are impossible without any evidence except him saying it.
I do not think he knows what evidence is.
Hewia since you are an engineer argue your position like an engineer not someone who is ignorant of math and physics.
No, Google directs peope to me. And unknowns. That's Internet. I just update my website. As a web master!
My little site informs about impossible things that are made possible only by Pseudoscience!. It is great fun! Atom bombs! Pseudoscience! Manned space travel! Pseudoscience! Ships floating on deck houses. Pseudoscience! 911 Arabs landing planes in tops of skyscrapers. Pseudoscience! And FUSION to take place down the road from me. Pseudoscience!
It is great FUN!
Don't blame me.
You ignored the part where he asked for actual evidence. You could post it here, you know, where you make the claim. Or you could refer us back to your website. But then that would make you a liar when you just denied doing that.
Quite the conundrum it seems.
Actually post some evidence, or prove yourself a liar and simply refer back to your website.
Since you have no evidence, I am going to guess that you will prove yourself a liar again and refer back to your website. You know, the one you just denied that you refer people to.
There is plenty evidence that a-bombs are fake at my website all true and easy to verify.
You have failed to copy/paste anything incorrect and just invent things about me.
There is only one type of fission. The peaceful, moderated one discovered 1938 by Otto Hahn and used in nuclear power plants. Atoms are split and release energy/heat. No smoke!
The second type of fission - the military, secret type invented later by some clowns 1942/5 that one way or other can be started and then not be stopped - is pure pseudoscience to scare. If you ask for details how to start the fake, military fission of an a-bomb you are threatened to be sentenced to death. The second type produces a FLASH, dirty smoke and a mushroom cloud. Popular to fake using photoshop, etc, etc. Testing of this fission is always secret at remote locations, bla, bla, bla.
I really recommend you to take your time and study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It took me plenty time to write it.
As I predicted younopted to fail and prove yourself a liar. No evidence at all and you demonstrate that you are in fact a liar.
Hm, all I say (write) is found at my website http://heiwaco.com. If you can find any lies there, just copy/paste them and publish them here at FES forum.
I cannot understand your attitude. Whatever I say, you come back and say I am a liar. Without any further explanations.
Are you all right? To me it seems you are sick or ill or both or not in good shape. Stress? Suggest you try to cure yourself now. Sorry I can't help!
Actually, I don't give a damn about your sick mind. Cognitive dissonance?
And yet another failure. You just can't help yourself can you?
-
Let's start with explosion #1 - 16 July 1945 Alamogordo, NM. There are plenty pictures on the Internet - plenty dirty smoke! But the explosion took place at the top of a tower 30 m above desert ground that remained intact! No crater - no sand blown away. Only the tower was vaporized. Nothing could burn in the desert. Of course the temperature was 1 000 000 K for a while destroying all life (flowers/insects) but anyway. So where did the smoke come from?
Maybe you should research your BS before deciding it is BS? Mushroom clouds are constituted by 3 sources of material: 1. The remains of the bombs components; 2. Material suck up from the group by pressure variance (N.B. This does not always occur and depends greatly on the altitude of the detonation); 3. Water vapour and other atmospheric gasses condensed by the pressure and temperature changes. You suck.
Explosion #2 - 6 August 1945 Hiroshima, Japan, took place at 600 m altitude when the bomb was dropping down at the speed of sound. Had the explosion taken place 2 seconds later it would have been at -50 m altitude! Had the bomb then landed in the water nearby - I wonder what have happened.
The bomb would not reach the speed of sound before hitting the ground. Only 75% of the speed of sound at top speed. You suck.
So far I have debunked 4 "facts" from your website: 1. There is not enough time from detonation to explosion to fission a sufficient amount of uranium atoms; 2. A nuclear explosion could not create "smoke"; 3. The Hiroshima bomb fell at the speed of sound; 4. Neutrons travel at the speed of light.
Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong
I have showed you wrong on 4 separate points... You owe me €1M. Pay the fuck up.
-
So basically still directing people to his web site where he says things are impossible without any evidence except him saying it.
I do not think he knows what evidence is.
Hewia since you are an engineer argue your position like an engineer not someone who is ignorant of math and physics.
No, Google directs peope to me. And unknowns. That's Internet. I just update my website. As a web master!
My little site informs about impossible things that are made possible only by Pseudoscience!. It is great fun! Atom bombs! Pseudoscience! Manned space travel! Pseudoscience! Ships floating on deck houses. Pseudoscience! 911 Arabs landing planes in tops of skyscrapers. Pseudoscience! And FUSION to take place down the road from me. Pseudoscience!
It is great FUN!
Don't blame me.
All true, but not only manned space travel is impossible. Unmanned space travel is equally pseudoscience.
Ontopic; funny to see the believers in Noclear Flash Mobs present nothing to back up their dreams. Just repeating pseudoscience doesn't make it true.
-
Let's start with explosion #1 - 16 July 1945 Alamogordo, NM. There are plenty pictures on the Internet - plenty dirty smoke! But the explosion took place at the top of a tower 30 m above desert ground that remained intact! No crater - no sand blown away. Only the tower was vaporized. Nothing could burn in the desert. Of course the temperature was 1 000 000 K for a while destroying all life (flowers/insects) but anyway. So where did the smoke come from?
1. Maybe you should research your BS before deciding it is BS? Mushroom clouds are constituted by 3 sources of material: 1. The remains of the bombs components; 2. Material suck up from the group by pressure variance (N.B. This does not always occur and depends greatly on the altitude of the detonation); 3. Water vapour and other atmospheric gasses condensed by the pressure and temperature changes. You suck.
Explosion #2 - 6 August 1945 Hiroshima, Japan, took place at 600 m altitude when the bomb was dropping down at the speed of sound. Had the explosion taken place 2 seconds later it would have been at -50 m altitude! Had the bomb then landed in the water nearby - I wonder what have happened.
2. The bomb would not reach the speed of sound before hitting the ground. Only 75% of the speed of sound at top speed. You suck.
3. So far I have debunked 4 "facts" from your website: 1. There is not enough time from detonation to explosion to fission a sufficient amount of uranium atoms; 2. A nuclear explosion could not create "smoke"; 3. The Hiroshima bomb fell at the speed of sound; 4. Neutrons travel at the speed of light.
Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong
4. I have showed you wrong on 4 separate points... You owe me €1M. Pay the fuck up.
1. So an a-bomb exploding on top of a 30 m tall steel tower in the Alamogordo, NM, desert becomes a dirty mushroom cloud due to the remains of the bomb, material sucked up from ground (sand) and water vapour.
Any scientific support for this nonsense?
2. You are right. The bomb will only reach 75% of the speed of sound when it explodes, if dropped as suggested. But it does not make any difference. It cannot explode under any circumstances.
3. Sorry. 1. Fission takes time and must be moderated. Doesn't work in an a-bomb. 2. Fission does not produce smoke! 3. Well, the bomb dropped free fall and pretty fast. No parachute to slow it down. 4. Neutrons are slowed down by the environment, e.g. water in a nuclear power plant. But there is no water in an a-bomb. Any neutron in an a-bomb just flies away pretty fast and that's it.
4. To win my generous €1M Challenges you must study http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Don't worry - the money is with me.
-
Let's start with explosion #1 - 16 July 1945 Alamogordo, NM. There are plenty pictures on the Internet - plenty dirty smoke! But the explosion took place at the top of a tower 30 m above desert ground that remained intact! No crater - no sand blown away. Only the tower was vaporized. Nothing could burn in the desert. Of course the temperature was 1 000 000 K for a while destroying all life (flowers/insects) but anyway. So where did the smoke come from?
1. Maybe you should research your BS before deciding it is BS? Mushroom clouds are constituted by 3 sources of material: 1. The remains of the bombs components; 2. Material suck up from the group by pressure variance (N.B. This does not always occur and depends greatly on the altitude of the detonation); 3. Water vapour and other atmospheric gasses condensed by the pressure and temperature changes. You suck.
Explosion #2 - 6 August 1945 Hiroshima, Japan, took place at 600 m altitude when the bomb was dropping down at the speed of sound. Had the explosion taken place 2 seconds later it would have been at -50 m altitude! Had the bomb then landed in the water nearby - I wonder what have happened.
2. The bomb would not reach the speed of sound before hitting the ground. Only 75% of the speed of sound at top speed. You suck.
3. So far I have debunked 4 "facts" from your website: 1. There is not enough time from detonation to explosion to fission a sufficient amount of uranium atoms; 2. A nuclear explosion could not create "smoke"; 3. The Hiroshima bomb fell at the speed of sound; 4. Neutrons travel at the speed of light.
Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong
4. I have showed you wrong on 4 separate points... You owe me €1M. Pay the fuck up.
1. So an a-bomb exploding on top of a 30 m tall steel tower in the Alamogordo, NM, desert becomes a dirty mushroom cloud due to the remains of the bomb, material sucked up from ground (sand) and water vapour.
Any scientific support for this nonsense?
2. You are right. The bomb will only reach 75% of the speed of sound when it explodes, if dropped as suggested. But it does not make any difference. It cannot explode under any circumstances.
3. Sorry. 1. Fission takes time and must be moderated. Doesn't work in an a-bomb. 2. Fission does not produce smoke! 3. Well, the bomb dropped free fall and pretty fast. No parachute to slow it down. 4. Neutrons are slowed down by the environment, e.g. water in a nuclear power plant. But there is no water in an a-bomb. Any neutron in an a-bomb just flies away pretty fast and that's it.
4. To win my generous €1M Challenges you must study http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Don't worry - the money is with me.
Did you seriously just ask someone for scientific evidence? That's rich coming from you. You have never once posted any scientific evidence here despite being asked multiple time to do so.
Yet another epic fail. You really are clueless
-
4. Neutrons are slowed down by the environment, e.g. water in a nuclear power plant. But there is no water in an a-bomb. Any neutron in an a-bomb just flies away pretty fast and that's it.
The high purity (greater than 90%) of the U-235 in an atomic bomb means that the neutrons have a pretty good chance of running into other U-235 nuclei without having to go very far. The relatively low purity (20% or less) of U-238 atoms in nuclear reactors means that the neutrons need to be slowed down (moderated) to have a better chance of running into other U-238 nuclei which are further apart from each other. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
-
Let's start with explosion #1 - 16 July 1945 Alamogordo, NM. There are plenty pictures on the Internet - plenty dirty smoke! But the explosion took place at the top of a tower 30 m above desert ground that remained intact! No crater - no sand blown away. Only the tower was vaporized. Nothing could burn in the desert. Of course the temperature was 1 000 000 K for a while destroying all life (flowers/insects) but anyway. So where did the smoke come from?
1. Maybe you should research your BS before deciding it is BS? Mushroom clouds are constituted by 3 sources of material: 1. The remains of the bombs components; 2. Material suck up from the group by pressure variance (N.B. This does not always occur and depends greatly on the altitude of the detonation); 3. Water vapour and other atmospheric gasses condensed by the pressure and temperature changes. You suck.
Explosion #2 - 6 August 1945 Hiroshima, Japan, took place at 600 m altitude when the bomb was dropping down at the speed of sound. Had the explosion taken place 2 seconds later it would have been at -50 m altitude! Had the bomb then landed in the water nearby - I wonder what have happened.
2. The bomb would not reach the speed of sound before hitting the ground. Only 75% of the speed of sound at top speed. You suck.
3. So far I have debunked 4 "facts" from your website: 1. There is not enough time from detonation to explosion to fission a sufficient amount of uranium atoms; 2. A nuclear explosion could not create "smoke"; 3. The Hiroshima bomb fell at the speed of sound; 4. Neutrons travel at the speed of light.
Furthermore, I pay anyone €1M showing me wrong
4. I have showed you wrong on 4 separate points... You owe me €1M. Pay the fuck up.
1. So an a-bomb exploding on top of a 30 m tall steel tower in the Alamogordo, NM, desert becomes a dirty mushroom cloud due to the remains of the bomb, material sucked up from ground (sand) and water vapour.
Any scientific support for this nonsense?
Any large explosion will produce a mushroom cloud by exactly the same process of heat rising and sucking up the dirt. You've been told this. Don't pretend you haven't. The difference in a nuclear one is the scale of it compared to the amount of raw materials involved and the dirty fallout - the fallout that has contaminated soil the world over as a marker layer during the atomic testing period.
-
4. Neutrons are slowed down by the environment, e.g. water in a nuclear power plant. But there is no water in an a-bomb. Any neutron in an a-bomb just flies away pretty fast and that's it.
The high purity (greater than 90%) of the U-235 in an atomic bomb means that the neutrons have a pretty good chance of running into other U-235 nuclei without having to go very far. The relatively low purity (20% or less) of U-238 atoms in nuclear reactors means that the neutrons need to be slowed down (moderated) to have a better chance of running into other U-238 nuclei which are further apart from each other. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
ROTFL.
There is only one type of fission - where the neutrons are slowed down - moderated - to split atoms to release energy. It can be stopped at any time by just preventing the neutrons to reach the atoms. It occurs in nuclear power plants.
There is no military fission that cannot be stopped when it has been started (how?) and which just exponentially fissions all the atoms available (in a critical mass - LOL) increasing the temperature to 1 000 000 K during nanoseconds. If such fission existed the critical mass would have melted at once and flowed away and so on.
I explain it at my website where all evidences are provided. Military fission is just an invention to scare people, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. It was invented by FDR and Stalin, both quite sick persons.
So Donald T has no means to wipe out US enemies using his a-bombs.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
4. Neutrons are slowed down by the environment, e.g. water in a nuclear power plant. But there is no water in an a-bomb. Any neutron in an a-bomb just flies away pretty fast and that's it.
The high purity (greater than 90%) of the U-235 in an atomic bomb means that the neutrons have a pretty good chance of running into other U-235 nuclei without having to go very far. The relatively low purity (20% or less) of U-238 atoms in nuclear reactors means that the neutrons need to be slowed down (moderated) to have a better chance of running into other U-238 nuclei which are further apart from each other. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
ROTFL.
Really? That seems like a rather dull thing to be ROTFL about.
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
There is only one type of fission
There is no military fission
Military fission is just an invention to scare people, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. It was invented by FDR and Stalin, both quite sick persons.
How do you know? Can you post some evidence?
BTW Have you had a chance to look at this thread? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69040.msg1861187#msg1861187)
-
4. Neutrons are slowed down by the environment, e.g. water in a nuclear power plant. But there is no water in an a-bomb. Any neutron in an a-bomb just flies away pretty fast and that's it.
The high purity (greater than 90%) of the U-235 in an atomic bomb means that the neutrons have a pretty good chance of running into other U-235 nuclei without having to go very far. The relatively low purity (20% or less) of U-238 atoms in nuclear reactors means that the neutrons need to be slowed down (moderated) to have a better chance of running into other U-238 nuclei which are further apart from each other. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
ROTFL.
There is only one type of fission - where the neutrons are slowed down - moderated - to split atoms to release energy. It can be stopped at any time by just preventing the neutrons to reach the atoms. It occurs in nuclear power plants.
There is no military fission that cannot be stopped when it has been started (how?) and which just exponentially fissions all the atoms available (in a critical mass - LOL) increasing the temperature to 1 000 000 K during nanoseconds. If such fission existed the critical mass would have melted at once and flowed away and so on.
I explain it at my website where all evidences are provided. Military fission is just an invention to scare people, it is pseudoscience and propaganda. It was invented by FDR and Stalin, both quite sick persons.
So Donald T has no means to wipe out US enemies using his a-bombs.
-
1. So an a-bomb exploding on top of a 30 m tall steel tower in the Alamogordo, NM, desert becomes a dirty mushroom cloud due to the remains of the bomb, material sucked up from ground (sand) and water vapour.
I wouldn't use the word dirty, but sure.
Any scientific support for this nonsense?
Yes, please reference "Effects of nuclear earth-penetrator and other weapons", National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Effects of Nuclear Earth-Penetrator and Other Weapons, National Academies Press, 2005 ISBN 0-309-09673-1.
2. You are right. The bomb will only reach 75% of the speed of sound when it explodes, if dropped as suggested. But it does not make any difference. It cannot explode under any circumstances.
Why not?
3. Sorry. 1. Fission takes time and must be moderated. Doesn't work in an a-bomb.
Wrong donkey. I already showed you that .3 microseconds is more than enough time to fission enough U235 to create an atomic explosion of the energies seen at Hiroshima.
2. Fission does not produce smoke!
No one has said otherwise! It is the heat and pressure created by the fission that causes the mushroom cloud which is not accurately described as smoke because it is mostly condensed atmospheric gasses.
3. Well, the bomb dropped free fall and pretty fast. No parachute to slow it down.
Sorry, you were wrong about how fast it went. Pretty pathetic that an engineer did not consider terminal velocity.
4. Neutrons are slowed down by the environment, e.g. water in a nuclear power plant. But there is no water in an a-bomb. Any neutron in an a-bomb just flies away pretty fast and that's it.
Yes, sometimes as they fly away they hit a U235 nucleus with enough energy to interrupt the strong nuclear force and cause fission though.
4. To win my generous €1M Challenges you must study http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Don't worry - the money is with me.
You are even more wrong in this post. You suck.
-
3. Sorry. 1. Fission takes time and must be moderated. Doesn't work in an a-bomb.
Wrong donkey. I already showed you that .3 microseconds is more than enough time to fission enough U235 to create an atomic explosion of the energies seen at Hiroshima.
You are even more wrong in this post. You suck.
Well, with language like that you do not convince me. Because after only 0.01 microseconds of not moderated fission the bomb has already melted and then fission stops ... fizzle. You cannot start fission by compressing two pieces of metal together. It is the simple reason why all a-bombs are fake! Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down. Ask any nuclear physicist!
-
Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down.
And what happens if you don't...
-
Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down.
And what happens if you don't...
The temperature goes up, the installation melts and fission stops.
-
The temperature goes up, the installation melts and fission stops.
You've pretty much given up, haven't you?
-
The temperature goes up, the installation melts and fission stops.
You've pretty much given up, haven't you?
Not at all! Nobody has won my Challenges (http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm ) so I remain rich, happy, in good health and without any problems.
Donald Trump is apparently visiting CIA today at Langley to find out more about CIA's pre-elections findings that Russia had ... one way or other ... manipulated USA to vote for him.
I also wonder about it.
Any ideas?
-
Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down.
And what happens if you don't...
The temperature goes up, the installation melts and fission stops.
Ok, show your evidence of that. No? Didn't think so. Just another failure by you.
-
3. Sorry. 1. Fission takes time and must be moderated. Doesn't work in an a-bomb.
Wrong donkey. I already showed you that .3 microseconds is more than enough time to fission enough U235 to create an atomic explosion of the energies seen at Hiroshima.
You are even more wrong in this post. You suck.
Well, with language like that you do not convince me. Because after only 0.01 microseconds of not moderated fission the bomb has already melted and then fission stops ... fizzle. You cannot start fission by compressing two pieces of metal together. It is the simple reason why all a-bombs are fake! Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down. Ask any nuclear physicist!
Bull shit. Prove it takes 0.1 nanoseconds to melt. Why can't liquid, gas or plasma fission?
-
Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down. Ask any nuclear physicist!
??? Why would a nuclear bomb maker care about keeping the temperature down? Atomic bombs are not about sustained fission. They are about having a lot of fission occurring very quickly to release a great deal of energy pretty much all at once.
-
Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down. Ask any nuclear physicist!
??? Why would a nuclear bomb maker care about keeping the temperature down? Atomic bombs are not about sustained fission. They are about having a lot of fission occurring very quickly to release a great deal of energy pretty much all at once.
Well, as already explained many times a critical mass of uranium consists of many atoms, e.g. 4x1026 or so. Don't ask me why. Adding them all together they are 61 kg. Again, don't ask me why.
When the critical mass explode one neutron fissions one atom, then newly released neutrons fission two others that fission four others, etc, etc, until all 4x1026 atoms have fissioned. It takes nanoseconds. The energy released corresponds to exploding 20 000 000 kg TNT we are told. 61 kg of uranium has the same amount of energy in it.
However, after only 0.05% of the atoms have fissioned or exploded, so much energy has been released so that the remaining 99.95% of the atoms have flown away and cannot fission. They are not critical any longer. Actually the critical mass melts or is vaporized before it can explode.
That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission to work must be moderated.
-
Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down. Ask any nuclear physicist!
??? Why would a nuclear bomb maker care about keeping the temperature down? Atomic bombs are not about sustained fission. They are about having a lot of fission occurring very quickly to release a great deal of energy pretty much all at once.
Well, as already explained many times a critical mass of uranium consists of many atoms, e.g. 4x1026 or so. Don't ask me why. Adding them all together they are 61 kg. Again, don't ask me why.
When the critical mass explode one neutron fissions one atom, then newly released neutrons fission two others that fission four others, etc, etc, until all 4x1026 atoms have fissioned. It takes nanoseconds. The energy released corresponds to exploding 20 000 000 kg TNT we are told. 61 kg of uranium has the same amount of energy in it.
However, after only 0.05% of the atoms have fissioned or exploded, so much energy has been released so that the remaining 99.95% of the atoms have flown away and cannot fission. They are not critical any longer. Actually the critical mass melts or is vaporized before it can explode.
That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission to work must be moderated.
For some reason or other, I get the feeling that you think that an atomic bomb needs to fission 100% of the Uranium atoms.
Did you ever consider the possibility that the .05% of atoms that do fission are enough to release the tremendous energy of an atomic explosion?
One U-235 fission releases about 200 MeV or so. Multiply that by .05% of the 4 x 1026 Uranium atoms that do fission and you'll find that quite a lot of energy has been released in a very short period of time.
-
Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down. Ask any nuclear physicist!
??? Why would a nuclear bomb maker care about keeping the temperature down? Atomic bombs are not about sustained fission. They are about having a lot of fission occurring very quickly to release a great deal of energy pretty much all at once.
Well, as already explained many times a critical mass of uranium consists of many atoms, e.g. 4x1026 or so. Don't ask me why. Adding them all together they are 61 kg. Again, don't ask me why.
When the critical mass explode one neutron fissions one atom, then newly released neutrons fission two others that fission four others, etc, etc, until all 4x1026 atoms have fissioned. It takes nanoseconds. The energy released corresponds to exploding 20 000 000 kg TNT we are told. 61 kg of uranium has the same amount of energy in it.
However, after only 0.05% of the atoms have fissioned or exploded, so much energy has been released so that the remaining 99.95% of the atoms have flown away and cannot fission. They are not critical any longer. Actually the critical mass melts or is vaporized before it can explode.
That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission to work must be moderated.
For some reason or other, I get the feeling that you think that an atomic bomb needs to fission 100% of the Uranium atoms.
Did you ever consider the possibility that the .05% of atoms that do fission are enough to release the tremendous energy of an atomic explosion?
One U-235 fission releases about 200 MeV or so. Multiply that by .05% of the 4 x 1026 Uranium atoms that do fission and you'll find that quite a lot of energy has been released in a very short period of time.
I am happy that you agree that fission takes time.
The difference between peaceful, non-explosive 1938 fission discovered by O Hahn and military destructive fission of uranium invented by FDR 1942 that explodes is that the latter must be mechanically compressed to double density before getting started. Maybe this mechancal compression that takes time prevents the uranium to be vaporized before exploding?
Anyway - suggest you prepare a timetable to explain the military destructive fission explosion. Split it in pico- or nanoseconds and calculate the temperatures and pressions involved at every fission generation ... and then you will see that no explosion is possible. The early fissions melt, vaporize and blow apart 99.95% of the original critical mass so it cannot contribute to anything.
-
Anyway - suggest you prepare a timetable to explain the military destructive fission explosion. Split it in pico- or nanoseconds and calculate the temperatures and pressions involved at every fission generation ... and then you will see that no explosion is possible.
If that was the case, then you would have posted those calculations on your website.
Assuming you know how to do them, you "engineer", you...
-
Anyway - suggest you prepare a timetable to explain the military destructive fission explosion. Split it in pico- or nanoseconds and calculate the temperatures and pressions involved at every fission generation ... and then you will see that no explosion is possible.
If that was the case, then you would have posted those calculations on your website.
Assuming you know how to do them, you "engineer", you...
But the calculations are there since many years! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm and http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm .
Very popular pages. Maybe you do not understand what I write? Or cannot count? Then copy/paste what is unclear, and I will explain.
-
Anyway - suggest you prepare a timetable to explain the military destructive fission explosion. Split it in pico- or nanoseconds and calculate the temperatures and pressions involved at every fission generation ... and then you will see that no explosion is possible.
If that was the case, then you would have posted those calculations on your website.
Assuming you know how to do them, you "engineer", you...
But the calculations are there since many years! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm and http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm .
Very popular pages. Maybe you do not understand what I write? Or cannot count? Then copy/paste what is unclear, and I will explain.
Okay, I even scrolled through it. The calculation, split in pico- or nanosecons was nowhere near to be found.
It is not that I do not understand what you write, it is just that every single thing that you write is a baseless claim like "but that does not work", without any evidence.
Examples:
A very rapid (at 3% of the speed of light!!), uncontrolled, exponential rate of nuclear fission started by one little fast neutron of a critical mass of pure, enriched metal Uranium 235 or Plutonium being suddenly mechanically compressed (!) in a nuclear weapon, i.e. an atomic bomb - an a-bomb - ending with a FLASH - is physically not possible and a silly idea in my honest opinion.
No - there are two! One (fake) where the temperature becomes 100 million Kelvin (a-bomb), one (real) low-temperature heat (nuclear power station). Let's repeat!
If you want to see plenty fake pictures of mushroom clouds suggest you study Operation Plumbbob that was conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) from May through October of 1957. It was the sixth test series at NTS and consisted of 29 tests. All 100% fake, though!
Nuclear fission is only possible under moderated and controlled conditions to produce energy in form of electricity and heat.
The bomb would never work (that is the secrecy!)
But as every a-bomb does not work, all h-bombs likewise are clever, pseudoscientific propaganda.
They forgot to film it from Johnston! However ... it was just early Fake News! Just propaganda invented by the usual clowns and non-existing PhDs.
-
Anyway - suggest you prepare a timetable to explain the military destructive fission explosion. Split it in pico- or nanoseconds and calculate the temperatures and pressions involved at every fission generation ... and then you will see that no explosion is possible.
If that was the case, then you would have posted those calculations on your website.
Assuming you know how to do them, you "engineer", you...
But the calculations are there since many years! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm and http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm .
Very popular pages. Maybe you do not understand what I write? Or cannot count? Then copy/paste what is unclear, and I will explain.
Okay, I even scrolled through it. The calculation, split in pico- or nanosecons was nowhere near to be found.
It is not that I do not understand what you write, it is just that every single thing that you write is a baseless claim like "but that does not work", without any evidence.
Examples:
A very rapid (at 3% of the speed of light!!), uncontrolled, exponential rate of nuclear fission started by one little fast neutron of a critical mass of pure, enriched metal Uranium 235 or Plutonium being suddenly mechanically compressed (!) in a nuclear weapon, i.e. an atomic bomb - an a-bomb - ending with a FLASH - is physically not possible and a silly idea in my honest opinion.
No - there are two! One (fake) where the temperature becomes 100 million Kelvin (a-bomb), one (real) low-temperature heat (nuclear power station). Let's repeat!
If you want to see plenty fake pictures of mushroom clouds suggest you study Operation Plumbbob that was conducted at the Nevada Test Site (NTS) from May through October of 1957. It was the sixth test series at NTS and consisted of 29 tests. All 100% fake, though!
Nuclear fission is only possible under moderated and controlled conditions to produce energy in form of electricity and heat.
The bomb would never work (that is the secrecy!)
But as every a-bomb does not work, all h-bombs likewise are clever, pseudoscientific propaganda.
They forgot to film it from Johnston! However ... it was just early Fake News! Just propaganda invented by the usual clowns and non-existing PhDs.
Just scroll on to chapter 3.7:
When one U235 nucleus fissions into two lighter nuclei fragments or products (i.e. other atoms), about 0.1 percent of the mass of the Uranium nucleus appears as fission energy of 202.5 MeV ... we are told (by some underpaid physicist?):
A. Typically ~169 MeV appears as the kinetic energy of the nuclei fragments (new atomics), which fly apart at about 3% of the speed of light, due to Coulomb repulsion.
B. An average of 2.5 (*) neutrons are emitted, each with a kinetic energy of ~2 MeV (total of 4.8 MeV).
C. The fission reaction also releases ~7 MeV in prompt gamma ray photons (light).
D. 169 + 4.8 + 7 = 180.8. Where does the remaining 2O2.5 - 180.8 = 21.7 MeV energy go? Or is there a simple addition error?
Regardless, this means that a nuclear fission of one (!) atom emits about 3.5% of its energy as gamma rays, less than 2.5% of its energy as fast neutrons (total ~ 6%), and the rest as kinetic energy of fission fragments (this appears almost immediately when the fragments impact surrounding matter, e.g. water (?*) in an nuclear power station, as simple heat, where the reaction is controlled at a certain constant temperature).
This is the fission of one atom. It takes a certain time. Say a pico-second.
Now a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms, i.e. quite a lot. It will take nano-seconds to fission all of them.
However, it cannot happen as the during the first pico-seconds of FDR fission the critical mass is destroyed by the kinetic energy of the fission fragments ripping the critical mass apart. So there is no critical mass to explode.
The bomb fizzles.
-
Still just telling people how something happens then stating it can not as evidence?
Act like an engineer and present your arguments and evidence.
-
But at least he posted some information for once.
-
This is the fission of one atom. It takes a certain time. Say a pico-second.
Now a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms, i.e. quite a lot. It will take nano-seconds to fission all of them.
You do not have to fission all of them. To release the energy of the Little Boy bomb you have to fission 3.86 moles of uranium or 1.5% of the total critical mass.
However, it cannot happen as the during the first pico-seconds of FDR fission the critical mass is destroyed by the kinetic energy of the fission fragments ripping the critical mass apart. So there is no critical mass to explode.
Proof? You need to show why the critical mass cannot stay together long enough and you haven't. You just claim "ITS TRUE!"
The bomb fizzles.
You suck.
-
When one U235 nucleus fissions into two lighter nuclei fragments or products (i.e. other atoms), about 0.1 percent of the mass of the Uranium nucleus appears as fission energy of 202.5 MeV ... we are told (by some underpaid physicist?):
A. Typically ~169 MeV appears as the kinetic energy of the nuclei fragments (new atomics), which fly apart at about 3% of the speed of light, due to Coulomb repulsion.
B. An average of 2.5 (*) neutrons are emitted, each with a kinetic energy of ~2 MeV (total of 4.8 MeV).
C. The fission reaction also releases ~7 MeV in prompt gamma ray photons (light).
D. 169 + 4.8 + 7 = 180.8. Where does the remaining 2O2.5 - 180.8 = 21.7 MeV energy go? Or is there a simple addition error?
Regardless, this means that a nuclear fission of one (!) atom emits about 3.5% of its energy as gamma rays, less than 2.5% of its energy as fast neutrons (total ~ 6%), and the rest as kinetic energy of fission fragments (this appears almost immediately when the fragments impact surrounding matter, e.g. water (?*) in an nuclear power station, as simple heat, where the reaction is controlled at a certain constant temperature).
This is the fission of one atom. It takes a certain time. Say a pico-second.
Now a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms, i.e. quite a lot. It will take nano-seconds to fission all of them.
However, it cannot happen as the during the first pico-seconds of FDR fission the critical mass is destroyed by the kinetic energy of the fission fragments ripping the critical mass apart. So there is no critical mass to explode.
The bomb fizzles.
So this is how engineers do detailed calculations split in timetables of pico- and nanoseconds.. huh.. I am surprised that most things they construct still seem to work.
-
Fission must always be moderated to keep the tempartures down. Ask any nuclear physicist!
??? Why would a nuclear bomb maker care about keeping the temperature down? Atomic bombs are not about sustained fission. They are about having a lot of fission occurring very quickly to release a great deal of energy pretty much all at once.
Well, as already explained many times a critical mass of uranium consists of many atoms, e.g. 4x1026 or so. Don't ask me why. Adding them all together they are 61 kg. Again, don't ask me why.
When the critical mass explode one neutron fissions one atom, then newly released neutrons fission two others that fission four others, etc, etc, until all 4x1026 atoms have fissioned. It takes nanoseconds. The energy released corresponds to exploding 20 000 000 kg TNT we are told. 61 kg of uranium has the same amount of energy in it.
However, after only 0.05% of the atoms have fissioned or exploded, so much energy has been released so that the remaining 99.95% of the atoms have flown away and cannot fission. They are not critical any longer. Actually the critical mass melts or is vaporized before it can explode.
That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission to work must be moderated.
So exactly how much energy is released when .05% of those atoms split? What is your source for those numbers?
-
But at least he posted some information for once.
Well, I just copied/pasted info from my website that has been there for years. If you study all my info, then think about it for a while, you will no doubt agree with me that military, destructive, exponential, runway, unstoppable after it has been started fission (invented 1942 by some US military and scientific clowns) has nothing to do with real fission discovered 1938 that can be started and stopped at will.
-
...that can be started and stopped at will.
Oh, yeah! Like in tchernobyl.. or fukushima.. or in the submarines that suffered critical reactor failure...
-
...that can be started and stopped at will.
Oh, yeah! Like in tchernobyl.. or fukushima.. or in the submarines that suffered critical reactor failure...
Yes, you are right. By human errors the temperatures of normal fission in the reactors got too high. But no nuclear explosions occurred. Just melt downs! Nuclear explosions are not possible.
Just study my website and you'll understand.
-
...that can be started and stopped at will.
Oh, yeah! Like in tchernobyl.. or fukushima.. or in the submarines that suffered critical reactor failure...
Yes, you are right. By human errors the temperatures of normal fission in the reactors got too high. But no nuclear explosions occurred. Just melt downs! Nuclear explosions are not possible.
Just study my website and you'll understand.
No he won't. You have no idea what you are talking about. You are likely to cause more mistakes and misapprehension than less, because you suck.
-
...that can be started and stopped at will.
Oh, yeah! Like in tchernobyl.. or fukushima.. or in the submarines that suffered critical reactor failure...
Yes, you are right. By human errors the temperatures of normal fission in the reactors got too high. But no nuclear explosions occurred. Just melt downs! Nuclear explosions are not possible.
Just study my website and you'll understand.
can you not make it through a single post without pimping your website?
-
But at least he posted some information for once.
Well, I just copied/pasted info from my website that has been there for years. If you study all my info, then think about it for a while, you will no doubt agree with me that military, destructive, exponential, runway, unstoppable after it has been started fission (invented 1942 by some US military and scientific clowns) has nothing to do with real fission discovered 1938 that can be started and stopped at will.
I will not study your website. But good on you for finally posting some information. Keep it up.
(Where you get the information to post here is irrelevant. The main thing is that it stands up to scrutiny. It looks like you have a few things to clarify regarding what you have posted. Let's see if you're capable of defending your position like an engineer instead of a teen-age girl.)
-
But at least he posted some information for once.
Well, I just copied/pasted info from my website that has been there for years. If you study all my info, then think about it for a while, you will no doubt agree with me that military, destructive, exponential, runway, unstoppable after it has been started fission (invented 1942 by some US military and scientific clowns) has nothing to do with real fission discovered 1938 that can be started and stopped at will.
I will not study your website. But good on you for finally posting some information. Keep it up.
(Where you get the information to post here is irrelevant. The main thing is that it stands up to scrutiny. It looks like you have a few things to clarify regarding what you have posted. Let's see if you're capable of defending your position like an engineer instead of a teen-age girl.)
He is not.
This:
When one U235 nucleus fissions into two lighter nuclei fragments or products (i.e. other atoms), about 0.1 percent of the mass of the Uranium nucleus appears as fission energy of 202.5 MeV ... we are told (by some underpaid physicist?):
A. Typically ~169 MeV appears as the kinetic energy of the nuclei fragments (new atomics), which fly apart at about 3% of the speed of light, due to Coulomb repulsion.
B. An average of 2.5 (*) neutrons are emitted, each with a kinetic energy of ~2 MeV (total of 4.8 MeV).
C. The fission reaction also releases ~7 MeV in prompt gamma ray photons (light).
D. 169 + 4.8 + 7 = 180.8. Where does the remaining 2O2.5 - 180.8 = 21.7 MeV energy go? Or is there a simple addition error?
Regardless, this means that a nuclear fission of one (!) atom emits about 3.5% of its energy as gamma rays, less than 2.5% of its energy as fast neutrons (total ~ 6%), and the rest as kinetic energy of fission fragments (this appears almost immediately when the fragments impact surrounding matter, e.g. water (?*) in an nuclear power station, as simple heat, where the reaction is controlled at a certain constant temperature).
This is the fission of one atom. It takes a certain time. Say a pico-second.
Now a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms, i.e. quite a lot. It will take nano-seconds to fission all of them.
is not the calculation of an engineer. I do not know what this is. It's interesting. Some listed facts combined with pure guesswork. This isnt even a fermi problem.. there you would at least try to approximate the time up to correct order of magnitude.
I will call this heiwa-estimation. You take some facts, then you run a program that gives you a random number for every unknown variable. Then you say it does not work without giving any reason and link to your website.
-
This:
When one U235 nucleus fissions into two lighter nuclei fragments or products (i.e. other atoms), about 0.1 percent of the mass of the Uranium nucleus appears as fission energy of 202.5 MeV ... we are told (by some underpaid physicist?):
A. Typically ~169 MeV appears as the kinetic energy of the nuclei fragments (new atomics), which fly apart at about 3% of the speed of light, due to Coulomb repulsion.
B. An average of 2.5 (*) neutrons are emitted, each with a kinetic energy of ~2 MeV (total of 4.8 MeV).
C. The fission reaction also releases ~7 MeV in prompt gamma ray photons (light).
D. 169 + 4.8 + 7 = 180.8. Where does the remaining 2O2.5 - 180.8 = 21.7 MeV energy go? Or is there a simple addition error?
Regardless, this means that a nuclear fission of one (!) atom emits about 3.5% of its energy as gamma rays, less than 2.5% of its energy as fast neutrons (total ~ 6%), and the rest as kinetic energy of fission fragments (this appears almost immediately when the fragments impact surrounding matter, e.g. water (?*) in an nuclear power station, as simple heat, where the reaction is controlled at a certain constant temperature).
This is the fission of one atom. It takes a certain time. Say a pico-second.
Now a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms, i.e. quite a lot. It will take nano-seconds to fission all of them.
is not the calculation of an engineer. I do not know what this is. It's interesting. Some listed facts combined with pure guesswork. This isnt even a fermi problem.. there you would at least try to approximate the time up to correct order of magnitude.
I will call this heiwa-estimation. You take some facts, then you run a program that gives you a random number for every unknown variable. Then you say it does not work without giving any reason and link to your website.
Hm, if you study my website I also provide the source for the nonsense. You are right that I didn't make it up except that a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms that shall fission, even if only 1.5% of them or 6x1024 actually do it. It shall take nano-seconds and during that time the temperature becomes > 1 000 000K. LOL
-
Hmm. Back to the teen-age girl methods I see. :'(
-
This:
"LOL"
is not evidence.
-
This:
"LOL"
is not evidence.
Isn't it? How do you increase the temperature of something - a critical mass? - 1 000 000K during some nano-seconds? Military destructive fission that cannot be stopped after it has started? ROTFL !!
-
Hm, if you study my website I also provide the source for the nonsense. You are right that I didn't make it up except that a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms that shall fission, even if only 1.5% of them or 6x1024 actually do it. It shall take nano-seconds and during that time the temperature becomes > 1 000 000K. LOL
So what? First off you haven't shown mathematically what effect the increase in temperature will have on the nuclear bomb assembly. Perfect time for you to show off your engineering skills. Second, you haven't shown mathematically that the temperature will rise to 1,000,000K. Finally, you haven't shown mathematically that fission cannot occur at 1,000,000K.
If you could do these 3 things, your opinion might be worth something.
-
It is not a claim by Heiwa, that insane temperature, but by the mainstream pushers of this lie.
A primary form of energy from a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects7.shtml
Heiwa was even a factor 2 too modest...
-
I am pretty sure the figure you cited is for fusion bombs, not fission.
-
The page doesn't say. The described term is "thermal radiation", which is independent of the alleged method of nuclear physics; fission or fusion.
Home > Science > Effects of Nuclear Weapons > Thermal Radiation
-
The page doesn't say. The described term is "thermal radiation", which is independent of the alleged method of nuclear physics; fission or fusion.
Home > Science > Effects of Nuclear Weapons > Thermal Radiation
Yes. However, this general description does not address the vastly different energies of nuclear weapons, and is likely meant as a primer.
-
It is not a claim by Heiwa, that insane temperature, but by the mainstream pushers of this lie.
A primary form of energy from a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects7.shtml
Heiwa was even a factor 2 too modest...
Actually, Heiwa's claim is that the insanely high temperatures in nuclear explosions is proof that atomic bombs can't work. If anything, the destructive force of such insanely high temperatures should be fairly compelling evidence that atomic bombs are indeed terrifyingly real.
-
It is not a claim by Heiwa, that insane temperature, but by the mainstream pushers of this lie.
A primary form of energy from a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects7.shtml
Heiwa was even a factor 2 too modest...
Actually, Heiwa's claim is that the insanely high temperatures in nuclear explosions is proof that atomic bombs can't work. If anything, the destructive force of such insanely high temperatures should be fairly compelling evidence that atomic bombs are indeed terrifyingly real.
If those claimed temperatures that are so outlandishly higher than anything ever observed on Earth were to be real, the complete surface area of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have vaporised into oblivion and left a sheet of deeper glass all over the area.
Pictures like this thus would be impossible:
(http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/vevp/images/abomb/P01991_004_400.jpg)
(http://cdni.wired.co.uk/1920x1280/g_j/hiroshima2-crop.jpg)
(http://blog.360cities.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/detail_small_No.1-photo-by-Shigeo-HAYASHI-RA119-Panorama1.jpg)
(http://blog.360cities.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/detail_small_No.4-photo-by-H.-J.-Peterson-K-HJP001-Panorama.jpg)
(http://factsanddetails.com/archives/002/201405/537bfd8bd1343.jpg)
And as these are the pictures that should prove the reality of those insanely hot "atomic bombs", the story is false.
The poor Japanese were not instantaneously vaporised by 100,000,000 degree bombs, yet horribly suffering before dying from firebombs.
-
It is not a claim by Heiwa, that insane temperature, but by the mainstream pushers of this lie.
A primary form of energy from a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects7.shtml
Heiwa was even a factor 2 too modest...
I just quote ... or mis-quote ... MSM and experts on the Internet. But the problem is not 100 000 000K or 1 000 000K temperature. It is the time in it takes place. At almost the speed of light in a little critical mass.
My micro owen takes a minute to heat a cup of coffee.
Which reminds me of one of my first visits to Kiev, Ukraine, ex-USSR, 1992. I was there to buy ships that could be modified into cruise vessels or ferries. You had to enter by plane via Kiev then and take the trains south to Odessa, Nikolaev and Kherson at the Black Sea. Being a man of means and money I was approached by plenty salesmen and pretty women. Everything was for sale, incl. a-bombs. I never say no to any offers and asked for a test of an a-bomb. And what happened ... ??
-
It is not a claim by Heiwa, that insane temperature, but by the mainstream pushers of this lie.
A primary form of energy from a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects7.shtml
Heiwa was even a factor 2 too modest...
I just quote ... or mis-quote ... MSM and experts on the Internet. But the problem is not 100 000 000K or 1 000 000K temperature. It is the time in it takes place. At almost the speed of light in a little critical mass.
I already showed you in this thread that that objection is irrelevant. .3 miscroseconds is more than enough time at an extremely low efficiency, to fission the required mass of uranium to prodcue the energy released in Little Boy. Why are we even talking about this again?
My micro owen takes a minute to heat a cup of coffee.
Who cares? If you are trying to correlate your microwave oven to a nuclear reaction, you have bigger problems than this thread, because the two processes are not remotely the same.
Which reminds me of one of my first visits to Kiev, Ukraine, ex-USSR, 1992. I was there to buy ships that could be modified into cruise vessels or ferries. You had to enter by plane via Kiev then and take the trains south to Odessa, Nikolaev and Kherson at the Black Sea. Being a man of means and money I was approached by plenty salesmen and pretty women. Everything was for sale, incl. a-bombs. I never say no to any offers and asked for a test of an a-bomb. And what happened ... ??
You gave your money to the gentleman, he walked around the corner and was never heard from again. This is called being conned out of your money. Happened to me when I was 18, except it was a portable CD player instead of a nuclear bomb.
-
I already showed you in this thread that that objection is irrelevant. .3 miscroseconds is more than enough time at an extremely low efficiency, to fission the required mass of uranium to prodcue the energy released in Little Boy. Why are we even talking about this again?
Where did you show that a critical mass of 61 kg uranium could fission in 0.3 microseconds to release 20 000 000 kg of TNT energy to wipe out Japanese towns full of civilan women and children 1945?
And how did the criminals start it? How could the dropping bombs suddenly ignite at free fall?
IMHO it is just pseudoscience from A to Z. I explain why at my web site. That's why I offer you €1M to show that I am wrong.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Parabolic_dish_motion_circle.gif)
-
It is not a claim by Heiwa, that insane temperature, but by the mainstream pushers of this lie.
A primary form of energy from a nuclear explosion is thermal radiation. Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects7.shtml
Heiwa was even a factor 2 too modest...
Actually, Heiwa's claim is that the insanely high temperatures in nuclear explosions is proof that atomic bombs can't work. If anything, the destructive force of such insanely high temperatures should be fairly compelling evidence that atomic bombs are indeed terrifyingly real.
If those claimed temperatures that are so outlandishly higher than anything ever observed on Earth were to be real, the complete surface area of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have vaporised into oblivion and left a sheet of deeper glass all over the area.
That might be true if the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs detonated at ground level and the intense temperature didn't fall off quite quickly following the distance squared rule.
And as these are the pictures that should prove the reality of those insanely hot "atomic bombs", the story is false.
The poor Japanese were not instantaneously vaporised by 100,000,000 degree bombs, yet horribly suffering before dying from firebombs.
Actually, a number of people were instantaneously vaporized:
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/Japan/Hiroshima/AtomicBombMuseum/IndividualArtifacts/WomansShadowOnBankSteps.jpg)
Some shadows were cast by people caught by the explosion.
The museum has this section of a bank wall and steps which illustrates this. The circular grey patch on the steps is a shadow formed by a woman who was sitting there waiting for the bank to open for business.
(http://media.morristechnology.com/webmedia/upload/covington_news/article/2015/08/07/shadow-human-3WEB.jpg)
-
to releaste
I am not sure what this means.
Where did you show that a critical mass of 61 kg uranium could fission in 0.3 microseconds to release 20 000 000 kg of TNT energy to wipe out Japanese towns full of civilan women and children 1945?
Apologies, I meant 3 miscroseconds. I did it here:
I decided to do some really back of the napkin calculations to see if one of Heiwa's major objections stands up scrutiny. Namely that The claimed chain reaction time to create a nuclear detonation (approx. 3 microseconds) is far too short. I am happy to show my sloppy notation to anyone who asks, but I used the following inputs:
Neutron speed: 2.00x107m/s (http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64204/speed-of-neutrons-in-a-nuclear-reactor)
Distance from one uranium nucleus to the next in a critical mass: 2.77x-10m (https://www.webelements.com/uranium/atom_sizes.html)
This makes the time for one complete generation of fission reactions 1.39x10-17seconds
If each generation n of reactions produces 2n reactions, it would take about 80 generations to fission a mole of U235. This would happen in 1.11x10-15 seconds. The little boy bomb only fissioned 3.86 moles (http://gizmodo.com/less-than-2-of-the-uranium-in-the-hiroshima-bomb-actua-1624444762) of U235, so there was plenty of time for that chain reaction to take place. In reality this bomb was likely extremely inefficient yielding just over 1 reaction/generation.
Please feel free to make substantive criticisms of my conclusion, but I hope I have shown that Heiwa's claim that 3 microseconds is too short a time to create a nuclear detonation is unreasonable.
And how did the criminals start it? How could the dropping bombs suddenly ignite at free fall?
Probably via radio activated trigger.
IMHO it is just pseudoscience from A to Z. I explain why at my web site. That's why I offer you €1M to show that I am wrong.
IMHO, you suck, have no money and your web site does nothing to explain any of the issues you contend are impossible.
-
Markjo
;D ;D
Those images are fake and make no sense whatsoever. If a person would be vaporised and leave a shadow imprint on a wall, there would be a similar effect on the wall around it, not a blackened image of a person with a pristine unaffected wall just like no bomb sending 100,000,000 degrees to the surface.
And no, if there really would be a 100,000,000 degree "temperature of the interior of the Sun" source created, it would lead to a global climatic event wiping out Japan and large parts of Asia.
The whole story is hilarious.
But keep defending it, I am enjoying the attempts.
-
And no, if there really would be a 100,000,000 degree "temperature of the interior of the Sun" source created, it would lead to a global climatic event wiping out Japan and large parts of Asia.
Of course you can back up your claim and we do not just have to take your word for that?
-
And how did the criminals start it? How could the dropping bombs suddenly ignite at free fall?
Probably via radio activated trigger.
Actually, they used a combination of timers, barometers and radar altimeters in the fusing systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy#Fuze_system
-
Markjo
;D ;D
Those images are fake and make no sense whatsoever. If a person would be vaporised and leave a shadow imprint on a wall, there would be a similar effect on the wall around it, not a blackened image of a person with a pristine unaffected wall just like no bomb sending 100,000,000 degrees to the surface.
The way my physics professor explained was that it wasn't the temperature that caused the shadows, rather it was the gamma rays (high energy photons). He said that the photons hit the electrons causing them to leave their orbits, the protons followed and left the neutrons behind.
And no, if there really would be a 100,000,000 degree "temperature of the interior of the Sun" source created, it would lead to a global climatic event wiping out Japan and large parts of Asia.
LOL!! 100,000,000 degrees in a very small area for a small fraction of a second.
The whole story is hilarious.
Yes, you are very funny. :D
-
IMHO it is just pseudoscience from A to Z. I explain why at my web site. That's why I offer you €1M to show that I am wrong.
IMHO, you suck, have no money and your web site does nothing to explain any of the issues you contend are impossible.
Well, I have plenty money and I offer €1M to anyone showing I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Nothing wrong with it. It is my money.
My website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm explains why all a-bomb explosions are fake, i.e. just inventions to scare you.
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
-
IMHO it is just pseudoscience from A to Z. I explain why at my web site. That's why I offer you €1M to show that I am wrong.
IMHO, you suck, have no money and your web site does nothing to explain any of the issues you contend are impossible.
Well, I have plenty money and I offer €1M to anyone showing I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Nothing wrong with it. It is my money.
My website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm explains why all a-bomb explosions are fake, i.e. just inventions to scare you.
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
Still waiting for you to post some actual evidence here. This is yet another fail by you.
-
IMHO it is just pseudoscience from A to Z. I explain why at my web site. That's why I offer you €1M to show that I am wrong.
IMHO, you suck, have no money and your web site does nothing to explain any of the issues you contend are impossible.
Well, I have plenty money and I offer €1M to anyone showing I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Nothing wrong with it. It is my money.
My website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm explains why all a-bomb explosions are fake, i.e. just inventions to scare you.
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
If you presented any actual calculations I would gladly show you where you are wrong. The thing is that you just claim that things do not work, without any calculations or evidence whatsoever. So give me an actual reason (besides LOL, that does not work) why nuclear weapons are unable to work and I will show you where you are wrong.
As for the money: I do not think that a single person is fooled by this...
Nuclear weapons work! Prove me wrong and I will give you 1M €! Trust me! The money is there!
-
Markjo
;D ;D
Those images are fake and make no sense whatsoever. If a person would be vaporised and leave a shadow imprint on a wall, there would be a similar effect on the wall around it, not a blackened image of a person with a pristine unaffected wall just like no bomb sending 100,000,000 degrees to the surface.
And no, if there really would be a 100,000,000 degree "temperature of the interior of the Sun" source created, it would lead to a global climatic event wiping out Japan and large parts of Asia.
The whole story is hilarious.
But keep defending it, I am enjoying the attempts.
I am not engaging in this non-sense with heiwa as I know where that leads to...But I will say that jump rope photo is certainly cliche and suspect lol
-
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
People always ask you to post your evidence here. You don't do it.
-
And when things are pointed out to you that are flat out wrong, you still don't do anything about it.
-
And when things are pointed out to you that are flat out wrong, you still don't do anything about it.
?? I pay anyone €1M to clarify simple things I do not understand. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Re topic one problem is how to start an a-bomb explosion. Nobody knows it.
To start fission is easy. Just send neutrons towards fissible atoms. Some atoms fission. But there is no explosion or FLASH!
No, some miltary clowns suggest you most suddenly compress two sub-critical masses of fissible metal (uranium) to double density together and then FLASH!
Sounds easy, doesn't it?
But it is just pseudoscience, IMO.
-
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
People always ask you to post your evidence here. You don't do it.
Correct! I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm .
Why copy/paste a popular web page in a discussion forum?
-
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
People always ask you to post your evidence here. You don't do it.
Correct! I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm .
Why copy/paste a popular web page in a discussion forum?
You can find all your answers on www.google.com. Happy now? I will give you my bank details for the 1M €
oh.. I am to explain it myself and not just link to a webpage where the information can be found? damn.
by the way I would be very curious where you got that double density from...
-
by the way I would be very curious where you got that double density from...
You really have to visit and read my website to find out. Einstein and Bohr had no idea how to start an exponential fission that you couldn't stop 1945, so a young student came up with the idea of compressing two pieces of uranium - each half a critical mass - together to double density = critical mass with a neutron in between and then the a-bomb FLASH problem was solved.
Haven't you heard about the critical mass of an a-bomb?
Pure pseudoscience! Great FUN!
-
I am asking for a concrete source for your claim, not some dubious website. Can you give it?
-
I am asking for a concrete source for your claim, not some dubious website. Can you give it?
Yes, links and sources are at my web site.
-
by the way I would be very curious where you got that double density from...
You really have to visit and read my website to find out. Einstein and Bohr had no idea how to start an exponential fission that you couldn't stop 1945, so a young student came up with the idea of compressing two pieces of uranium - each half a critical mass - together to double density = critical mass with a neutron in between and then the a-bomb FLASH problem was solved.
Einstein & Bohr knew all about it
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
-
by the way I would be very curious where you got that double density from...
You really have to visit and read my website to find out. Einstein and Bohr had no idea how to start an exponential fission that you couldn't stop 1945, so a young student came up with the idea of compressing two pieces of uranium - each half a critical mass - together to double density = critical mass with a neutron in between and then the a-bomb FLASH problem was solved.
Einstein & Bohr knew all about it
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
No, they didn't know how to start the exponential destructive fission FLASH. They had to ask a student about it ... compressing two non-critical masses into one critical mass with double density + a neutron in the middle.
Imagine the amount of money they stole developing the nonsense.
-
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
People always ask you to post your evidence here. You don't do it.
Correct! I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm .
Why copy/paste a popular web page in a discussion forum?
Because you make the claims here. But you have no evidence just an ilinformed opinion. If you had any you would have presented. Yet another failure
-
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
People always ask you to post your evidence here. You don't do it.
Correct! I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm .
Why copy/paste a popular web page in a discussion forum?
Because you make the claims here. But you have no evidence just an ilinformed opinion. If you had any you would have presented. Yet another failure
Hm, just copy/paste any claims I do at my website and show they are wrong here and we can discuss.
BTW how to start an a-bomb fission that you cannot stop afterwards?
Do you know what fission is? I explain it at my website.
-
Could not find any reference to some double density listed, not on your website (where you have no such thing as a bibliography; quite unfortunate)
Please provide a reference for your claim. A specific one. Not your website, not google, a specific reference. You know what that is?
-
I always ask people to copy/paste what they consider wrong there and send it to me or publish it here. Nobody does it.
People always ask you to post your evidence here. You don't do it.
Correct! I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm .
Why copy/paste a popular web page in a discussion forum?
Because you make the claims here. But you have no evidence just an ilinformed opinion. If you had any you would have presented. Yet another failure
Hm, just copy/paste any claims I do at my website and show they are wrong here and we can discuss.
BTW how to start an a-bomb fission that you cannot stop afterwards?
Do you know what fission is? I explain it at my website.
You have said multiple times how to start a runaway fission chain reaction in pretty much every post on this page. The only condition to make it runaway is that the number of fission reactions caused by the fission of an atom must be >1. If you do that, it mathematically and logically follows that you will have an exponentially growing chain reaction. I already showed you in this thread that a 61kg mass of U235 at the correct density could average slightly above 1 reaction caused per fission to fission the 3.86 moles of U235 in 3 microseconds needed to release energy equal to the Little Boy bomb.
Stop your shitty objection.
-
by the way I would be very curious where you got that double density from...
You really have to visit and read my website to find out. Einstein and Bohr had no idea how to start an exponential fission that you couldn't stop 1945, so a young student came up with the idea of compressing two pieces of uranium - each half a critical mass - together to double density = critical mass with a neutron in between and then the a-bomb FLASH problem was solved.
Einstein & Bohr knew all about it
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html
No, they didn't know how to start the exponential destructive fission FLASH. They had to ask a student about it ... compressing two non-critical masses into one critical mass with double density + a neutron in the middle.
Imagine the amount of money they stole developing the nonsense.
Einstein actually did very little in the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer is the "father of the atomic bomb".
-
This thread is akin to insanity....
You have no proof...
Look at my popular website...
Your website has no proof...
FLASH...
That wasn't proof...
Look at my popular website...
There is no proof there...
FLASH...
That wasn't proof....
You are sick...
Now repeat this for 75 pages...
I worry about y'all...Not heiwa, he is too far gone and already cared for by the protection sociale...But y'all are on your way down a rabbit hole...Beware.
An idiot will always win at being stupid.
-
An idiot will always win at being stupid.
QFT
And the sport of being stupid can be entertaining at times. You never know when a new record will be set. This is why this thread will never die!
-
You have said multiple times how to start a runaway fission chain reaction in pretty much every post on this page. The only condition to make it runaway is that the number of fission reactions caused by the fission of an atom must be >1. If you do that, it mathematically and logically follows that you will have an exponentially growing chain reaction. I already showed you in this thread that a 61kg mass of U235 at the correct density could average slightly above 1 reaction caused per fission to fission the 3.86 moles of U235 in 3 microseconds needed to release energy equal to the Little Boy bomb.
Stop your shitty objection.
Hm, runway exponential fission in a peaceful nuclear power station doesn't end in a FLASH. The peaceful power station just melts and stops functioning and may produce some pollution.
I would expect the same thing to happen with an a-bomb, i.e. it fizzles. I think I describe it quite good at my website.
-
Hm, runway exponential fission in a peaceful nuclear power station doesn't end in a FLASH. The peaceful power station just melts and stops functioning and may produce some pollution.
I would expect the same thing to happen with an a-bomb, i.e. it fizzles.
Why would you expect the same thing? The reaction rate in a nuclear bomb is much much higher.
I think I describe it quite good at my website.
Nope, your website is shitty.
-
Still no reference to your claim, heiwa?
-
Hm, runway exponential fission in a peaceful nuclear power station doesn't end in a FLASH. The peaceful power station just melts and stops functioning and may produce some pollution.
I would expect the same thing to happen with an a-bomb, i.e. it fizzles.
Why would you expect the same thing? The reaction rate in a nuclear bomb is much much higher.
I think I describe it quite good at my website.
Nope, your website is shitty.
It seems we all agree fission releases energy in the form of heat. In a peaceful nuclear power station with moderated fission the heat produces steam to drive turbogenerators producing electricity. If the fission is not moderated, the plant overheats and melts.
Same should happen in an a-bomb, if it existed. The not moderated fission will immediately overheat the 'a-bomb', so it melts, fission stops and no explosion of any kind will occur = no FLASH.
I know it is a military secret and that it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
Only fools believe that an a-bomb explodes by compressing two sub-critical masses of uranium together, bla, bla, bla.
That's why I pay any of them €1M to prove me wrong.
-
Could not find any reference to some double density listed, not on your website (where you have no such thing as a bibliography; quite unfortunate)
Please provide a reference for your claim. A specific one. Not your website, not google, a specific reference. You know what that is?
Kami, I have been surprised at this claim also. However it seems that for an implosion type bomb the Uranium is compressed by the pressure wave from the conventional trigger explosives. One advantage of this type of weapon is that it can be built using a smaller mass of Uranium, as the critical mass is lower for the higher density material. A disadvantage is that it is much harder to build than a Gun type bomb like 'Little Boy' which relied on a critical mass of uncompressed Uranium.
The site nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/ contains some info on this, (I don't vouch for its accuracy).
-
I know it is a military secret and that it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
This is a lie.
-
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
I know it is a military secret and that it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
Hi, I'm Heiwa,
(https://s24.postimg.org/e0lc21591/Heiwa5.png)
The Poster Boy For The Dunning Kruger Effect.
(Dunning, Kruger and I were actually pals. We figured out this effect while drinking fine French wine and smoking Cuban cigars in Bora Bora.)
-
Could not find any reference to some double density listed, not on your website (where you have no such thing as a bibliography; quite unfortunate)
Please provide a reference for your claim. A specific one. Not your website, not google, a specific reference. You know what that is?
Kami, I have been surprised at this claim also. However it seems that for an implosion type bomb the Uranium is compressed by the pressure wave from the conventional trigger explosives. One advantage of this type of weapon is that it can be built using a smaller mass of Uranium, as the critical mass is lower for the higher density material. A disadvantage is that it is much harder to build than a Gun type bomb like 'Little Boy' which relied on a critical mass of uncompressed Uranium.
The site nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/ contains some info on this, (I don't vouch for its accuracy).
Please, the 'Little Boy' relied on half a critical mass of Uranium, that was shot at high speed into another half a critical mass of Uranium to suddenly, in a collision, become one, compressed critical mass of Uranium ... with some neutrons in between ... that then exploded in a FLASH. I describe the nonsense with links to official scientific/military documents and reports 1945/6 at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . According my analysis, it doesn't work at all. If two similar masses of solid metal collide with each other, they just bounce against each other.
Easy to test and confirm anywhere.
-
Could not find any reference to some double density listed, not on your website (where you have no such thing as a bibliography; quite unfortunate)
Please provide a reference for your claim. A specific one. Not your website, not google, a specific reference. You know what that is?
Kami, I have been surprised at this claim also. However it seems that for an implosion type bomb the Uranium is compressed by the pressure wave from the conventional trigger explosives. One advantage of this type of weapon is that it can be built using a smaller mass of Uranium, as the critical mass is lower for the higher density material. A disadvantage is that it is much harder to build than a Gun type bomb like 'Little Boy' which relied on a critical mass of uncompressed Uranium.
The site nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/ contains some info on this, (I don't vouch for its accuracy).
huh, that is interesting. thanks for the link, i will be looking into this later
-
Please, the 'Little Boy' relied on half a critical mass of Uranium, that was shot at high speed into another half a critical mass of Uranium to suddenly, in a collision, become one, compressed critical mass of Uranium ... with some neutrons in between ... that then exploded in a FLASH. I describe the nonsense with links to official scientific/military documents and reports 1945/6 at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . According my analysis, it doesn't work at all. If two similar masses of solid metal collide with each other, they just bounce against each other.
Easy to test and confirm anywhere.
Not quite.
Little Boy relied on two sub critical masses, (not half critical masses). These were designed to fit over each other . One a cylinder, and one a rod to fit inside the cylinder. The design was to fit the masses together very quickly, not to collide the masses. When fitted together the combined mass of Uranium was then more than 2 critical masses.
-
Please, the 'Little Boy' relied on half a critical mass of Uranium, that was shot at high speed into another half a critical mass of Uranium to suddenly, in a collision, become one, compressed critical mass of Uranium ... with some neutrons in between ... that then exploded in a FLASH. I describe the nonsense with links to official scientific/military documents and reports 1945/6 at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . According my analysis, it doesn't work at all. If two similar masses of solid metal collide with each other, they just bounce against each other.
Easy to test and confirm anywhere.
Not quite.
Little Boy relied on two sub critical masses, (not half critical masses). These were designed to fit over each other . One a cylinder, and one a rod to fit inside the cylinder. The design was to fit the masses together very quickly, not to collide the masses. When fitted together the combined mass of Uranium was then more than 2 critical masses.
Are you drunk? A metal rod with a sub critical mass passes through a similar metal cylinder of another sub critical mass of which it fits inside- no collision - just a passage - and then the two masses - more than 2 critical masses - fitted very quickly - no collision - just a fit ... and a FLASH!
Marvelous! Please tell me what drugs you use to invent this shit? Provide a link to the sellers! Do you get a commission? You do not work free of charge, do you?
-
it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
More lies from Heiwa. You've never had access to restricted info and never had a trial. Further, I guarantee nobody involved with nuclear power or weapons cares about what you say. This is a LIE you continually spew to make yourself look more important.
-
it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
More lies from Heiwa. You've never had access to restricted info and never had a trial. Further, I guarantee nobody involved with nuclear power or weapons cares about what you say. This is a LIE you continually spew to make yourself look more important.
Plenty of restricted info at my website and the US law is clear. Spreading restricted info is punished by death in USA. That's why I avoid USA. I don't like being sentenced to death for informing people via my popular web pages.
-
it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
More lies from Heiwa. You've never had access to restricted info and never had a trial. Further, I guarantee nobody involved with nuclear power or weapons cares about what you say. This is a LIE you continually spew to make yourself look more important.
Plenty of restricted info at my website and the US law is clear. Spreading restricted info is punished by death in USA. That's why I avoid USA. I don't like being sentenced to death for informing people via my popular web pages.
More lies from Heiwa. I'm sure you believe you have restricted info but OPINIONS are not restricted info and you have NEVER had a trial. More lies from Heiwa. Just a sad attempt to make yourself look more important. You really took it hard when your hull design was rejected, didn't you?
-
It seems we all agree fission releases energy in the form of heat.
And pressure. You know, the part that causes the explosion.
In a peaceful nuclear power station with moderated fission the heat produces steam to drive turbogenerators producing electricity. If the fission is not moderated, the plant overheats and melts.
Yes, welcome to the world of reaction rate. Increase the reaction rate and the energy/time released goes up. This is the difference between an explosion and a meltdown.
Same should happen in an a-bomb, if it existed. The not moderated fission will immediately overheat the 'a-bomb', so it melts, fission stops and no explosion of any kind will occur = no FLASH.
See above. You seem to think that reaction rate does not make any difference on the system.
I know it is a military secret and that it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
You don't know what you think you know.
Only fools believe that an a-bomb explodes by compressing two sub-critical masses of uranium together, bla, bla, bla.
That's why I pay any of them €1M to prove me wrong.
That's why you suck.
-
It seems we all agree fission releases energy in the form of heat.
And pressure. You know, the part that causes the explosion.
In a peaceful nuclear power station with moderated fission the heat produces steam to drive turbogenerators producing electricity. If the fission is not moderated, the plant overheats and melts.
Yes, welcome to the world of reaction rate. Increase the reaction rate and the energy/time released goes up. This is the difference between an explosion and a meltdown.
Same should happen in an a-bomb, if it existed. The not moderated fission will immediately overheat the 'a-bomb', so it melts, fission stops and no explosion of any kind will occur = no FLASH.
See above. You seem to think that reaction rate does not make any difference on the system.
I know it is a military secret and that it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
You don't know what you think you know.
Only fools believe that an a-bomb explodes by compressing two sub-critical masses of uranium together, bla, bla, bla.
That's why I pay any of them €1M to prove me wrong.
That's why you suck.
What a language!
Reaction rate refers to chemical reactions, where molecules combine.
Fission is not a chemical reaction! Fission is splitting of atoms by neutrons. It is nuclear physics. It only works when the neutrons are moderated and the atoms are arranged, so that they can fission, e.g. in a nuclear power station. Such fission can easily be started and stopped.
If you believe that you can create a critical solid mass of metal atoms, e.g. 4x1026 uranium atoms, which are 61 kg, and that sending one neutron to start some runway fission of that critical solid mass in a FLASH, you simply lack critical thinking. Such fission does not exist. It is just pseudoscience and propaganda to scare you.
-
Please, the 'Little Boy' relied on half a critical mass of Uranium, that was shot at high speed into another half a critical mass of Uranium to suddenly, in a collision, become one, compressed critical mass of Uranium ... with some neutrons in between ... that then exploded in a FLASH. I describe the nonsense with links to official scientific/military documents and reports 1945/6 at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . According my analysis, it doesn't work at all. If two similar masses of solid metal collide with each other, they just bounce against each other.
Easy to test and confirm anywhere.
Not quite.
Little Boy relied on two sub critical masses, (not half critical masses). These were designed to fit over each other . One a cylinder, and one a rod to fit inside the cylinder. The design was to fit the masses together very quickly, not to collide the masses. When fitted together the combined mass of Uranium was then more than 2 critical masses.
Are you drunk? A metal rod with a sub critical mass passes through a similar metal cylinder of another sub critical mass of which it fits inside- no collision - just a passage - and then the two masses - more than 2 critical masses - fitted very quickly - no collision - just a fit ... and a FLASH!
Marvelous! Please tell me what drugs you use to invent this shit? Provide a link to the sellers! Do you get a commission? You do not work free of charge, do you?
You still do not seem to grasp the concept of fission. Collision has nothing to do with it. It is all about bringing a big enough mass in a small enough volume so that there are enough atoms that one fission sparks on average more than one other fission.
-
Please, the 'Little Boy' relied on half a critical mass of Uranium, that was shot at high speed into another half a critical mass of Uranium to suddenly, in a collision, become one, compressed critical mass of Uranium ... with some neutrons in between ... that then exploded in a FLASH. I describe the nonsense with links to official scientific/military documents and reports 1945/6 at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . According my analysis, it doesn't work at all. If two similar masses of solid metal collide with each other, they just bounce against each other.
Easy to test and confirm anywhere.
Not quite.
Little Boy relied on two sub critical masses, (not half critical masses). These were designed to fit over each other . One a cylinder, and one a rod to fit inside the cylinder. The design was to fit the masses together very quickly, not to collide the masses. When fitted together the combined mass of Uranium was then more than 2 critical masses.
Are you drunk? A metal rod with a sub critical mass passes through a similar metal cylinder of another sub critical mass of which it fits inside- no collision - just a passage - and then the two masses - more than 2 critical masses - fitted very quickly - no collision - just a fit ... and a FLASH!
Marvelous! Please tell me what drugs you use to invent this shit? Provide a link to the sellers! Do you get a commission? You do not work free of charge, do you?
You still do not seem to grasp the concept of fission. Collision has nothing to do with it. It is all about bringing a big enough mass in a small enough volume so that there are enough atoms that one fission sparks on average more than one other fission.
Hm, Oppenheimer, Bohr & Co are of the opinion to start a-bomb fission that then cannot be stopped, you must collide two sub critical masses to suddenly become one critical mass and then FLASH!
They indicate that during the collision the volume is reduced due compression. A critical mass of 61 kg uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms! It has density about 19 000 kg/m3. It is quite heavy. But it can apparently be compressed to double density/half volume or 38 000 kg/m3. Nuclear physics is really magic.
-
One advantage of this type of weapon is that it can be built using a smaller mass of Uranium, as the critical mass is lower for the higher density material.
Not compressing just means you need more material
-
it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
More lies from Heiwa. You've never had access to restricted info and never had a trial. Further, I guarantee nobody involved with nuclear power or weapons cares about what you say. This is a LIE you continually spew to make yourself look more important.
Plenty of restricted info at my website and the US law is clear. Spreading restricted info is punished by death in USA. That's why I avoid USA. I don't like being sentenced to death for informing people via my popular web pages.
Why not show us the information that is restricted? All I have seen from you is information that is available with a simple internet search.
Not restricted if it is made available online by many different people and various governments including the US.
-
Please, the 'Little Boy' relied on half a critical mass of Uranium, that was shot at high speed into another half a critical mass of Uranium to suddenly, in a collision, become one, compressed critical mass of Uranium ... with some neutrons in between ... that then exploded in a FLASH. I describe the nonsense with links to official scientific/military documents and reports 1945/6 at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . According my analysis, it doesn't work at all. If two similar masses of solid metal collide with each other, they just bounce against each other.
Easy to test and confirm anywhere.
Not quite.
Little Boy relied on two sub critical masses, (not half critical masses). These were designed to fit over each other . One a cylinder, and one a rod to fit inside the cylinder. The design was to fit the masses together very quickly, not to collide the masses. When fitted together the combined mass of Uranium was then more than 2 critical masses.
Are you drunk? A metal rod with a sub critical mass passes through a similar metal cylinder of another sub critical mass of which it fits inside- no collision - just a passage - and then the two masses - more than 2 critical masses - fitted very quickly - no collision - just a fit ... and a FLASH!
Marvelous! Please tell me what drugs you use to invent this shit? Provide a link to the sellers! Do you get a commission? You do not work free of charge, do you?
You still do not seem to grasp the concept of fission. Collision has nothing to do with it. It is all about bringing a big enough mass in a small enough volume so that there are enough atoms that one fission sparks on average more than one other fission.
Hm, Oppenheimer, Bohr & Co are of the opinion to start a-bomb fission that then cannot be stopped, you must collide two sub critical masses to suddenly become one critical mass and then FLASH!
They indicate that during the collision the volume is reduced due compression. A critical mass of 61 kg uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms! It has density about 19 000 kg/m3. It is quite heavy. But it can apparently be compressed to double density/half volume or 38 000 kg/m3. Nuclear physics is really magic.
I bet if you actually looked something up, you would find that the type of bomb that uses a mass that doubles in density, is a plutonium one. The machined hollow plutonium sphere is imploded into itself. This could double the density if you look at the whole hollow sphere compared to a single block of plutonium.
-
it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
More lies from Heiwa. You've never had access to restricted info and never had a trial. Further, I guarantee nobody involved with nuclear power or weapons cares about what you say. This is a LIE you continually spew to make yourself look more important.
Plenty of restricted info at my website and the US law is clear. Spreading restricted info is punished by death in USA. That's why I avoid USA. I don't like being sentenced to death for informing people via my popular web pages.
That's a lie. There is no restricted info on your website.
You have failed again to support your claims.
-
Reaction rate refers to chemical reactions, where molecules combine.
No reaction rate refers to the... rate.. of... reactions... as in fission reactions/second
Fission is not a chemical reaction! Fission is splitting of atoms by neutrons. It is nuclear physics.
You got something right! Good on you buddy!
It only works when the neutrons are moderated and the atoms are arranged, so that they can fission, e.g. in a nuclear power station. Such fission can easily be started and stopped.
You still haven't explained why you think this.
The next part we will take step by step...
If you believe that you can create a critical solid mass of metal atoms, e.g. 4x1026 uranium atoms, which are 61 kg,
Yup no problem there...
and that sending one neutron
neutron triggers are usually a few hundred. Little Boy did not even use one.
to start some runway fission of that critical solid mass
What is the relevance of solid?
in a FLASH,
I already showed you how quick it can happen. You have yet to deal with that.
you simply lack critical thinking.
Because... reasons? Because... you don't agree?
Such fission does not exist. It is just pseudoscience and propaganda to scare you.
This is a lack of critical thinking. You claim it does not exist, but have never shown within the framework of QM, why such a reaction cannot work, and then you just jump to a conclusion based on the evidence that is not there. It is almost the epitome of uncritical thinking.
-
it is illegal to inform about it in the USA (penalty by death) but I do it anyway.
More lies from Heiwa. You've never had access to restricted info and never had a trial. Further, I guarantee nobody involved with nuclear power or weapons cares about what you say. This is a LIE you continually spew to make yourself look more important.
Plenty of restricted info at my website and the US law is clear. Spreading restricted info is punished by death in USA. That's why I avoid USA. I don't like being sentenced to death for informing people via my popular web pages.
That's a lie. There is no restricted info on your website.
You have failed again to support your claims.
I checked with a tracert where his website is hosted. It resolves to a server in the US. IF there was any restricted info on it (there isn't) and IF anyone cared about his rantings (they don't) at the very least his site would be shut down. More lies from Heiwa.
-
Such fission does not exist. It is just pseudoscience and propaganda to scare you.
This is a lack of critical thinking. You claim it does not exist, but have never shown within the framework of QM, why such a reaction cannot work, and then you just jump to a conclusion based on the evidence that is not there. It is almost the epitome of uncritical thinking.
Experts suggest that there are two types of fission:
A. The 1938 type discovered by Otto Hanh and used in nuclear power plants; atoms are split by moderated neutrons releasing energy heat. No smoke is produced. The process can be started and stopped. All is clear and explained.
B. The 1942 type invented by some military experts used in atomic bombs; atoms are exponentially split by neutrons releasing energy in a smoky FLASH killing people. The process cannot be stopped after it has been started some way or other. Details are military secrets to protect the nation and therefore unclear and cannot be explained.
At my website I show that B is pseudoscience and propaganda.
-
Such fission does not exist. It is just pseudoscience and propaganda to scare you.
This is a lack of critical thinking. You claim it does not exist, but have never shown within the framework of QM, why such a reaction cannot work, and then you just jump to a conclusion based on the evidence that is not there. It is almost the epitome of uncritical thinking.
Experts suggest that there are two types of fission:
A. The 1938 type discovered by Otto Hanh and used in nuclear power plants; atoms are split by moderated neutrons releasing energy heat. No smoke is produced. The process can be started and stopped. All is clear and explained.
B. The 1942 type invented by some military experts used in atomic bombs; atoms are exponentially split by neutrons releasing energy in a smoky FLASH killing people. The process cannot be stopped after it has been started some way or other. Details are military secrets to protect the nation and therefore unclear and cannot be explained.[/quote]
The fission process is the same, the only difference is reaction rate. The byproducts of fission is not smoke. The byproduct of a large amount of thermal radiation and pressure is condensed atmospheric gasses and diffuse remnants of the bomb assembly. The fission process is neither unexplained nor secret.
At my website I show that B is pseudoscience and propaganda.
Incorrect. You do nothing of the sort. You don't even accurately describe the process you are criticizing, how could you possibly debunk it?
-
Such fission does not exist. It is just pseudoscience and propaganda to scare you.
This is a lack of critical thinking. You claim it does not exist, but have never shown within the framework of QM, why such a reaction cannot work, and then you just jump to a conclusion based on the evidence that is not there. It is almost the epitome of uncritical thinking.
Experts suggest that there are two types of fission:
A. The 1938 type discovered by Otto Hanh and used in nuclear power plants; atoms are split by moderated neutrons releasing energy heat. No smoke is produced. The process can be started and stopped. All is clear and explained.
B. The 1942 type invented by some military experts used in atomic bombs; atoms are exponentially split by neutrons releasing energy in a smoky FLASH killing people. The process cannot be stopped after it has been started some way or other. Details are military secrets to protect the nation and therefore unclear and cannot be explained.
The fission process is the same, the only difference is reaction rate. The byproducts of fission is not smoke. The byproduct of a large amount of thermal radiation and pressure is condensed atmospheric gasses and diffuse remnants of the bomb assembly. The fission process is neither unexplained nor secret.
At my website I show that B is pseudoscience and propaganda.
Incorrect. You do nothing of the sort. You don't even accurately describe the process you are criticizing, how could you possibly debunk it?
Sorry, the fission processes A and B are completely different.
In A moderated, slow neutrons fission atoms releasing more neutrons that are moderated/slowed down by the environnment (water in the combustion chamber) to fission more atoms in the environment. It was discovered by O. Hahn 1938. It is a process that can only be used for peaceful purposes.
In B fast neutrons fission atoms in a solid block of metal - a critical mass (LOL) - releasing more fast neutrons that are not moderated by anyting and just fly away ... we are told. The hoax was invented by Oppenheimer & Co who suggested the fast neutrons can fission all the atoms in the metal critical mass block in nano-seconds ... in a FLASH to kill people. It is the military a-bomb fairy tale! Only twerps still believe in it after having studied my website. You sound like an a-bomb propagandist. Ever heard of Goebbels?
-
Sorry, the fission processes A and B are completely different.
No they are not.
In A moderated, slow neutrons fission atoms releasing more neutrons that are moderated/slowed down by the environnment (water in the combustion chamber) to fission more atoms in the environment. It was discovered by O. Hahn 1938. It is a process that can only be used for peaceful purposes.
The neutrons are slow, the energy released by and the byproducts of the fission reaction is exactly the same.
In B fast neutrons fission atoms in a solid block of metal - a critical mass (LOL)
Why "(LOL)"? Do you disagree that increasing the density of fissile isotopes will increase the probability of a fission reaction occuring? As a side note, there are a number of properties that are "critical" to the creation of an exponential chain reaction, mass being only one.
- releasing more fast neutrons that are not moderated by anything and just fly away
Why would they just fly away? Slow or fast the neutrons travel a straight line. The fast ones hit the nuclei with more energy making a fission reaction more likely. Do you disagree with this? Why?
-
In B fast neutrons fission atoms in a solid block of metal - a critical mass (LOL)
Why "(LOL)"? Do you disagree that increasing the density of fissile isotopes will increase the probability of a fission reaction occuring? As a side note, there are a number of properties that are "critical" to the creation of an exponential chain reaction, mass being only one.
In normal fission type A there is no critical mass of any kind. Neutrons just fission atoms in nuclear fuel rods, etc. I have no problems with it. I am a share holder of EDF that owns 50+ nuclear power plants in France. The French nuclear power plants are the best in the world.
In fake, fairy tale fission B there is a critical mass of solid, metal uranium or plutonium that, one way or other, goes FLASH when hit by a neutron, when a fake, exponential, chain, fission reaction takes place. LOL!
Please, do not spread your nonsense tale tellings here, unless you work for Donald Trump.
-
You sound like an a-bomb propagandist.
You sound like an immature teenager. When are you going to start making arguments like an engineer?
-
You sound like an a-bomb propagandist.
You sound like an immature teenager. When are you going to start making arguments like an engineer?
Just visit my website http://heiwaco.com to read all my arguments. Just copy/paste what you don't like and we can discuss. There is a €1M prize also ... http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
-
In normal fission type A there is no critical mass of any kind. Neutrons just fission atoms in nuclear fuel rods, etc. I have no problems with it. I am a share holder of EDF that owns 50+ nuclear power plants in France. The French nuclear power plants are the best in the world.
The mass and configuration is sufficient to create a chain reaction, but not sufficient enough to create an exponential reaction.
In fake, fairy tale fission B there is a critical mass of solid, metal uranium or plutonium that, one way or other, goes FLASH when hit by a neutron, when a fake, exponential, chain, fission reaction takes place. LOL!
Do you disagree that 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond would release the energy equal to the Little Boy bomb?
Please, do not spread your nonsense tale tellings here, unless you work for Donald Trump.
If you can point out why what I am saying is nonsense in a meaningful objective way, I will. You have not so far.
-
You sound like an a-bomb propagandist.
You sound like an immature teenager. When are you going to start making arguments like an engineer?
Just visit my website to read all my arguments. Just copy/paste what you don't like and we can discuss. There is a <phantom> prize also ...
Why would I copy/paste what I don't like from your website? There is plenty of that right here in this very thread!
-
Do you disagree that 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond would release the energy equal to the Little Boy bomb?
No, according my findings (at my website) 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond cannot occur, so no energy of any kind could be released in a FLASH!
It is much easier to fake it.
-
No, according my findings (at my website) 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond cannot occur, so no energy of any kind could be released in a FLASH!
It is much easier to fake it.
Copy/paste where you calculate that please. Even cite the section of your website where this "finding" is and I will be happy to look at it.
-
No, according my findings (at my website) 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond cannot occur, so no energy of any kind could be released in a FLASH!
It is much easier to fake it.
Copy/paste where you calculate that please. Even cite the section of your website where this "finding" is and I will be happy to look at it.
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
No, according my findings (at my website) 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond cannot occur, so no energy of any kind could be released in a FLASH!
It is much easier to fake it.
Copy/paste where you calculate that please. Even cite the section of your website where this "finding" is and I will be happy to look at it.
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Don't be lazy. Copy/paste the relevant part where find that you cannot fission 1024 atoms in a microsecond or tell me the numbered section it is in and I can look. I am not sorting through your gong-show of a website to find it, especially since I already showed that it is possible in the thread.
-
No, according my findings (at my website) 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond cannot occur, so no energy of any kind could be released in a FLASH!
It is much easier to fake it.
Copy/paste where you calculate that please. Even cite the section of your website where this "finding" is and I will be happy to look at it.
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Don't be lazy. Copy/paste the relevant part where find that you cannot fission 1024 atoms in a microsecond or tell me the numbered section it is in and I can look. I am not sorting through your gong-show of a website to find it, especially since I already showed that it is possible in the thread.
But you are lazy! You have to show where I am wrong. It is difficult. I offer you €1M to do it.
-
But you are lazy! You have to show where I am wrong. It is difficult. I offer you €1M to do it.
I don't have to do anything for you. In fact, you are the one that has to prove you are right, because you are claiming that all of modern science is incorrect. All I asked is that you copy/paste the portion where you show that fission cannot happen fast enough, and I will look at it. I even said you could just point me to the numbered section on your site and I would go read it. It appears you are unwilling to make the slightest good faith effort. I can only assume it is because you know you are wrong, you are lazy or you are crazy.
-
But you are lazy! You have to show where I am wrong. It is difficult. I offer you €1M to do it.
I don't have to do anything for you. In fact, you are the one that has to prove you are right, because you are claiming that all of modern science is incorrect. All I asked is that you copy/paste the portion where you show that fission cannot happen fast enough, and I will look at it. I even said you could just point me to the numbered section on your site and I would go read it. It appears you are unwilling to make the slightest good faith effort. I can only assume it is because you know you are wrong, you are lazy or you are crazy.
Sorry. I do not claim that all of modern science is incorrect. I only claim at my website that there is only one type of fission, i.e. the one discovered 1938, which is used in nuclear power plants with uranium/plutonium oxide as fuel.
The one invented 1942/5 by the military, using a critical mass (LOL) of pure uranium/plutonium metal as fuel and made top secret, etc, etc, but copied/pasted by Stalin 1945/9 is pure pseudoscience believed by religious fanatics types and similar. It cannot work as the fuel melts at low temperatures.
-
irrelevancies edited out
Please copy/paste the section of your website where you show that fission of 1024 atoms is impossible, or tell me the numbered section of your article that contains it and I will gladly look at it.
-
irrelevancies edited out
Please copy/paste the section of your website where you show that fission of 1024 atoms is impossible, or tell me the numbered section of your article that contains it and I will gladly look at it.
Good idea. However it is better you start with http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm 1.1.1 to 2.14 and then finish with http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm 3.1 to 7.1.
There (3.5 - 3.9) you will find that a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms of which, for unknown reasons only 6x1024 atoms or 1.5% do not fission in nanoseconds after having been mechanically compressed to double density creating a FLASH followed by destruction and a mushroom cloud.
Reason is that any fission of metal uranium will just melt it, vaporize it and then any neutrons just fly away and disappear. It is called fizzle. I look forward to your comments.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/E8IM1n2.png)
Yep . . . . .
(http://i.imgur.com/S8PhDzO.jpg)
-
Good idea.
I only had to ask you 3 times for it to appear so?
However it is better you start with http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm 1.1.1 to 2.14 and then finish with http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm 3.1 to 7.1.
There (3.5 - 3.9) you will find that a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms of which, for unknown reasons only 6x1024 atoms or 1.5% do not fission in nanoseconds after having been mechanically compressed to double density creating a FLASH followed by destruction and a mushroom cloud.
Reason is that any fission of metal uranium will just melt it, vaporize it and then any neutrons just fly away and disappear. It is called fizzle. I look forward to your comments.
My comment is this: You never give any demonstration of how quickly the bomb assembly would heat up vis a vis the speed of the nuclear chain reaction. If you wish to demonstrate that the bomb will melt before the reaction takes place, this is essential. Until you do that, I see no compelling reason to accept your "findings".
-
Good idea.
I only had to ask you 3 times for it to appear so?
However it is better you start with http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm 1.1.1 to 2.14 and then finish with http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm 3.1 to 7.1.
There (3.5 - 3.9) you will find that a critical mass of uranium consists of 4x1026 atoms of which, for unknown reasons only 6x1024 atoms or 1.5% do not fission in nanoseconds after having been mechanically compressed to double density creating a FLASH followed by destruction and a mushroom cloud.
Reason is that any fission of metal uranium will just melt it, vaporize it and then any neutrons just fly away and disappear. It is called fizzle. I look forward to your comments.
My comment is this: You never give any demonstration of how quickly the bomb assembly would heat up vis a vis the speed of the nuclear chain reaction. If you wish to demonstrate that the bomb will melt before the reaction takes place, this is essential. Until you do that, I see no compelling reason to accept your "findings".
Well, I indicate the energy released by one (of 1024 fissions) and that the end result after 1024 fissions is a temperature of 100 000 000K of the 98.5% of the critical mass (60 kg) that remains and doesn't fission and it would appear that the bomb would melt (and fizzle) in the short progress (nano-seconds).
The 'experts' say it is prevented by clever design (sic - it doesn't melt but explodes) but I haven't seen any clever design! Just two sub-critical masses that are suddenly compressed mechanically. It cannot possible produce a FLASH!
-
Well, I indicate the energy released by one (of 1024 fissions) and that the end result after 1024 fissions is a temperature of 100 000 000K of the 98.5% of the critical mass (60 kg) that remains and doesn't fission and it would appear that the bomb would melt (and fizzle) in the short progress (nano-seconds).
You are an engineer, surely you can show a calculation, stating all of your assumptions, to demonstrate this.
The 'experts' say it is prevented by clever design (sic - it doesn't melt but explodes) but I haven't seen any clever design!
The perhaps you should not decide it is impossible, but instead just remain skeptical?
Just two sub-critical masses that are suddenly compressed mechanically. It cannot possible produce a FLASH!
Of course it can. As you have indicated it is a matter of containment and reaction rate, not a matter of defying the laws of physics.
-
Well, I indicate the energy released by one (of 1024 fissions) and that the end result after 1024 fissions is a temperature of 100 000 000K of the 98.5% of the critical mass (60 kg) that remains and doesn't fission and it would appear that the bomb would melt (and fizzle) in the short progress (nano-seconds).
You are an engineer, surely you can show a calculation, stating all of your assumptions, to demonstrate this.
No, I only know what one fission of an uranium atom results into, even if Niels Bohr couldn't even explain how the neutron could split or fission the sole atom in the first place ... and how long it took.
My contribution is the total number of atoms in a 61 kg critical mass of uranium - 4x1026 - and the conclusion it is a great number.
Now, the experts say only 1.5% of them fissioned, when 100% were mechanically compressed to double density and that has made me wonder. 1.5%? Why not 100 or 0%?
I was told it was a military secret in the name of US national security since 1945 and that anyone just asking the question was subject to the penalty of death. It was restricted information, you know!
Nasty stuff! Restricted info! Hopefully Donald Trump will investigate what I cannot do.
-
Now, the experts say only 1.5% of them fissioned, when 100% were mechanically compressed to double density and that has made me wonder. 1.5%? Why not 100 or 0%?
I was told it was a military secret in the name of US national security since 1945 and that anyone just asking the question was subject to the penalty of death. It was restricted information, you know!
Who told you that? I would not believe random people but instead check the law. Asking questions and expressing your opinion is Not illegal in the US.
The 1.5% is probably the Mass that reacts before the enormous energy rips the whole thing apart, creating the explosion. Another reason is that the Mass that consists of 98.5℅ the particles is no longer critical. But I suppose it ist the First one. You might ask someone who is proficient in nuclear physics though.
-
Now, the experts say only 1.5% of them fissioned, when 100% were mechanically compressed to double density and that has made me wonder. 1.5%? Why not 100 or 0%?
I was told it was a military secret in the name of US national security since 1945 and that anyone just asking the question was subject to the penalty of death. It was restricted information, you know!
Who told you that? I would not believe random people but instead check the law. Asking questions and expressing your opinion is Not illegal in the US.
He made it up to make himself look more important.
-
The 1.5% is probably the Mass that reacts before the enormous energy rips the whole thing apart, creating the explosion. Another reason is that the Mass that consists of 98.5℅ the particles is no longer critical. But I suppose it ist the First one. You might ask someone who is proficient in nuclear physics though.
Fission is not a chemical reaction. It is just what happens - a process - when a neutron splits an atom releasing energy and more neutrons.
Of course, if a certain number of atoms make up a critical mass, when one atom is split by fission, the remainder is not a critical mass any longer.
By defintion a critical mass is the minimum or smallest amount of fissile material needed to maintain a nuclear chain reaction of an exploding a-bomb, but it is normal nuclear physics nonsense.
The self-sustaining fission process spread by neutrons, which occurs in nuclear reactors, is not a chain reaction of any kind but is a simple process that does not require any critical mass. By controlling the number of neutrons reaching the nuclear fuel, you can stop, start and adjust the fission process.
-
Do you disagree that 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond would release the energy equal to the Little Boy bomb?
No, according my findings (at my website) 1024 fission reactions in a microsecond cannot occur, so no energy of any kind could be released in a FLASH!
It is much easier to fake it.
Great. Post those findings here if you can. But you can't because there is no evidence on your website. It's just you saying over and over agin it's impossible. You continue to fail miserably.
-
The 1.5% is probably the Mass that reacts before the enormous energy rips the whole thing apart, creating the explosion. Another reason is that the Mass that consists of 98.5℅ the particles is no longer critical. But I suppose it ist the First one. You might ask someone who is proficient in nuclear physics though.
Fission is not a chemical reaction. It is just what happens - a process - when a neutron splits an atom releasing energy and more neutrons.
Of course, if a certain number of atoms make up a critical mass, when one atom is split by fission, the remainder is not a critical mass any longer.
By defintion a critical mass is the minimum or smallest amount of fissile material needed to maintain a nuclear chain reaction of an exploding a-bomb, but it is normal nuclear physics nonsense.
The self-sustaining fission process spread by neutrons, which occurs in nuclear reactors, is not a chain reaction of any kind but is a simple process that does not require any critical mass. By controlling the number of neutrons reaching the nuclear fuel, you can stop, start and adjust the fission process.
Good thing mass is not the defining critical property in self-sustaining chain reactions then.
-
No, I only know what one fission of an uranium atom results into, even if Niels Bohr couldn't even explain how the neutron could split or fission the sole atom in the first place ... and how long it took.
You need to stop the tedious name dropping and start providing evidence that Bohr couldn't explain fission. I think if you were to repeat your claims in front of him he would laugh in your face.
I was told it was a military secret in the name of US national security since 1945 and that anyone just asking the question was subject to the penalty of death. It was restricted information, you know!
You were told it so it must be true? Who told you? What authority did they have that made them an expert? Do you always believe any old you're told by random strangers? Or is this a lie as well?
Your death penalty claim is a lie.
-
Hello Heiwa,
I am doing a little research on the United States laws regarding discussion and disclosure of information pertaining to nuclear weapons. Could you cite for me the specific law you are referring to when you claim that, "A-and h-bombs - or atomic bombs - do not work but it is against a silly US law to say so, but, if you do, you, like me, are punished by death (!)"?
Thanks in advance!
Boots
-
No, I only know what one fission of an uranium atom results into, even if Niels Bohr couldn't even explain how the neutron could split or fission the sole atom in the first place ... and how long it took.
You need to stop the tedious name dropping and start providing evidence that Bohr couldn't explain fission. I think if you were to repeat your claims in front of him he would laugh in your face.
I was told it was a military secret in the name of US national security since 1945 and that anyone just asking the question was subject to the penalty of death. It was restricted information, you know!
You were told it so it must be true? Who told you? What authority did they have that made them an expert? Do you always believe any old you're told by random strangers? Or is this a lie as well?
Your death penalty claim is a lie.
Hm, poor Bohr could not really explain how fission worked 1945/62; how a neutron splits an atom into other atoms, creating more neutrons and releasing energy and the time it takes. So he was easy to fool into the pseudoscientific Manhattan project 1942/5 about military, destructive fission. What a stupid hoax!
Of course it was 1946 made a crime in the USA to tell the Truth about the a-bomb and if you do, you shall be punished by death! I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Anyway, the good news is that mr Donald Trump cannot use any a-bombs today.
-
Hm, poor Bohr could not really explain how fission worked 1945/62; how a neutron splits an atom into other atoms, creating more neutrons and releasing energy and the time it takes.
Who said that fission creates neutrons? ???
-
Hello Heiwa,
I am doing a little research on the United States laws regarding discussion and disclosure of information pertaining to nuclear weapons. Could you cite for me the specific law you are referring to when you claim that, "A-and h-bombs - or atomic bombs - do not work but it is against a silly US law to say so, but, if you do, you, like me, are punished by death (!)"?
Thanks in advance!
Boots
That is easy:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
The US law starts with a lie:
SECTION 1.(a)
FINDINGS AND DECLARATION. - Research and experimentation in the field of nuclear chain reaction have attained the stage at which the release of atomic energy on a large scale is practical. The significance of the atomic bomb for military purposes is evident.
The atomic bomb is just propaganda to scare.
-
Hm, poor Bohr could not really explain how fission worked 1945/62; how a neutron splits an atom into other atoms, creating more neutrons and releasing energy and the time it takes.
Who said that fission creates neutrons? ???
OK - fission releases neutrons. Happy?
-
So to be clear, this is the specific law to which you are referring? :
60 STAT .] 79TH CONG., 2D SESS .-CH. 724-AUG. 1, 1946
SEC. 10. (b) RESTRICTIONS-
(2) Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrusted with, any document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating restricted data-
(A) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life
(but the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be
imposed only upon recommendation of the jury and only in cases
where the offense was committed with intent to injure the United
States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or imprisonment for
not more than twenty years, or both ;
(B) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with reason to believe such data will be utilized to
injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign
nation, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or
both .
(3) Whoever, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, acquires or attempts or
conspires to acquire any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan,
model, instrument, appliance, note or information involving or incorporating
restricted data shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished
by death or imprisonment for life (but the penalty of death or imprisonment
for life may be imposed only upon recommendation of the
jury and only in cases where the offense was committed with intent to
injure the United States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or
imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both .
-
So to be clear, this is the specific law to which you are referring? :
60 STAT .] 79TH CONG., 2D SESS .-CH. 724-AUG. 1, 1946
SEC. 10. (b) RESTRICTIONS-
(2) Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrusted with, any document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating restricted data-
(A) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life
(but the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be
imposed only upon recommendation of the jury and only in cases
where the offense was committed with intent to injure the United
States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or imprisonment for
not more than twenty years, or both ;
(B) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with reason to believe such data will be utilized to
injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign
nation, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or
both .
(3) Whoever, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, acquires or attempts or
conspires to acquire any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan,
model, instrument, appliance, note or information involving or incorporating
restricted data shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished
by death or imprisonment for life (but the penalty of death or imprisonment
for life may be imposed only upon recommendation of the
jury and only in cases where the offense was committed with intent to
injure the United States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or
imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both .
Yes. I think it is clearly indicated at my website, where I present restricted data about a-bombs. Note 'shall be punished by death', bla, bla, bla . The law is part of the US hoax, of course.
-
I am getting expert help on this but in the meantime here is the appropriate excerpt from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (aka. An Act to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended, and for other purposes.):
68 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 703-AUG. 30, 1954 943
SEC. 145. RESTRICTIONS.—
a. No arrangement shall be made under section 31, no contract shall
be made or continued in effect under section 41, and no license shall be
issued under section 103 or 104, unless the person with whom such
arrangement is made, the contractor or prospective contractor, or the
prospective licensee agrees in writing not to permit any individual
to have access to Restricted Data until the Civil Service Commission
shall have made an investigation and report to the Commission on
the character, associations, and loyalty of such individual, and the
Commission shall have determined that permitting such person to
have access to Restricted Data will not endanger the common defense
and security.
b. Except as authorized by the Commission or the General Manager
upon a determination by the Commission or General Manager that
such action is clearly consistent with the national interest, no individual
shall be employed by the Commission nor shall the Commission
permit any individual to have access to Restricted Data until the
Civil Service Commission shall have made an investigation and report
to the Commission on the character, associations, and loyalty of such
individual, and the Commission shall have determined that permitting
such person to have access to Restricted Data will not endanger the
common defense and security.
c. In the event an investigation made pursuant to subsections a. and
b. of this section develops any data reflecting that the individual who
is the subject of the investigation is of questionable loyalty, the Civil
Service Commission shall refer the matter to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation for the conduct of a full field investigation, the results of
which shall be furnished to the Civil Service Commission for its information
and appropriate action.
d. If the President deems it to be in the national interest, he may
from time to time cause investigations of any group or class which
are required by subsections a. and b. of this section to be made by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation instead of by the Civil Service
Commission.
e. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections a. and b. of this
section, a majority of the members of the Commission shall certify
those specific positions which are of a high degree of importance or
sensitivity and upon such certification the investigation and reports
required by such provisions shall be made by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation instead of by the Civil Service Commission.
f. The Commission shall establish standards and
specifications in writing as to the scope and extent of investigations to
be made by the Civil Service Commission pursuant to subsections a.
and b. of this section. Such standards and specifications shall be based on the location
and class or kind of work to be done, and shall, among other
considerations, take into account the degree of importance to the
common defense and security of the Restricted Data to which access
will be permitted.
SEC 146. GENERAL PROVISIONS.—
a. Sections 141 to 145, inclusive, shall not exclude the applicable
provisions of any other laws, except that no Government agency
shall take any action under such other laws inconsistent with the
provisions of those sections.
b. The Commission shall have no power to control or restrict the
dissemination of information other than as granted by this or any other
law.
-
Yes. I think it is clearly indicated at my website, where I present restricted data about a-bombs. Note 'shall be punished by death', bla, bla, bla . The law is part of the US hoax, of course.
Stop lying. You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You've made up this fantasy to make yourself look more important. Nobody believes it.
-
Yes. I think it is clearly indicated at my website, where I present restricted data about a-bombs. Note 'shall be punished by death', bla, bla, bla . The law is part of the US hoax, of course.
Stop lying. You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You've made up this fantasy to make yourself look more important. Nobody believes it.
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data. Reason is that the information is pure propaganda and pseudoscience and cannot be discussed openly. The purpose of the law is to scare people into silence. It worked well in the 1950/60s to protect Bohr & Co but today?
Why do you get so upset about it? Do you love a-bombs that can wipe out cities with millions of innocent civilians?
Don't you understand that such bombs are just propaganda? They do not work!
-
I don't believe you had access to restricted data (I will be confirming that shortly) but since you claim you did, are you saying that you disclosed said information with the intent to injure the United States? How can your intent be to injure the United States when you have been very vocal that you think the bombs are a scam?
-
Yes. I think it is clearly indicated at my website, where I present restricted data about a-bombs. Note 'shall be punished by death', bla, bla, bla . The law is part of the US hoax, of course.
Stop lying. You have NEVER had access to restricted data. You've made up this fantasy to make yourself look more important. Nobody believes it.
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data. Reason is that the information is pure propaganda and pseudoscience and cannot be discussed openly. The purpose of the law is to scare people into silence. It worked well in the 1950/60s to protect Bohr & Co but today?
OPINIONS are not. That is all you have. Restricted data is specific and would be marked as such. Stop lying.
Why do you get so upset about it? Do you love a-bombs that can wipe out cities with millions of innocent civilians?
Why do you think laughing at you lying YET AGAIN is being upset? I'm just pointing out your lies and laughing about it.
If you really had restricted data on your site (you don't) and you were really worried about the supposed death penalty (which doesn't apply since you don't have restricted data and have never had a trial) then why is your site hosted on a server in the US?
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Are you sure?
68 STAT.] PUBLIC LAW 703-AUG. 30, 1954 943
SEC. 142. CLASSIFICATION AND DECLASSIFICATION OF RESTRICTED
DATA.—
"a. The Commission shall from time to time determine the data,
within the definition of Restricted Data, which can be published without
undue risk to the common defense and security and shall thereupon
cause such data to be declassified and removed from the category
of Restricted Data.
"b. The Commission shall maintain a continuous review of
Restricted Data and of any Classification Guides issued for the guidance
of those in the atomic energy program with respect to the areas
of Restricted Data which have been declassified in order to determine
which information may be declassified and removed from the category
of Restricted Data without undue risk to the common defense and
security.
"c. I n the case of Restricted Data which the Commission and the
Department of Defense jointly determine to relate primarily to the
military utilization of atomic weapons, the determination that such
data may be published without constituting an unreasonable risk to
the common defense and security shall be made by the Commission
and the Department of Defense jointly, and if the Commission and
the Department of Defense do not agree, the determination shall be
made by the President.
"d. The Commission shall remove from the Restricted Data category
such data as the Commission and the Department of Defense
jointly determine relates primarily to the military utilization of
atomic weapons and which the Commission and Department of
Defense jointly determine can be adequately safeguarded as defense
information: Provided^ however, That no such data so removed from
the Restricted Data category shall be transmitted or otherwise made
available to any nation or regional defense organization, while such
data remains defense information, except pursuant to an agreement
for cooperation entered into in accordance with subsection 144 b.
"e. The Commission shall remove from the Restricted Data category
such information concerning the atomic energy programs of
other nations as the Commission and the Director of Central Intelligence
jointly determine to be necessary to carry out the provisions of
section 102 (d) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended,
and can be adequately safeguarded as defense information.
-
Here is the correct excerpt from the 1954 amendment. It seems essentially unchanged. (Sorry it took me a bit to find it)
68 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 703-AUG . 30, 1954 959
"SEC. 224. COMMUNICATION OF RESTRICTED DATA.—
Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, sketch, photograph,
plan, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information involving or
incorporating Restricted Data—
"a. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual
or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing,
with intent to injure the United States or with intent to
secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life (but
the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be imposed only
upon recommendation of the jury), or by a fine of not more than
$20,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both;
"b. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual
or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing,
with reason to believe such data will be utilized to injure
the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign nation
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.
SEC. 225. RECEIPT OF RESTRICTED DATA.—
Whoever, with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an
advantage to any foreign nation, acquires, or attempts or conspires to
acquire any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information involving or incorporating
Restricted Data shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by death or
imprisonment for life (but the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be
imposed only upon recommendation of the jury), or by a fine of not
more than $20,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years,
or both.
-
So to be clear, this is the specific law to which you are referring? :
60 STAT .] 79TH CONG., 2D SESS .-CH. 724-AUG. 1, 1946
SEC. 10. (b) RESTRICTIONS-
(2) Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrusted with, any document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating restricted data-
(A) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life
(but the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be
imposed only upon recommendation of the jury and only in cases
where the offense was committed with intent to injure the United
States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or imprisonment for
not more than twenty years, or both ;
(B) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with reason to believe such data will be utilized to
injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign
nation, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or
both .
(3) Whoever, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, acquires or attempts or
conspires to acquire any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan,
model, instrument, appliance, note or information involving or incorporating
restricted data shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished
by death or imprisonment for life (but the penalty of death or imprisonment
for life may be imposed only upon recommendation of the
jury and only in cases where the offense was committed with intent to
injure the United States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or
imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both .
Yes. I think it is clearly indicated at my website, where I present restricted data about a-bombs. Note 'shall be punished by death', bla, bla, bla . The law is part of the US hoax, of course.
No. there is no restricted information on your website. You are a liar. No, you don't provide any evidence on your website nukes don't work. You're a liar. No, you are under threat of the death penalty in the us. You are a liar.
In short, you sir, are liar.
-
Here is the correct excerpt from the 1954 amendment. It seems essentially unchanged. (Sorry it took me a bit to find it)
68 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 703-AUG . 30, 1954 959
"SEC. 224. COMMUNICATION OF RESTRICTED DATA.—
Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, sketch, photograph,
plan, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information involving or
incorporating Restricted Data—
"a. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual
or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing,
with intent to injure the United States or with intent to
secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life (but
the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be imposed only
upon recommendation of the jury), or by a fine of not more than
$20,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both;
"b. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual
or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing,
with reason to believe such data will be utilized to injure
the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign nation
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.
SEC. 225. RECEIPT OF RESTRICTED DATA.—
Whoever, with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an
advantage to any foreign nation, acquires, or attempts or conspires to
acquire any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information involving or incorporating
Restricted Data shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by death or
imprisonment for life (but the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be
imposed only upon recommendation of the jury), or by a fine of not
more than $20,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years,
or both.
It seems communicating restricted data about US a-bombs, which I do at my website, is still punished by death. Tough US laws!
-
So to be clear, this is the specific law to which you are referring? :
60 STAT .] 79TH CONG., 2D SESS .-CH. 724-AUG. 1, 1946
SEC. 10. (b) RESTRICTIONS-
(2) Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrusted with, any document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating restricted data-
(A) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life
(but the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be
imposed only upon recommendation of the jury and only in cases
where the offense was committed with intent to injure the United
States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or imprisonment for
not more than twenty years, or both ;
(B) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with reason to believe such data will be utilized to
injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign
nation, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or
both .
(3) Whoever, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, acquires or attempts or
conspires to acquire any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan,
model, instrument, appliance, note or information involving or incorporating
restricted data shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished
by death or imprisonment for life (but the penalty of death or imprisonment
for life may be imposed only upon recommendation of the
jury and only in cases where the offense was committed with intent to
injure the United States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or
imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both .
Yes. I think it is clearly indicated at my website, where I present restricted data about a-bombs. Note 'shall be punished by death', bla, bla, bla . The law is part of the US hoax, of course.
No. there is no restricted information on your website. You are a liar. No, you don't provide any evidence on your website nukes don't work. You're a liar. No, you are under threat of the death penalty in the us. You are a liar.
In short, you sir, are liar.
You are wrong. My website contains restricted data. USA is not happy about the fact that its nuclear arsenal is useless and does everything to hide the fact, incl. the threat of death penalty.
Why do you get so upset about it?
-
It seems communicating restricted data about US a-bombs, which I do at my website, is still punished by death. Tough US laws!
Only if the data truly is truly restricted, and it was disclosed with the intent to injure the United States. And even if those criteria were met, it still does not mean you would be punished by death. That is just the maximum punishment they could inflict. My guess is they would sentence you to an old folks home with only supervised access to the internet.
BTW was your intent to injure the United States?
I will be confirming all this with a legal expert in the next week or two. I highly doubt you have any classified information.Your idea of what qualifies as classified is definitely wrong. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1864524#msg1864524)
-
It seems communicating restricted data about US a-bombs, which I do at my website, is still punished by death. Tough US laws!
you'd have to first have restricted data. You don't.
IF you did, then why is your site hosted on a server in the US?
No, all of this is a fantasy made up by you to make you feel more important. You really took it hard when your hull design was rejected, didn't you?
-
Here is the correct excerpt from the 1954 amendment. It seems essentially unchanged. (Sorry it took me a bit to find it)
68 STAT. ] PUBLIC LAW 703-AUG . 30, 1954 959
"SEC. 224. COMMUNICATION OF RESTRICTED DATA.—
Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access to, control
over, or being entrusted with any document, writing, sketch, photograph,
plan, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information involving or
incorporating Restricted Data—
"a. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual
or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing,
with intent to injure the United States or with intent to
secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life (but
the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be imposed only
upon recommendation of the jury), or by a fine of not more than
$20,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both;
"b. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual
or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing,
with reason to believe such data will be utilized to injure
the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign nation
shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
$10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both.
SEC. 225. RECEIPT OF RESTRICTED DATA.—
Whoever, with intent to injure the United States or with intent to secure an
advantage to any foreign nation, acquires, or attempts or conspires to
acquire any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information involving or incorporating
Restricted Data shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by death or
imprisonment for life (but the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be
imposed only upon recommendation of the jury), or by a fine of not
more than $20,000 or imprisonment for not more than twenty years,
or both.
It seems communicating restricted data about US a-bombs, which I do at my website, is still punished by death. Tough US laws!
Only if the data truly is truly restricted, and it was disclosed with the intent to injure the United States. And even if those criteria were met, it still does not mean you would be punished by death. That is just the maximum punishment they could inflict. My guess is they would sentence you to an old folks home with only supervised access to the internet.
BTW was your intent to injure the United States?
I will be confirming all this with a legal expert in the next week or two. I highly doubt you have any classified information.Your idea of what qualifies as classified is definitely wrong. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1864524#msg1864524)
Thanks. The worst case scenario remains penalty by death and as I avoid any such risks, I stay away from USA. My intent remains the same - to inform that nuclear weapons are a hoax to scare people, which seems to be restricted data in the USA, I have been told. It was only much later that one of my visitors told me about the US law, etc, etc.
Actually it was my findings about Wismut AG that convinced me nuclear weapons is a stupid hoax. Wismut AG produced the uranium for the Stalin a-bomb 1949 but it was apparently just communist propaganda. A friend of mine worked for Wismut AG at the time and ended up in jail and was tortured by KGB 1958 in the process. Stalin was a friend of FDR and together they invented their a-bombs. Prove me wrong and collect €1M in one of my Challenges, as I use to say.
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Some de-classified documents about nuclear weapons:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb555-Bikini-A-Bomb-Test-1946-Turned-Ships-into-Radioactive-Stoves/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb575-Reagan-Nuclear-War-Briefing/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb574-Presidents-Daily-Brief-excerpts-on-Soviet-missile-and-space-programs/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB571-Nunn-Lugar-25th-Anniversary/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/
And many more here (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/index.html)
-
Heiwa,
I would like to know if you disclosed your self-labeled "restricted data" with the intent to injure the United States?
Thanks.
Boots
-
Hm, poor Bohr could not really explain how fission worked 1945/62; how a neutron splits an atom into other atoms, creating more neutrons and releasing energy and the time it takes.
Who said that fission creates neutrons? ???
OK - fission releases neutrons. Happy?
Gee, if you were wrong about something simple like that, then just imagine what else you could be wrong about.
Like, just about everything.
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Some de-classified documents about nuclear weapons:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb555-Bikini-A-Bomb-Test-1946-Turned-Ships-into-Radioactive-Stoves/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb575-Reagan-Nuclear-War-Briefing/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb574-Presidents-Daily-Brief-excerpts-on-Soviet-missile-and-space-programs/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB571-Nunn-Lugar-25th-Anniversary/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/
And many more here (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/index.html)
Yes, I know! Just fake propaganda though. A-bombs do not work so you need a lot of propaganda to the contratry to keep the show going.
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Some de-classified documents about nuclear weapons:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb555-Bikini-A-Bomb-Test-1946-Turned-Ships-into-Radioactive-Stoves/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb575-Reagan-Nuclear-War-Briefing/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb574-Presidents-Daily-Brief-excerpts-on-Soviet-missile-and-space-programs/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB571-Nunn-Lugar-25th-Anniversary/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/
And many more here (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/index.html)
Yes, I know! Just fake propaganda though. A-bombs do not work so you need a lot of propaganda to the contratry to keep the show going.
But clearly not restricted, which was the point.
-
Heiwa,
I would like to know if you disclosed your self-labeled "restricted data" with the intent to injure the United States?
Thanks.
Boots
Well, when I made my a-bomb webpage, I had no idea about the US law making it illegal and punished by death to publish it. It was only later a visitor of my site alerted me and my legal council has later confirmed the risks/findings.
US laws and legal processes are what they are.
I have heard and read about people being kidnapped by USA and brought to Guantanamo and tortured to admit all sorts of crimes (terrorism) that they have never heard of. The POTUS GWB issued an executive order that permitted torture, so US armed forces had to find and train people to torture. Result?
Nobody has admitted anything and nobody has been found guilty of terrorism at Guantanamo or anywhere else in USA, except a Frenchman that is accused of having been the 20th Arab to hijack planes on 911 but was so stupid that he missed the plane.
But this is OT. If you think that nuclear weapons exist and function as stated - the famous FLASHES - that vaporize any persons in the vicinity, please provide some evidence for it ... and not puerile nonsense.
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Some de-classified documents about nuclear weapons:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb555-Bikini-A-Bomb-Test-1946-Turned-Ships-into-Radioactive-Stoves/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb575-Reagan-Nuclear-War-Briefing/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb574-Presidents-Daily-Brief-excerpts-on-Soviet-missile-and-space-programs/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB571-Nunn-Lugar-25th-Anniversary/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/
And many more here (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/index.html)
Yes, I know! Just fake propaganda though. A-bombs do not work so you need a lot of propaganda to the contratry to keep the show going.
But clearly not restricted, which was the point.
Don't you understand? US a-bombs are propaganda. They do not work since 1945! It is a big hoax. To make it appear that they work, US produces a lot of propaganda, which is made restricted info and then they threaten people to be punished by death to discuss it.
-
It seems communicating restricted data about US a-bombs, which I do at my website, is still punished by death. Tough US laws!
you'd have to first have restricted data. You don't.
IF you did, then why is your site hosted on a server in the US?
No, all of this is a fantasy made up by you to make you feel more important. You really took it hard when your hull design was rejected, didn't you?
The restricted data are defined by US laws and it appears I publish it at my website as explained above. It is correct that one of my ISPs is located in the USA. It was one that offered free web services 20 years ago, if it could put adverts on the pages. Today I pay $4.95 per month without ads. It works fine.
Re my hull (tanker) design I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm .
1988 a US flag tanker T/T Exxon Valdez went accidentally aground in US waters and spilt plenty oil. The American Master was arrested - it was all his fault as usual. He was many years later declared not guilty - it was an accident. Anyway, being in the oil tanker business since late 1960's, we discussed the matter at United Nations International Maritime Organization, IMO, in London, and it was decided to encourage better oil tanker designs! Everyone, incl. USA was for better oil tanker designs than the single hulls used until then. The work for better designs started around 1990.
I had a great idea of better oil tanker design based on a probabilistic approach - put the protection where the risk of spills are the greatest - and September 1997, my design was approved by the IMO according all international rules/laws. The next day USA informed the IMO that they didn't agree, my design was not allowed in US waters, and USA withdrew from the international rules/laws and created its own (OPA90).
Everyone was surprised! Here USA had worked hard at the IMO for better and safer oil tanker designs since 1988 and when finally one design (the only one, in fact - mine) was approved, USA decided to abandon the whole work and go alone.
Why was that? I was not alone. I had investors and supporters paying me. And we were approached by US interestes that wanted to buy the design concept before it was approved. We didn't sell! The buyers got upset and threatened us.
And the result was that the design was made illegal in the USA. US law OPA90 does not allow it. It has been discussed in Congress. I have testified there.
It seems that the POTUS GWB encouraged by Ms. Condoleezza Rice issued an executive order to this effect. Condi never liked me and I never liked her. Condi loved starting wars, while my companye Heiwa prefers peace. And here we are 20 years later. Me happy in sunny southern France, Condi unhappy in the San Francisco fog.
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Some de-classified documents about nuclear weapons:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb555-Bikini-A-Bomb-Test-1946-Turned-Ships-into-Radioactive-Stoves/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb575-Reagan-Nuclear-War-Briefing/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb574-Presidents-Daily-Brief-excerpts-on-Soviet-missile-and-space-programs/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB571-Nunn-Lugar-25th-Anniversary/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/
And many more here (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/index.html)
Yes, I know! Just fake propaganda though. A-bombs do not work so you need a lot of propaganda to the contratry to keep the show going.
But clearly not restricted, which was the point.
Don't you understand? US a-bombs are propaganda. They do not work since 1945! It is a big hoax. To make it appear that they work, US produces a lot of propaganda, which is made restricted info and then they threaten people to be punished by death to discuss it.
Yeah, that makes sense. Make propaganda restricted. This is exactly what propaganda is for.
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Some de-classified documents about nuclear weapons:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb555-Bikini-A-Bomb-Test-1946-Turned-Ships-into-Radioactive-Stoves/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb575-Reagan-Nuclear-War-Briefing/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb574-Presidents-Daily-Brief-excerpts-on-Soviet-missile-and-space-programs/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB571-Nunn-Lugar-25th-Anniversary/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/
And many more here (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/index.html)
Yes, I know! Just fake propaganda though. A-bombs do not work so you need a lot of propaganda to the contratry to keep the show going.
But clearly not restricted, which was the point.
Don't you understand? US a-bombs are propaganda. They do not work since 1945! It is a big hoax. To make it appear that they work, US produces a lot of propaganda, which is made restricted info and then they threaten people to be punished by death to discuss it.
Yeah, that makes sense. Make propaganda restricted. This is exactly what propaganda is for.
In this case extra tough! Death sentence if you argue.
-
Heiwa,
I would like to know if you disclosed your self-labeled "restricted data" with the intent to injure the United States?
Thanks.
Boots
Well, when I made my a-bomb webpage, I had no idea about the US law making it illegal and punished by death to publish it. It was only later a visitor of my site alerted me and my legal council has later confirmed the risks/findings.
US laws and legal processes are what they are.
Quit lying. Nobody believes you have restricted info. Nobody believes you have been sentenced to anything. And you DEFINITELY have not consulted legal council.
-
It seems communicating restricted data about US a-bombs, which I do at my website, is still punished by death. Tough US laws!
you'd have to first have restricted data. You don't.
IF you did, then why is your site hosted on a server in the US?
No, all of this is a fantasy made up by you to make you feel more important. You really took it hard when your hull design was rejected, didn't you?
The restricted data are defined by US laws
The only correct thing you've posted.
and it appears I publish it at my website as explained above.
Still a LIE from you. NONE of what you post is restrcted data.
It is correct that one of my ISPs is located in the USA. It was one that offered free web services 20 years ago, if it could put adverts on the pages. Today I pay $4.95 per month without ads. It works fine.
Either you deliberately missed the point or you are too thick to get it. IF you were worried about the penalties of publishing restricted data (which you haven't done) then it would completely stupid to post it on a site hosted in the US that could be easily and legally shut down. But it is just further proof you do NOT have any restricted data as nobody cares about the content of your site (beside you and your obsession over your paltry hit counts).
Re my hull (tanker) design I describe it
snip shameless self-promotion and obvious fantasy and nonsense
It is clear this event was important in your life and even more clear that you don't describe it accurately because it broke you mentally when you were rejected. More lies from Heiwa.
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Some de-classified documents about nuclear weapons:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb555-Bikini-A-Bomb-Test-1946-Turned-Ships-into-Radioactive-Stoves/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb575-Reagan-Nuclear-War-Briefing/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb574-Presidents-Daily-Brief-excerpts-on-Soviet-missile-and-space-programs/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB571-Nunn-Lugar-25th-Anniversary/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/
And many more here (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/index.html)
Yes, I know! Just fake propaganda though. A-bombs do not work so you need a lot of propaganda to the contratry to keep the show going.
But clearly not restricted, which was the point.
Don't you understand? US a-bombs are propaganda. They do not work since 1945! It is a big hoax. To make it appear that they work, US produces a lot of propaganda, which is made restricted info and then they threaten people to be punished by death to discuss it.
Yeah, that makes sense. Make propaganda restricted. This is exactly what propaganda is for.
In this case extra tough! Death sentence if you argue.
Deliberate misinterpretation of the law AGAIN. More lies from Heiwa.
Nobody believes you have restricted info and nobody believes you have consulted legal council.
-
So to be clear, this is the specific law to which you are referring? :
60 STAT .] 79TH CONG., 2D SESS .-CH. 724-AUG. 1, 1946
SEC. 10. (b) RESTRICTIONS-
(2) Whoever, lawfully or unlawfully, having possession of, access
to, control over, or being entrusted with, any document, writing,
sketch, photograph, plan, model, instrument, appliance, note or information
involving or incorporating restricted data-
(A) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, upon conviction
thereof, shall be punished by death or imprisonment for life
(but the penalty of death or imprisonment for life may be
imposed only upon recommendation of the jury and only in cases
where the offense was committed with intent to injure the United
States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or imprisonment for
not more than twenty years, or both ;
(B) communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any
individual or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the
foregoing, with reason to believe such data will be utilized to
injure the United States or to secure an advantage to any foreign
nation, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more
than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or
both .
(3) Whoever, with intent to injure the United States or with intent
to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, acquires or attempts or
conspires to acquire any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan,
model, instrument, appliance, note or information involving or incorporating
restricted data shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished
by death or imprisonment for life (but the penalty of death or imprisonment
for life may be imposed only upon recommendation of the
jury and only in cases where the offense was committed with intent to
injure the United States) ; or by a fine of not more than $20,000 or
imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both .
Yes. I think it is clearly indicated at my website, where I present restricted data about a-bombs. Note 'shall be punished by death', bla, bla, bla . The law is part of the US hoax, of course.
No. there is no restricted information on your website. You are a liar. No, you don't provide any evidence on your website nukes don't work. You're a liar. No, you are under threat of the death penalty in the us. You are a liar.
In short, you sir, are liar.
You are wrong. My website contains restricted data. USA is not happy about the fact that its nuclear arsenal is useless and does everything to hide the fact, incl. the threat of death penalty.
Why do you get so upset about it?
No, there is no restricted data there only the ramblings of a lunatic, that's not illegal. You are a liar.
Restricted data comes from specific classified documents, not from someone making wild unsupported claims such as yourself. No, you do not support your claims on your website, when you claim you do you are lying.
I'm not upset at all, I'm simply making the observation that you are a proven liar.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed. Reason is that all was fake from the start = a big hoax. Poor Niels Bohr could not explain anything when returning from USA/New Mexico and was ridiculed as a mass murder selling his knowledge to some crazy soldiers.
Evidently various info has then leaked out as part of the propaganda campaign, but it does not change the situation. Even the leaked info is restricted.
Why do you get so upset about the fact that a-bombs do not work?
You sound like the POTUS Donald Trump. He has just twittered about TORTURE! Donald thinks it works and is a good thing in the hands of the US military to question enemy soldiers, terrorists, civilians, anyone looking suspect. But there is no evidence that torture really works, e.g. when the suspect has no idea what the torturers talk about. Remember Guantanamo and GWB - 100's of detainees tortured for months = nobody being found guilty of anything. Only some female US soldiers seem to have enyoyed it. They were all queing to attend the torture sessions at Guantanamo.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed.
That is not what the law says. More LIES from Heiwa.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed.
That is not what the law says. More LIES from Heiwa.
I think you have not understood the law. Suggest you ask your legal council before accusing people of lying.
Anyway, have you any evidence (non-restricted info) that a nuclear bomb actually works? I know there are plenty articles of a-bombs being dropped in Japan but having visited the country I didn't find any real evidence. Of course plenty towns in Japan were burnt down by napalm carpet bombings and I assume also Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed that way. I describe it at my website.
I have not found any evidence (non-restricted info) how to set off an a-bomb! Leaked info talks about sub-critical masses of fissible material that are suddenly joined or compressed together with some free neutrons in between to become one critical mass that then just FLASHES!
It doesn't sound scientific!
Same with the Stalin bomb built 1945/9. Stalin apparently used uranium mined by Wismut AG of Saxony, DDR, but it appears that Wismut AG never mined any uranium that could become fissible and used in an a-bomb. The company used old abandoned silver mines and whatever they dug up there ... it wasn't uranium.
Wismut AG (a limited company) was owned by USSR and never produced any accounts and balance sheets. The employées were in the beginning not paid anything but later got some money from somewhere. It couldn't have been from Wismut AG because Stalin/USSR never paid anything for the uranium received. Or not received. It was just a propaganda show! I describe at my website.
Actually Stalin and FDR/Truman just invented the hoax together. To scare the shit out of us. I remember it clearly.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed.
That is not what the law says. More LIES from Heiwa.
I think you have not understood the law. Suggest you ask your legal council before accusing people of lying.
Take your own advice. It is clear you have NOT consulted legal council. I have talked to a lawyer about this and he LAUGHED at you. I can also read. You have not had access to restricted info.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed. Reason is that all was fake from the start = a big hoax. Poor Niels Bohr could not explain anything when returning from USA/New Mexico and was ridiculed as a mass murder selling his knowledge to some crazy soldiers.
Evidently various info has then leaked out as part of the propaganda campaign, but it does not change the situation. Even the leaked info is restricted.
Why do you get so upset about the fact that a-bombs do not work?
You sound like the POTUS Donald Trump. He has just twittered about TORTURE! Donald thinks it works and is a good thing in the hands of the US military to question enemy soldiers, terrorists, civilians, anyone looking suspect. But there is no evidence that torture really works, e.g. when the suspect has no idea what the torturers talk about. Remember Guantanamo and GWB - 100's of detainees tortured for months = nobody being found guilty of anything. Only some female US soldiers seem to have enyoyed it. They were all queing to attend the torture sessions at Guantanamo.
No, that is not what the law says. You are a liar. I'm not upset about anything, but specifically you have never shown any evidence at all that nukes don't work. Again you are simply lying.
I have asked you many many times to show your evidence, you have refused every single time. You have been asked by many others and you have refused. There is no evidence on your website, that's also a lie. We can only conclude that in fact, you have no evidence and you are either a bit crazy, or a liar.
-
We can only conclude that in fact, you have no evidence and you are either a bit crazy, or a liar.
I'm puzzled by your use of the word 'or' there.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed. Reason is that all was fake from the start = a big hoax. Poor Niels Bohr could not explain anything when returning from USA/New Mexico and was ridiculed as a mass murder selling his knowledge to some crazy soldiers.
Evidently various info has then leaked out as part of the propaganda campaign, but it does not change the situation. Even the leaked info is restricted.
Why do you get so upset about the fact that a-bombs do not work?
You sound like the POTUS Donald Trump. He has just twittered about TORTURE! Donald thinks it works and is a good thing in the hands of the US military to question enemy soldiers, terrorists, civilians, anyone looking suspect. But there is no evidence that torture really works, e.g. when the suspect has no idea what the torturers talk about. Remember Guantanamo and GWB - 100's of detainees tortured for months = nobody being found guilty of anything. Only some female US soldiers seem to have enyoyed it. They were all queing to attend the torture sessions at Guantanamo.
No, that is not what the law says. You are a liar. I'm not upset about anything, but specifically you have never shown any evidence at all that nukes don't work. Again you are simply lying.
I have asked you many many times to show your evidence, you have refused every single time. You have been asked by many others and you have refused. There is no evidence on your website, that's also a lie. We can only conclude that in fact, you have no evidence and you are either a bit crazy, or a liar.
It seems we have different opinions about US laws. If you are right I don't have to worry about being sentenced to death for publishing restricted information. Thanks. But what about all detainées at Guantanamo not being tried for anything after years of torture, etc.
Re my website I present plenty info to the effect that nuclear weapons (US, Russian, French, UK, etc, etc) are fake. People belive the opposite because Main Stream Media, MSM, regularly trumpets that there are plenty a-bombs around, that they work and are ready to be used. Evidently there is no evidence for it. MSM just publishes Fake News or what you call it.
So I invite anyone to copy/paste what she/he considers wrong at my website and the result is zero!
To encourage people to show that I am wrong, I offer a Challenge with a €1M prize. The result is again zero!
Noone wants to collect my prize.
Explain that! Don't call me a liar, crazy and a fraud. Try to grow up! Prove your beliefs. If a-bombs work, you must possess evidence for it. Where are they?
I assume you have none.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed.
Can you please cite the specific law which states this?
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed.
Can you please cite the specific law which states this?
See post #2292 and http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
-
We can only conclude that in fact, you have no evidence and you are either a bit crazy, or a liar.
I'm puzzled by your use of the word 'or' there.
While they are not mutually exclusive I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed. Reason is that all was fake from the start = a big hoax. Poor Niels Bohr could not explain anything when returning from USA/New Mexico and was ridiculed as a mass murder selling his knowledge to some crazy soldiers.
Evidently various info has then leaked out as part of the propaganda campaign, but it does not change the situation. Even the leaked info is restricted.
Why do you get so upset about the fact that a-bombs do not work?
You sound like the POTUS Donald Trump. He has just twittered about TORTURE! Donald thinks it works and is a good thing in the hands of the US military to question enemy soldiers, terrorists, civilians, anyone looking suspect. But there is no evidence that torture really works, e.g. when the suspect has no idea what the torturers talk about. Remember Guantanamo and GWB - 100's of detainees tortured for months = nobody being found guilty of anything. Only some female US soldiers seem to have enyoyed it. They were all queing to attend the torture sessions at Guantanamo.
No, that is not what the law says. You are a liar. I'm not upset about anything, but specifically you have never shown any evidence at all that nukes don't work. Again you are simply lying.
I have asked you many many times to show your evidence, you have refused every single time. You have been asked by many others and you have refused. There is no evidence on your website, that's also a lie. We can only conclude that in fact, you have no evidence and you are either a bit crazy, or a liar.
It seems we have different opinions about US laws. If you are right I don't have to worry about being sentenced to death for publishing restricted information. Thanks. But what about all detainées at Guantanamo not being tried for anything after years of torture, etc.
Re my website I present plenty info to the effect that nuclear weapons (US, Russian, French, UK, etc, etc) are fake. People belive the opposite because Main Stream Media, MSM, regularly trumpets that there are plenty a-bombs around, that they work and are ready to be used. Evidently there is no evidence for it. MSM just publishes Fake News or what you call it.
So I invite anyone to copy/paste what she/he considers wrong at my website and the result is zero!
To encourage people to show that I am wrong, I offer a Challenge with a €1M prize. The result is again zero!
Noone wants to collect my prize.
Explain that! Don't call me a liar, crazy and a fraud. Try to grow up! Prove your beliefs. If a-bombs work, you must possess evidence for it. Where are they?
I assume you have none.
Not sure what gitmo has to do with anything. I called you a liar because you claim to be under a death sentence, that's a lie. I called you a liar because you claim to have restricted material on your website, that's a lie. I called you a liar because you claim to show evidence on your website that nukes don't work and it's all propaganda. There is no such evidence, that's a lie.
Now if you would care to support any of these claims you make with actual facts and evidence I will gladly apologize.
All you have to do is copy and paste the actual evidence from your website to this thread. Should be easy for you. Just any section at all with actual proof of any of the things you claimed that I called a lie.
Or accept the fact that you are indeed a liar. Or, you know delusional, or both.
-
You must read the law. All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted from the beginning 1945. Nothing could be discussed.
Can you please cite the specific law which states this?
See post #2292 and http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Nothing but links to your website again. I have already posted the referenced laws right in this thread. Those laws prohibit disclosure of restricted information.
I want to see where restricted information is defined as "All info about US nuclear weapons."
You're the one making that claim. You must be basing it on something. Can you please provide the law defining restricted information as "All info about US nuclear weapons?"
-
I want to see where restricted information is defined as "All info about US nuclear weapons."
You're the one making that claim. You must be basing it on something. Can you please provide the law defining restricted information as "All info about US nuclear weapons?"
You really should consult your legal council. IMO the law is clear. Everything about US nuclear weapons became restricted information 1946 and, if anything has become non-restricted later is beyond me. Reason is of course that everything was just pseudoscience nonsense invented by Oppenheimer, Bohr & Co 1942/5.
-
I want to see where restricted information is defined as "All info about US nuclear weapons."
You're the one making that claim. You must be basing it on something. Can you please provide the law defining restricted information as "All info about US nuclear weapons?"
You really should consult your legal council. IMO the law is clear. Everything about US nuclear weapons became restricted information 1946 and, if anything has become non-restricted later is beyond me. Reason is of course that everything was just pseudoscience nonsense invented by Oppenheimer, Bohr & Co 1942/5.
Take your own advice. It is abundantly clear you have not.
-
Hm, all information about US a-bombs are restricted data.
Some de-classified documents about nuclear weapons:
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb555-Bikini-A-Bomb-Test-1946-Turned-Ships-into-Radioactive-Stoves/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb575-Reagan-Nuclear-War-Briefing/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb574-Presidents-Daily-Brief-excerpts-on-Soviet-missile-and-space-programs/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB571-Nunn-Lugar-25th-Anniversary/
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb541-Nukes-on-Okinawa-Declassified-2016/
And many more here (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/index.html)
Yes, I know! Just fake propaganda though. A-bombs do not work so you need a lot of propaganda to the contratry to keep the show going.
But clearly not restricted, which was the point.
Don't you understand? US a-bombs are propaganda. They do not work since 1945! It is a big hoax. To make it appear that they work, US produces a lot of propaganda, which is made restricted info and then they threaten people to be punished by death to discuss it.
Yeah, that makes sense. Make propaganda restricted. This is exactly what propaganda is for.
In this case extra tough! Death sentence if you argue.
No. Death sentence if you intend harm against the USA. Do you intend harm against the USA?
-
I want to see where restricted information is defined as "All info about US nuclear weapons."
You're the one making that claim. You must be basing it on something. Can you please provide the law defining restricted information as "All info about US nuclear weapons?"
You really should consult your legal council. IMO the law is clear. Everything about US nuclear weapons became restricted information 1946 and, if anything has become non-restricted later is beyond me. Reason is of course that everything was just pseudoscience nonsense invented by Oppenheimer, Bohr & Co 1942/5.
So to be clear you are claiming that restricted information is defined as "All info about US nuclear weapons" on the basis that " You really should consult your legal council?"
That is ludicrous. I don't care what your opinion is. Where is the law that backs your claim? Where did you get this idea in the first place? Let's have a look at it.
And yes plenty of information has become non-restricted since 1946.
-
I want to see where restricted information is defined as "All info about US nuclear weapons."
You're the one making that claim. You must be basing it on something. Can you please provide the law defining restricted information as "All info about US nuclear weapons?"
You really should consult your legal council. IMO the law is clear. Everything about US nuclear weapons became restricted information 1946 and, if anything has become non-restricted later is beyond me. Reason is of course that everything was just pseudoscience nonsense invented by Oppenheimer, Bohr & Co 1942/5.
Secrete information includes stuff made easily available?
So the people that released the information you use and attempt to debunk on your website are guilty to?
Book publishers and authors
People working at universities teaching physics.
People who have made educational programs on the subject.
People who created websites which I imagine you got most of your information from.
People working for the US government who makes the information readily available as part of their job.
Did they all receive the death sentence just like you?
You really need to take a pause and rethink some of your claims. Like a captain allowing you to try to get the visor and ramp to fail with passengers on board in hurricane conditions.
Your lies need to be more plausible. Maybe something like you have been harassed by agents from the US trying to intimidate you into silence.
-
Wikipedia is done for.
-
I want to see where restricted information is defined as "All info about US nuclear weapons."
You're the one making that claim. You must be basing it on something. Can you please provide the law defining restricted information as "All info about US nuclear weapons?"
You really should consult your legal council. IMO the law is clear. Everything about US nuclear weapons became restricted information 1946 and, if anything has become non-restricted later is beyond me. Reason is of course that everything was just pseudoscience nonsense invented by Oppenheimer, Bohr & Co 1942/5.
So to be clear you are claiming that restricted information is defined as "All info about US nuclear weapons" on the basis that " You really should consult your legal council?"
That is ludicrous. I don't care what your opinion is. Where is the law that backs your claim? Where did you get this idea in the first place? Let's have a look at it.
And yes plenty of information has become non-restricted since 1946.
The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. See http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA
As far as I am concerned the Commission has not allowed any data how nuclear weapons are manufactured and triggered to be published. All is secret. In particular the fact that the all nuclear weapons are not working as described my me.
-
The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. See http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA
Can you provide the actual source for that? If your website is the source it has no credibility whatsoever. I want to know how the US government was/is defining "restricted data."
-
The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. See http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA
Can you provide the actual source for that? If your website is the source it has no credibility whatsoever. I want to know how the US government was/is defining "restricted data."
?? Just read the Law that I quote. Link to the Law is above - the quote is : The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security
-
The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. See http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA
Can you provide the actual source for that? If your website is the source it has no credibility whatsoever. I want to know how the US government was/is defining "restricted data."
?? Just read the Law that I quote. Link to the Law is above - the quote is : The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security
Absolutely not. Source it or quit making the claim!
-
The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. See http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA
Can you provide the actual source for that? If your website is the source it has no credibility whatsoever. I want to know how the US government was/is defining "restricted data."
?? Just read the Law that I quote. Link to the Law is above - the quote is : The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security
Absolutely not. Source it or quit making the claim!
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
-
The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. See http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA
Can you provide the actual source for that? If your website is the source it has no credibility whatsoever. I want to know how the US government was/is defining "restricted data."
?? Just read the Law that I quote. Link to the Law is above - the quote is : The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security
Absolutely not. Source it or quit making the claim!
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
No where in that law does it say restricted data refers to all information about nuclear weapons. Is this yet another lie by you?
-
The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. See http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA
Can you provide the actual source for that? If your website is the source it has no credibility whatsoever. I want to know how the US government was/is defining "restricted data."
?? Just read the Law that I quote. Link to the Law is above - the quote is : The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security
So tell us Anders, just what "data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power" have you published on your web site?
-
The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security. See http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA
Can you provide the actual source for that? If your website is the source it has no credibility whatsoever. I want to know how the US government was/is defining "restricted data."
?? Just read the Law that I quote. Link to the Law is above - the quote is : The term “restricted data” as used in the Law means all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security
So tell us Anders, just what "data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material or the use of fissionable material in the production of power" have you published on your web site?
Plus it goes on to mention the addition of intent to harm the US. But Heiwa just conveniently ignores that part.
-
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
"but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security"
This section would seem to be pretty crucial to your claim as well. Which of your data, which are substantiated, have not been published by the commission? None of the science would be restricted anyway, since it can be derived from first principles. It would only be engineering and logistics which would be restricted.
-
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
"but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security"
This section would seem to be pretty crucial to your claim as well. Which of your data, which are substantiated, have not been published by the commission? None of the science would be restricted anyway, since it can be derived from first principles. It would only be engineering and logistics which would be restricted.
That part must magically not apply to Heiwa. Supposedly he's consulted legal council on this. Anybody actually believe he's consulted anything more than a magic 8 ball?
-
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
"but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security"
This section would seem to be pretty crucial to your claim as well. Which of your data, which are substantiated, have not been published by the commission? None of the science would be restricted anyway, since it can be derived from first principles. It would only be engineering and logistics which would be restricted.
Yes - all data about nuclear weapons is restricted, as I say at my website, except any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
So all data about nuclear weapons is restricted 2017 and punished by death, if made public.
So is the LAW! Don't blame me! I didn't write it.
Anyway, Nuclear weapons are useless as they do not work.
But let's agree - the LAW is a joke! Reason being it is part of the hoax I describe.
-
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
"but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security"
This section would seem to be pretty crucial to your claim as well. Which of your data, which are substantiated, have not been published by the commission? None of the science would be restricted anyway, since it can be derived from first principles. It would only be engineering and logistics which would be restricted.
Yes - all data about nuclear weapons is restricted, as I say at my website, except any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
So all data about nuclear weapons is restricted 2017 and punished by death, if made public.
So is the LAW! Don't blame me! I didn't write it.
Anyway, Nuclear weapons are useless as they do not work.
But let's agree - the LAW is a joke! Reason being it is part of the hoax I describe.
As far as you're concerned? You haven't actually checked? I'd bet that this is the first time you've read the part quoted. You likely stopped before at the part stating "data is restricted" and never bothered to read further or put any critical thought into it at all. Thank you for proving this is nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion and you have NOT consulted legal council. More lies from Heiwa.
-
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
"but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security"
This section would seem to be pretty crucial to your claim as well. Which of your data, which are substantiated, have not been published by the commission? None of the science would be restricted anyway, since it can be derived from first principles. It would only be engineering and logistics which would be restricted.
Yes - all data about nuclear weapons is restricted, as I say at my website, except any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
So all data about nuclear weapons is restricted 2017 and punished by death, if made public.
So is the LAW! Don't blame me! I didn't write it.
Anyway, Nuclear weapons are useless as they do not work.
But let's agree - the LAW is a joke! Reason being it is part of the hoax I describe.
As far as you're concerned? You haven't actually checked? I'd bet that this is the first time you've read the part quoted. You likely stopped before at the part stating "data is restricted" and never bothered to read further or put any critical thought into it at all. Thank you for proving this is nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion and you have NOT consulted legal council. More lies from Heiwa.
Sorry you are WRONG. Please try to post something intelligent. But first consult your doctor. I think you suffer from cognivite someting shit. It happens.
-
Yes - all data about nuclear weapons is restricted, as I say at my website, except any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
That is because you are too lazy to look. In less than time than it has taken to type this sentence, I found a document detailing all acts of declassification taken:
https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html
So all data about nuclear weapons is restricted 2017 and punished by death, if made public.
Demonstrably false. You suck.
So is the LAW! Don't blame me! I didn't write it.
Why would I blame you. You are unimportant to me outside of this thread.
Anyway, Nuclear weapons are useless as they do not work.
Incorrect.
But let's agree - the LAW is a joke! Reason being it is part of the hoax I describe.
I disagree.
-
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
"but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security"
This section would seem to be pretty crucial to your claim as well. Which of your data, which are substantiated, have not been published by the commission? None of the science would be restricted anyway, since it can be derived from first principles. It would only be engineering and logistics which would be restricted.
Yes - all data about nuclear weapons is restricted, as I say at my website, except any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
So all data about nuclear weapons is restricted 2017 and punished by death, if made public.
So is the LAW! Don't blame me! I didn't write it.
Anyway, Nuclear weapons are useless as they do not work.
But let's agree - the LAW is a joke! Reason being it is part of the hoax I describe.
Apparent you didn't read it either because that's not what it says.
-
You find the law that I quote at:
https://science.energy.gov/~/media/bes/pdf/Atomic_Energy_Act_of_1946.pdf
Look at Section 10 (b) (1)
"but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security"
This section would seem to be pretty crucial to your claim as well. Which of your data, which are substantiated, have not been published by the commission? None of the science would be restricted anyway, since it can be derived from first principles. It would only be engineering and logistics which would be restricted.
Yes - all data about nuclear weapons is restricted, as I say at my website, except any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
So all data about nuclear weapons is restricted 2017 and punished by death, if made public.
So is the LAW! Don't blame me! I didn't write it.
Anyway, Nuclear weapons are useless as they do not work.
But let's agree - the LAW is a joke! Reason being it is part of the hoax I describe.
As far as you're concerned? You haven't actually checked? I'd bet that this is the first time you've read the part quoted. You likely stopped before at the part stating "data is restricted" and never bothered to read further or put any critical thought into it at all. Thank you for proving this is nothing but your unsubstantiated opinion and you have NOT consulted legal council. More lies from Heiwa.
Sorry you are WRONG. Please try to post something intelligent. But first consult your doctor. I think you suffer from cognivite someting shit. It happens.
Typical Heiwa response. Can't address the content so attack the poster. Yet more proof he hasn't actually read the section in question or consulted legal council. More LIES from Heiwa.
-
Heiwa,
Could you please post one piece of information that is restricted data "as far as you're concerned?" I know you want to say all of it and it's on your website but I am not interested in "all of it" or your website. Just post the most likely to be considered restricted data by the US government. Let's have a look at it.
Thanks.
Boots
-
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
Why should anyone care about "as far as you're concerned"? It's a matter of what you can prove.
-
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
Why should anyone care about "as far as you're concerned"? It's a matter of what you can prove.
Exactly. So we're back to the fact that he's never had access to restricted data and he's never had a trial (nor will he because he doesn't have restricted data so nobody cares) so he's never had a death sentence. So his continued mentioning of it is just to make himself look more important. He's an attention whore which is why he keeps plugging his website.
-
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
Why should anyone care about "as far as you're concerned"? It's a matter of what you can prove.
Exactly. So we're back to the fact that he's never had access to restricted data and he's never had a trial (nor will he because he doesn't have restricted data so nobody cares) so he's never had a death sentence. So his continued mentioning of it is just to make himself look more important. He's an attention whore which is why he keeps plugging his website.
Read the LAW again! Everything about nuclear weapons and peaceful nuclear power plants was restricted data from start say 1946. All was secret. Evidently, when peaceful nuclear power plants became popular a little later, there was no need to keep that data secret, so it is publicly available. But not so the nuclear weapons data. All remains restricted today, 2017!
There is a big difference between a nuclear power plant with 80 0000 - 100 000 kilograms of nuclear fuel inside, that is slowly transformed into pure energy, than a nuclear weapon with 20 - 60 kilograms of nuclear fuel, that becomes a FLASH in nanoseconds. The latter is just a hoax! Doesn't work! So it must be kept restricted!
Prove that I am wrong and win €1M in any of my Challenges.
-
Read the LAW again.
It relates to causing injury to the United States. There is a difference between revealing information about how the USA constructed specific weapons and discussing how such weapons work. You are applying specifics as a generality and it doesn't work.
You've also cherrypicked the bits you agree with in terms of nuclear power. The paragraph directly before the one you're so fond of says this:
That the dissemination of scientific and technical information relating to atomic energy should be permitted and encouraged so as to provide that free interchange of ideas and criticisms which is essential to scientific progress
-
Heiwa,
Would you like to take a moment here to assure us you're not a chat bot?
It's just that some of your posts don't feel quite right.
-
Heiwa,
Could you please post one piece of information that is restricted data "as far as you're concerned?" I know you want to say all of it and it's on your website but I am not interested in "all of it" or your website. Just post what you consider to be the most likely to be restricted data. Let's have a look at it.
Thanks.
Boots
-
Heiwa,
Would you like to take a moment here to assure us you're not a chat bot?
It's just that some of your posts don't feel quite right.
What is a chat bot? My website about safety at sea exists since at least 2000 and is quite popular. Mainstream media spread plenty Fake News about it and I try to enlighten the public the real situation.
I have added some pages about nuclear weapons/energy, human space travel and 911 later for same reason. Mainstream media just publish false info as Fake News about these topics. People then gets upset about what I publish. These people suffer from cognitive disonance, IMHO.
Re my posts here, I just copy/paste what I publish at my website.
-
Heiwa,
Could you please post one piece of information that is restricted data "as far as you're concerned?" I know you want to say all of it and it's on your website but I am not interested in "all of it" or your website. Just post what you consider to be the most likely to be restricted data. Let's have a look at it.
Thanks.
Boots
OK - how to trigger an a-bomb and the sudden fission that then starts and finally ends in a FLASH appear to be restricted data. I would expect such fission would just melt and destroy any fuel making the bomb useless.
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant. There is no restricted data about nuclear power plants fission.
Any other fission is restricted data, because it is military, secret nonsense.
-
Heiwa,
Would you like to take a moment here to assure us you're not a chat bot?
It's just that some of your posts don't feel quite right.
What is a chat bot? My website about safety at sea exists since at least 2000 and is quite popular. Mainstream media spread plenty Fake News about it and I try to enlighten the public the real situation.
I have added some pages about nuclear weapons/energy, human space travel and 911 later for same reason. Mainstream media just publish false info as Fake News about these topics. People then gets upset about what I publish. These people suffer from cognitive disonance, IMHO.
Re my posts here, I just copy/paste what I publish at my website.
A chatbot is a crude ai that can be used to annoy people on a forum. They're not too hard to pick out. When you see very repetitive responses that don't actually address the question. Sprinkled about with a generous amount of superfluous information. No offense, but it describes you very well.
Would you like to see if you can pass a turing test?
-
Heiwa,
Would you like to take a moment here to assure us you're not a chat bot?
It's just that some of your posts don't feel quite right.
What is a chat bot? My website about safety at sea exists since at least 2000 and is quite popular. Mainstream media spread plenty Fake News about it and I try to enlighten the public the real situation.
I have added some pages about nuclear weapons/energy, human space travel and 911 later for same reason. Mainstream media just publish false info as Fake News about these topics. People then gets upset about what I publish. These people suffer from cognitive disonance, IMHO.
Re my posts here, I just copy/paste what I publish at my website.
A chatbot is a crude ai that can be used to annoy people on a forum. They're not too hard to pick out. When you see very repetitive responses that don't actually address the question. Sprinkled about with a generous amount of superfluous information. No offense, but it describes you very well.
Would you like to see if you can pass a turing test?
Well, if anyone poses a question to me, I provide one answer, which I consider correct, if I feel like it. I often link to my website to save space. If other people ask the same question, I repeat the same answer. Sometimes I add information to enlighten the person asking the question, particularly stupid ones. Sometimes questions are posed about things I have never said anything and then I have to say so. I try to be polite but I love satire and irony.
What would be the purpose of me passing a turing test? I remember being IQ tested 1964 for military duty! My IQ was then 200, which must have surprised the authorities. How on earth could I be so smart? Easy, the tests were evaluated by young, female psychology students hired by the military for the job. The girls were supposed to be secret about it, but ... I got to know all the answers beforehand. Guess how!
-
OK - how to trigger an a-bomb and the sudden fission that then starts and finally ends in a FLASH appear to be restricted data. I would expect such fission would just melt and destroy any fuel making the bomb useless.
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant. There is no restricted data about nuclear power plants fission.
Any other fission is restricted data, because it is military, secret nonsense.
So does this quote contain restricted data in your opinion?
-
Heiwa,
Would you like to take a moment here to assure us you're not a chat bot?
It's just that some of your posts don't feel quite right.
What is a chat bot? My website about safety at sea exists since at least 2000 and is quite popular. Mainstream media spread plenty Fake News about it and I try to enlighten the public the real situation.
I have added some pages about nuclear weapons/energy, human space travel and 911 later for same reason. Mainstream media just publish false info as Fake News about these topics. People then gets upset about what I publish. These people suffer from cognitive disonance, IMHO.
Re my posts here, I just copy/paste what I publish at my website.
A chatbot is a crude ai that can be used to annoy people on a forum. They're not too hard to pick out. When you see very repetitive responses that don't actually address the question. Sprinkled about with a generous amount of superfluous information. No offense, but it describes you very well.
Would you like to see if you can pass a turing test?
Well, if anyone poses a question to me, I provide one answer, which I consider correct, if I feel like it. I often link to my website to save space. If other people ask the same question, I repeat the same answer. Sometimes I add information to enlighten the person asking the question, particularly stupid ones. Sometimes questions are posed about things I have never said anything and then I have to say so. I try to be polite but I love satire and irony.
What would be the purpose of me passing a turing test? I remember being IQ tested 1964 for military duty! My IQ was then 200, which must have surprised the authorities. How on earth could I be so smart? Easy, the tests were evaluated by young, female psychology students hired by the military for the job. The girls were supposed to be secret about it, but ... I got to know all the answers beforehand. Guess how!
So your entire life is founded on a lie.
-
OK - how to trigger an a-bomb and the sudden fission that then starts and finally ends in a FLASH appear to be restricted data. I would expect such fission would just melt and destroy any fuel making the bomb useless.
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant. There is no restricted data about nuclear power plants fission.
Any other fission is restricted data, because it is military, secret nonsense.
So does this quote contain restricted data in your opinion?
Yes! All military, secret data about their destructive nuclear weapons is restricted. Punishable by death, when discussed. Just read the LAW.
-
Heiwa,
Would you like to take a moment here to assure us you're not a chat bot?
It's just that some of your posts don't feel quite right.
What is a chat bot? My website about safety at sea exists since at least 2000 and is quite popular. Mainstream media spread plenty Fake News about it and I try to enlighten the public the real situation.
I have added some pages about nuclear weapons/energy, human space travel and 911 later for same reason. Mainstream media just publish false info as Fake News about these topics. People then gets upset about what I publish. These people suffer from cognitive disonance, IMHO.
Re my posts here, I just copy/paste what I publish at my website.
A chatbot is a crude ai that can be used to annoy people on a forum. They're not too hard to pick out. When you see very repetitive responses that don't actually address the question. Sprinkled about with a generous amount of superfluous information. No offense, but it describes you very well.
Would you like to see if you can pass a turing test?
Well, if anyone poses a question to me, I provide one answer, which I consider correct, if I feel like it. I often link to my website to save space. If other people ask the same question, I repeat the same answer. Sometimes I add information to enlighten the person asking the question, particularly stupid ones. Sometimes questions are posed about things I have never said anything and then I have to say so. I try to be polite but I love satire and irony.
What would be the purpose of me passing a turing test? I remember being IQ tested 1964 for military duty! My IQ was then 200, which must have surprised the authorities. How on earth could I be so smart? Easy, the tests were evaluated by young, female psychology students hired by the military for the job. The girls were supposed to be secret about it, but ... I got to know all the answers beforehand. Guess how!
So your entire life is founded on a lie.
No. Why do you say so?
Actually, my life is founded on Truth. Truth about a-bombs, ships sinking, clowns in space (Buzz LOL), Arabs landing planes on the roof of skyscrapers, etc, etc.
Re my military career 1965/70 I evidently informed the military HR people later that there was a defect in their IQ test program.
-
OK - how to trigger an a-bomb and the sudden fission that then starts and finally ends in a FLASH appear to be restricted data. I would expect such fission would just melt and destroy any fuel making the bomb useless.
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant. There is no restricted data about nuclear power plants fission.
Any other fission is restricted data, because it is military, secret nonsense.
So does this quote contain restricted data in your opinion?
Yes! All military, secret data about their destructive nuclear weapons is restricted. Punishable by death, when discussed. Just read the LAW.
Thanks. That's all I need to know for now.
-
OK - how to trigger an a-bomb and the sudden fission that then starts and finally ends in a FLASH appear to be restricted data. I would expect such fission would just melt and destroy any fuel making the bomb useless.
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant. There is no restricted data about nuclear power plants fission.
Any other fission is restricted data, because it is military, secret nonsense.
So does this quote contain restricted data in your opinion?
Yes! All military, secret data about their destructive nuclear weapons is restricted. Punishable by death, when discussed. Just read the LAW.
Thanks. That's all I need to know for now.
No problem. If you need more info, just ask.
-
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant.
Your understanding of fission is incomplete.
There is no restricted data about nuclear power plants fission.
Oh? How would you know that? Do you have access to nuclear power plant blueprints?
Any other fission is restricted data, because it is military, secret nonsense.
How can you know that the data is nonsense if it's restricted and you don't have access to it?
-
As far as I am concerned the Commission has never permitted any data about nuclear weapons to be published.
Why should anyone care about "as far as you're concerned"? It's a matter of what you can prove.
Exactly. So we're back to the fact that he's never had access to restricted data and he's never had a trial (nor will he because he doesn't have restricted data so nobody cares) so he's never had a death sentence. So his continued mentioning of it is just to make himself look more important. He's an attention whore which is why he keeps plugging his website.
Read the LAW again!
You first. And while you're at it, consult that legal council you're so fond of telling everyone else to do because you clearly have not done so yourself.
I'll bet you won't though. I bet you like the idea (that you've concocted) that you are sentenced to death for your opinions because it makes you look important.
-
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant.
Your understanding of fission is incomplete.
No, I describe fission here and at my website. There is only one type of fission. It is the one taking place in nuclear power plants under moderated conditions releasing pure energy. In a typical power plant 100 tons of nuclear fuel (uranium oxide) is slowly transformed into heat by neutrons splitting atoms. That fission was discovered 1938.
The other type of fission, the one taking place in an a-bomb is not possible, i.e. 10-60 kilograms of metal uranium/plutonium being transformed into a FLASH that last nanoseconds. That fission was invented 1942/5 to scare you.
Plenty brainwashed people believe in the latter type of fission.
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
-
OK - how to trigger an a-bomb and the sudden fission that then starts and finally ends in a FLASH appear to be restricted data. I would expect such fission would just melt and destroy any fuel making the bomb useless.
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant. There is no restricted data about nuclear power plants fission.
Any other fission is restricted data, because it is military, secret nonsense.
So does this quote contain restricted data in your opinion?
Yes! All military, secret data about their destructive nuclear weapons is restricted. Punishable by death, when discussed. Just read the LAW.
But this neither military nor secret. Furthermore you have never actually supported your theory with actual evidence, not here nor on your website.
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
-
OK - how to trigger an a-bomb and the sudden fission that then starts and finally ends in a FLASH appear to be restricted data. I would expect such fission would just melt and destroy any fuel making the bomb useless.
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant. There is no restricted data about nuclear power plants fission.
Any other fission is restricted data, because it is military, secret nonsense.
So does this quote contain restricted data in your opinion?
Yes! All military, secret data about their destructive nuclear weapons is restricted. Punishable by death, when discussed. Just read the LAW.
But this neither military nor secret. Furthermore you have never actually supported your theory with actual evidence, not here nor on your website.
?? Everything about US a-bombs is secret ... by LAW! Of course there is info or propaganda that by compressing solid uranium/plutonium metal to double density, bla, bla, bla, ... there will be a FLASH but it is nonsense.
I think I describe it very well at http://heiwaco.com/bomb .
Just copy/paste what I write and explain what you think is wrong and we can discuss.
-
?? Everything about US a-bombs is secret ... by LAW!
You obviously did not read the document that lists every declassification of a-bomb information by the AEC since 1946. This might be why people think you are a crank. You jump to demonstrably false conclusions.
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
No reply because of the bold. And you didn't answer the question. And I doubt you have any proof he is paid to "support US propaganda".
-
?? Everything about US a-bombs is secret ... by LAW!
That is a LIE as already shown. More LIES from Heiwa.
-
My understanding of fission is that moderated neutrons split atoms, which can only take place, in e.g. a nuclear power plant.
Your understanding of fission is incomplete.
No, I describe fission here and at my website. There is only one type of fission. It is the one taking place in nuclear power plants under moderated conditions releasing pure energy.
Then how do you explain the fast neutron breeder reactors that I keep pointing out to you?
-
?? Everything about US a-bombs is secret ... by LAW!
You obviously did not read the document that lists every declassification of a-bomb information by the AEC since 1946. This might be why people think you are a crank. You jump to demonstrably false conclusions.
Evidently some restricted data of no military value has been declassified since 1946 - e.g.https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html but nothing about how an a-bomb is designed and ... how to start it.
There is no data about how a 'critical' mass of metal uranium will suddenly become a FLASH of energy, etc, etc.
-
?? Everything about US a-bombs is secret ... by LAW!
You obviously did not read the document that lists every declassification of a-bomb information by the AEC since 1946. This might be why people think you are a crank. You jump to demonstrably false conclusions.
Evidently some restricted data of no military value has been declassified since 1946 - e.g.https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html but nothing about how an a-bomb is designed and ... how to start it.
Well that is different than your original claim. So I guess moving the goalposts is as close as you will get to the admission you are wrong.
There is no data about how a 'critical' mass of metal uranium will suddenly become a FLASH of energy, etc, etc.
That is contained in the equations of QM. Go study them!
-
?? Everything about US a-bombs is secret ... by LAW!
You obviously did not read the document that lists every declassification of a-bomb information by the AEC since 1946. This might be why people think you are a crank. You jump to demonstrably false conclusions.
Evidently some restricted data of no military value has been declassified since 1946 - e.g.https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html but nothing about how an a-bomb is designed and ... how to start it.
Well that is different than your original claim. So I guess moving the goalposts is as close as you will get to the admission you are wrong.
There is no data about how a 'critical' mass of metal uranium will suddenly become a FLASH of energy, etc, etc.
That is contained in the equations of QM. Go study them!
Sorry. Everything of interest about a-bombs is restricted data according to US law and punished by death if discussed openly since 1946. Everything is still secret and classified 2017. Reason is of course that if it were not done, terrorists could just copy it.
Under such circumstances it is easy to fake everything. I describe it at my website ... and why a-bombs cannot explode. Fission doesn't work like that.
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
You mean just how people ask you to prove what you say and dodge and weave and never do? And before you say it, no you don't prove it on your website.
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
You mean just how people ask you to prove what you say and dodge and weave and never do? And before you say it, no you don't prove it on your website.
One difficulty to show that US a-bombs are fake is clearly that (a) all is restricted (secret) data since 1946 and (b) you are punished by death in US poking into it 2017. The purpose is to scare people into acceptance of the hoax.
I think I describe it quite well at my website. I pay €1M to show I am wrong. Isn't it generous?
-
?? Everything about US a-bombs is secret ... by LAW!
You obviously did not read the document that lists every declassification of a-bomb information by the AEC since 1946. This might be why people think you are a crank. You jump to demonstrably false conclusions.
Evidently some restricted data of no military value has been declassified since 1946 - e.g.https://fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/rdd-7.html but nothing about how an a-bomb is designed and ... how to start it.
Well that is different than your original claim. So I guess moving the goalposts is as close as you will get to the admission you are wrong.
There is no data about how a 'critical' mass of metal uranium will suddenly become a FLASH of energy, etc, etc.
That is contained in the equations of QM. Go study them!
Sorry. Everything of interest about a-bombs is restricted data according to US law and punished by death if discussed openly since 1946. Everything is still secret and classified 2017. Reason is of course that if it were not done, terrorists could just copy it.
I am so glad you understand the intent of the law.
Under such circumstances it is easy to fake everything. I describe it at my website ... and why a-bombs cannot explode. Fission doesn't work like that.
Yawn.
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
You mean just how people ask you to prove what you say and dodge and weave and never do? And before you say it, no you don't prove it on your website.
One difficulty to show that US a-bombs are fake is clearly that (a) all is restricted (secret) data since 1946 and (b) you are punished by death in US poking into it 2017. The purpose is to scare people into acceptance of the hoax.
I think I describe it quite well at my website. I pay €1M to show I am wrong. Isn't it generous?
It's difficult to prove you evidence wrong when you never give any. Copy and paste any actual scientific evidence you have here so we can see it. Just a bit.
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
You mean just how people ask you to prove what you say and dodge and weave and never do? And before you say it, no you don't prove it on your website.
One difficulty to show that US a-bombs are fake is clearly that (a) all is restricted (secret) data since 1946 and (b) you are punished by death in US poking into it 2017. The purpose is to scare people into acceptance of the hoax.
I think I describe it quite well at my website. I pay €1M to show I am wrong. Isn't it generous?
It's difficult to prove you evidence wrong when you never give any. Copy and paste any actual scientific evidence you have here so we can see it. Just a bit.
There are plenty information and evidence that a-bombs do not work at my website, so you better study it there. As everything essential about US a-bombs is secret, restricted data by law punished by death, if made public and discussed, it is ridiculous to ask for evidence of any kind.
However, secrecy doesn't mean that the info isn't available. Secrecy is an invitation to spies, terrorists and thiefs to steal the info. But there is nothing to steal except that all data how an a-bomb is designed and made to explode shows ... it cannot explode. That's why no terrorists even think of using it.
Just look at all pictures and films of the famous FLASHES due to exploding a-bombs. All fake and photoshopped.
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
You mean just how people ask you to prove what you say and dodge and weave and never do? And before you say it, no you don't prove it on your website.
One difficulty to show that US a-bombs are fake is clearly that (a) all is restricted (secret) data since 1946 and (b) you are punished by death in US poking into it 2017. The purpose is to scare people into acceptance of the hoax.
I think I describe it quite well at my website. I pay €1M to show I am wrong. Isn't it generous?
It's difficult to prove you evidence wrong when you never give any. Copy and paste any actual scientific evidence you have here so we can see it. Just a bit.
There are plenty information and evidence that a-bombs do not work at my website, so you better study it there. As everything essential about US a-bombs is secret, restricted data by law punished by death, if made public and discussed, it is ridiculous to ask for evidence of any kind.
However, secrecy doesn't mean that the info isn't available. Secrecy is an invitation to spies, terrorists and thiefs to steal the info. But there is nothing to steal except that all data how an a-bomb is designed and made to explode shows ... it cannot explode. That's why no terrorists even think of using it.
Just look at all pictures and films of the famous FLASHES due to exploding a-bombs. All fake and photoshopped.
Ok then prove you aren't lying by posting some that actual evidence here. This is just another failure by you to support your statement.
Nothing but unsupported lies to here
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
You mean just how people ask you to prove what you say and dodge and weave and never do? And before you say it, no you don't prove it on your website.
One difficulty to show that US a-bombs are fake is clearly that (a) all is restricted (secret) data since 1946 and (b) you are punished by death in US poking into it 2017. The purpose is to scare people into acceptance of the hoax.
I think I describe it quite well at my website. I pay €1M to show I am wrong. Isn't it generous?
It's difficult to prove you evidence wrong when you never give any. Copy and paste any actual scientific evidence you have here so we can see it. Just a bit.
There are plenty information and evidence that a-bombs do not work at my website, so you better study it there. As everything essential about US a-bombs is secret, restricted data by law punished by death, if made public and discussed, it is ridiculous to ask for evidence of any kind.
However, secrecy doesn't mean that the info isn't available. Secrecy is an invitation to spies, terrorists and thiefs to steal the info. But there is nothing to steal except that all data how an a-bomb is designed and made to explode shows ... it cannot explode. That's why no terrorists even think of using it.
Just look at all pictures and films of the famous FLASHES due to exploding a-bombs. All fake and photoshopped.
Ok then prove you aren't lying by posting some that actual evidence here. This is just another failure by you to support your statement.
Nothing but unsupported lies to here
Sorry - topic is Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and I at my website show that they exist but do not work. Reason why they do not work is that destuctive, exponential fission lasting nano-seconds is a military pseudoscientific invention to scare people, which cannot be started in any way. A mass of 61 kg enriched uranium cannot suddenly become a FLASH, etc! I think my findings are quite convincing.
Normal fission in a nuclear power station is completely different. 100 tons of nuclear fuel is slowly transformed into energy by moderated neutrons that heats up water under high pressure.
If anyone does not agree, you must of course show - prove - that I am wrong. I even pay €1M if you can. Do not moan and groan about me lying. Why would I lie about nuclear weapons being a hoax?
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Actually, I would consider that type of website illegal if nuclear bombs existed.
I think the mere existence of the website is more of an indication they do not exist.
Especially in these days of ORANGE ALERTS!!!
LMAO!
-
Is this website (http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/) illegal?
Mr. Alex Wellerstein is paid to support US propaganda about a-bombs. He considers me a crank on the Internet! I describe it at my website. I have asked Mr. Alex Wellerstein to prove what he says! No reply!
You mean just how people ask you to prove what you say and dodge and weave and never do? And before you say it, no you don't prove it on your website.
One difficulty to show that US a-bombs are fake is clearly that (a) all is restricted (secret) data since 1946 and (b) you are punished by death in US poking into it 2017. The purpose is to scare people into acceptance of the hoax.
I think I describe it quite well at my website. I pay €1M to show I am wrong. Isn't it generous?
It's difficult to prove you evidence wrong when you never give any. Copy and paste any actual scientific evidence you have here so we can see it. Just a bit.
There are plenty information and evidence that a-bombs do not work at my website, so you better study it there. As everything essential about US a-bombs is secret, restricted data by law punished by death, if made public and discussed, it is ridiculous to ask for evidence of any kind.
However, secrecy doesn't mean that the info isn't available. Secrecy is an invitation to spies, terrorists and thiefs to steal the info. But there is nothing to steal except that all data how an a-bomb is designed and made to explode shows ... it cannot explode. That's why no terrorists even think of using it.
Just look at all pictures and films of the famous FLASHES due to exploding a-bombs. All fake and photoshopped.
Ok then prove you aren't lying by posting some that actual evidence here. This is just another failure by you to support your statement.
Nothing but unsupported lies to here
Sorry - topic is Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and I at my website show that they exist but do not work. Reason why they do not work is that destuctive, exponential fission lasting nano-seconds is a military pseudoscientific invention to scare people, which cannot be started in any way. A mass of 61 kg enriched uranium cannot suddenly become a FLASH, etc! I think my findings are quite convincing.
Normal fission in a nuclear power station is completely different. 100 tons of nuclear fuel is slowly transformed into energy by moderated neutrons that heats up water under high pressure.
If anyone does not agree, you must of course show - prove - that I am wrong. I even pay €1M if you can. Do not moan and groan about me lying. Why would I lie about nuclear weapons being a hoax?
Ok, if your findings are so convincing post them here so we can see them. So far all you have done is claim they can't work. No science at all, no evidence, just a statement.
-
Normal fission in a nuclear power station is completely different. 100 tons of nuclear fuel is slowly transformed into energy by moderated neutrons that heats up water under high pressure.
Repeat after me:
fast...
neutron...
breeder...
reactor.
If anyone does not agree, you must of course show - prove - that I am wrong. I even pay €1M if you can. Do not moan and groan about me lying. Why would I lie about nuclear weapons being a hoax?
Maybe you lie because you like the attention.
-
Normal fission in a nuclear power station is completely different. 100 tons of nuclear fuel is slowly transformed into energy by moderated neutrons that heats up water under high pressure.
Repeat after me:
fast...
neutron...
breeder...
reactor.
Well, a fast neutron breeder reactor is not a normal pressurized (moderated) water reactor I talk about. In the fast neutron breeder reactor the fission is controlled (moderated) by special rods (boron) and the heat is absorbed by liquid metal (the fission melts it!), so there is no risk of exponential, military secret, destructive fission that cannot be stopped when started. They are still on the experimental stage.
-
Normal fission in a nuclear power station is completely different. 100 tons of nuclear fuel is slowly transformed into energy by moderated neutrons that heats up water under high pressure.
Repeat after me:
fast...
neutron...
breeder...
reactor.
Well, a fast neutron breeder reactor is not a normal pressurized (moderated) water reactor I talk about. In the fast neutron breeder reactor the fission is controlled (moderated) by special rods (boron)...
But the control rods do not moderate the speed of the neutrons. It's still fast neutron fission.
They are still on the experimental stage.
Glad that you finally admit that fast neutron fission works.
-
Normal fission in a nuclear power station is completely different. 100 tons of nuclear fuel is slowly transformed into energy by moderated neutrons that heats up water under high pressure.
Repeat after me:
fast...
neutron...
breeder...
reactor.
Well, a fast neutron breeder reactor is not a normal pressurized (moderated) water reactor I talk about. In the fast neutron breeder reactor the fission is controlled (moderated) by special rods (boron)...
But the control rods do not moderate the speed of the neutrons. It's still fast neutron fission.
They are still on the experimental stage.
Glad that you finally admit that fast neutron fission works.
Well, it has nothing to do with military, secret type FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds not melting anything.
-
Normal fission in a nuclear power station is completely different. 100 tons of nuclear fuel is slowly transformed into energy by moderated neutrons that heats up water under high pressure.
Repeat after me:
fast...
neutron...
breeder...
reactor.
Well, a fast neutron breeder reactor is not a normal pressurized (moderated) water reactor I talk about. In the fast neutron breeder reactor the fission is controlled (moderated) by special rods (boron)...
But the control rods do not moderate the speed of the neutrons. It's still fast neutron fission.
They are still on the experimental stage.
Glad that you finally admit that fast neutron fission works.
Well, it has nothing to do with military, secret type FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds not melting anything.
I didn't say that it does. I just wanted you do admit that fast neutron fission is possible.
That means that you are wrong in your assertion that moderated, slow neutron fission is the only fission possible.
Of course that also means that you are one step closer to admitting that atomic bombs just might be possible after all.
-
Normal fission in a nuclear power station is completely different. 100 tons of nuclear fuel is slowly transformed into energy by moderated neutrons that heats up water under high pressure.
Repeat after me:
fast...
neutron...
breeder...
reactor.
Well, a fast neutron breeder reactor is not a normal pressurized (moderated) water reactor I talk about. In the fast neutron breeder reactor the fission is controlled (moderated) by special rods (boron)...
But the control rods do not moderate the speed of the neutrons. It's still fast neutron fission.
They are still on the experimental stage.
Glad that you finally admit that fast neutron fission works.
Well, it has nothing to do with military, secret type FLASH fission lasting nano-seconds not melting anything.
I didn't say that it does. I just wanted you do admit that fast neutron fission is possible.
That means that you are wrong in your assertion that moderated, slow neutron fission is the only fission possible.
Of course that also means that you are one step closer to admitting that atomic bombs just might be possible after all.
Hm, the so called 'fast' neutron reactors are melting metals like lead and sodium and uses metal oxides as fuel, fission of which is controlled (moderated) by boron rods sucking up the neutrons has noting to do with nuclear FLASH weapons. The melted metals then heat up water to become steam and electricity. The 'fast' neutron reactors are controlled/moderated like the standard nuclear reactors. To suggest they would prove a-bombs is stupid.
I would suggest that really fast neutrons in an a-bomb using pure metals as fuel would just melt completely before any flash occurs. That's why a-bombs do not work.
-
I would suggest that really fast neutrons in an a-bomb using pure metals as fuel would just melt completely before any flash occurs.
You suggest lots of things. You present nothing.
-
I would suggest that really fast neutrons in an a-bomb using pure metals as fuel would just melt completely before any flash occurs.
You suggest lots of things. You present nothing.
? I present a lot of interesting facts at my website. You really should study it.
-
Alternative facts ::)
-
Hm, the so called 'fast' neutron reactors are melting metals like lead and sodium and uses metal oxides as fuel, fission of which is controlled (moderated) by boron rods sucking up the neutrons has noting to do with nuclear FLASH weapons. The melted metals then heat up water to become steam and electricity. The 'fast' neutron reactors are controlled/moderated like the standard nuclear reactors. To suggest they would prove a-bombs is stupid.
I would suggest that really fast neutrons in an a-bomb using pure metals as fuel would just melt completely before any flash occurs. That's why a-bombs do not work.
Peaceful nuclear reactors are all about controlled, sustained fission. Military atomic bombs are all about uncontrolled, nearly instantaneous fission. Why would you expect any similarities in design or operation of the two?
-
Hm, the so called 'fast' neutron reactors are melting metals like lead and sodium and uses metal oxides as fuel, fission of which is controlled (moderated) by boron rods sucking up the neutrons has noting to do with nuclear FLASH weapons. The melted metals then heat up water to become steam and electricity. The 'fast' neutron reactors are controlled/moderated like the standard nuclear reactors. To suggest they would prove a-bombs is stupid.
I would suggest that really fast neutrons in an a-bomb using pure metals as fuel would just melt completely before any flash occurs. That's why a-bombs do not work.
Peaceful nuclear reactors are all about controlled, sustained fission. Military atomic bombs are all about uncontrolled, nearly instantaneous fission. Why would you expect any similarities in design or operation of the two?
There is only one type of fission discovered by Hahn 1938. Atoms are split by neutrons releasing pure energy/heat. It can only take place in a reactor of sort and the neutrons are controlled. It is a continuos process that can be started and stopped. There is no smoke, no flash. There are no secrets about it and it can be discussed openly. I do it at my website.
There is no military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal being transformed in nano-seconds - a FLASH - into energy in the form of a mushroom cloud by one neutron suddenly becoming billions of neutrons - killing people. That fission was invented by some American clowns 1942/5 to scare people. It was a hoax from the start. I describe it at my website. It was used to finish WW2 in Japan August 1945, when the Japanese had already given up May 1945. It was a big show. It still goes on. Stalin copied/pasted it 1945/9. A Swedish friend of mine was asked to copy/paste it but had some reservations.
To prevent the hoax to be revealed as such, all was made restricted date punished by death if discussed and published.
-
Q: How do you know when Heiwa's lying?
A: His post count goes up.
-
Hm, the so called 'fast' neutron reactors are melting metals like lead and sodium and uses metal oxides as fuel, fission of which is controlled (moderated) by boron rods sucking up the neutrons has noting to do with nuclear FLASH weapons. The melted metals then heat up water to become steam and electricity. The 'fast' neutron reactors are controlled/moderated like the standard nuclear reactors. To suggest they would prove a-bombs is stupid.
I would suggest that really fast neutrons in an a-bomb using pure metals as fuel would just melt completely before any flash occurs. That's why a-bombs do not work.
Peaceful nuclear reactors are all about controlled, sustained fission. Military atomic bombs are all about uncontrolled, nearly instantaneous fission. Why would you expect any similarities in design or operation of the two?
There is only one type of fission discovered by Hahn 1938. Atoms are split by neutrons releasing pure energy/heat. It can only take place in a reactor of sort and the neutrons are controlled. It is a continuos process that can be started and stopped. There is no smoke, no flash. There are no secrets about it and it can be discussed openly. I do it at my website.
There is no military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal being transformed in nano-seconds - a FLASH - into energy in the form of a mushroom cloud by one neutron suddenly becoming billions of neutrons - killing people. That fission was invented by some American clowns 1942/5 to scare people. It was a hoax from the start. I describe it at my website. It was used to finish WW2 in Japan August 1945, when the Japanese had already given up May 1945. It was a big show. It still goes on. Stalin copied/pasted it 1945/9. A Swedish friend of mine was asked to copy/paste it but had some reservations.
To prevent the hoax to be revealed as such, all was made restricted date punished by death if discussed and published.
More lies and failure. Why is it so hard for you to copy and paste some actual evidence from your website? Why do you refuse to support your own statements here?
-
Hm, the so called 'fast' neutron reactors are melting metals like lead and sodium and uses metal oxides as fuel, fission of which is controlled (moderated) by boron rods sucking up the neutrons has noting to do with nuclear FLASH weapons. The melted metals then heat up water to become steam and electricity. The 'fast' neutron reactors are controlled/moderated like the standard nuclear reactors. To suggest they would prove a-bombs is stupid.
I would suggest that really fast neutrons in an a-bomb using pure metals as fuel would just melt completely before any flash occurs. That's why a-bombs do not work.
Peaceful nuclear reactors are all about controlled, sustained fission. Military atomic bombs are all about uncontrolled, nearly instantaneous fission. Why would you expect any similarities in design or operation of the two?
There is only one type of fission discovered by Hahn 1938. Atoms are split by neutrons releasing pure energy/heat. It can only take place in a reactor of sort and the neutrons are controlled. It is a continuos process that can be started and stopped. There is no smoke, no flash. There are no secrets about it and it can be discussed openly. I do it at my website.
There is no military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal being transformed in nano-seconds - a FLASH - into energy in the form of a mushroom cloud by one neutron suddenly becoming billions of neutrons - killing people. That fission was invented by some American clowns 1942/5 to scare people. It was a hoax from the start. I describe it at my website. It was used to finish WW2 in Japan August 1945, when the Japanese had already given up May 1945. It was a big show. It still goes on. Stalin copied/pasted it 1945/9. A Swedish friend of mine was asked to copy/paste it but had some reservations.
To prevent the hoax to be revealed as such, all was made restricted date punished by death if discussed and published.
More lies and failure. Why is it so hard for you to copy and paste some actual evidence from your website? Why do you refuse to support your own statements here?
It is much easier to study my website.
So, tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!. Do you compress two parts together to double density?
-
Hm, the so called 'fast' neutron reactors are melting metals like lead and sodium and uses metal oxides as fuel, fission of which is controlled (moderated) by boron rods sucking up the neutrons has noting to do with nuclear FLASH weapons. The melted metals then heat up water to become steam and electricity. The 'fast' neutron reactors are controlled/moderated like the standard nuclear reactors. To suggest they would prove a-bombs is stupid.
I would suggest that really fast neutrons in an a-bomb using pure metals as fuel would just melt completely before any flash occurs. That's why a-bombs do not work.
Peaceful nuclear reactors are all about controlled, sustained fission. Military atomic bombs are all about uncontrolled, nearly instantaneous fission. Why would you expect any similarities in design or operation of the two?
There is only one type of fission discovered by Hahn 1938. Atoms are split by neutrons releasing pure energy/heat. It can only take place in a reactor of sort and the neutrons are controlled. It is a continuos process that can be started and stopped. There is no smoke, no flash. There are no secrets about it and it can be discussed openly. I do it at my website.
There is no military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal being transformed in nano-seconds - a FLASH - into energy in the form of a mushroom cloud by one neutron suddenly becoming billions of neutrons - killing people. That fission was invented by some American clowns 1942/5 to scare people. It was a hoax from the start. I describe it at my website. It was used to finish WW2 in Japan August 1945, when the Japanese had already given up May 1945. It was a big show. It still goes on. Stalin copied/pasted it 1945/9. A Swedish friend of mine was asked to copy/paste it but had some reservations.
To prevent the hoax to be revealed as such, all was made restricted date punished by death if discussed and published.
More lies and failure. Why is it so hard for you to copy and paste some actual evidence from your website? Why do you refuse to support your own statements here?
It is much easier to study my website.
So, tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!. Do you compress two parts together to double density?
And more failure. Just copy and paste your evidence here. Your website is terrible and difficult to find anything in.
-
So, tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!. Do you compress two parts together to double density?
Why don't you check out this web page. I'm sure that he's under a death sentence too.
http://www.unmuseum.org/buildabomb.htm
-
So, tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!. Do you compress two parts together to double density?
That's easy.
Hollywood does it since August 1945
-
It is much easier to study my website.
So, tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!. Do you compress two parts together to double density?
I already explained it to you. The place that is now 30 min away from me would machine hollow plutonium spheres. These hollow spheres would not be a critical mass. Explosives perfectly placed around the sphere were used to force the hollow sphere into a lump of plutonium which would then be at critical mass. The resulting nuclear explosion was used to start a fusion reaction which resulted in even more energy released resulting in a Flash.
Or actually this:
-
So I note that noone can tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!.
Only links to nonsense are given.
IMHO it is clear evidence that I am right - there is no military sudden fission ending in a FLASH.
The only fission that exists is the one discovered by Hahn 1938. But it is restricted data punished by death if discussed.
-
Fission is fission. The same fission discovered by Hahn is the same fission that produces an atomic explosion. What differs is the way in which the process is activated and controlled, or not controlled.
You cannot demand evidence in support of arguments that disagree with you and then immediately dismiss those arguments just because they disagree with you. It's dishonest. No surprise there.
Even if you are correct and the only fission that exists is the one that generates electricity you will find that the law you insist on quoting specifically says you can and should discuss that sort of fission, so you're wrong. Again.
Even if your interpretation of the law was correct, which it is not, it is a US law. It does not have jurisdiction in any of the other countries that have produced nuclear weapons. The UK has no death penalty. We tested atomic weapons in front of British troops, who sued the government for damages thanks to the radiation related illnesses they suffered. Notice I am free to discuss them. France has its own nuclear weapons programme. What is their policy on discussing nuclear weapons? If it is punishable by death to discuss them, why are still suffering your nonsensical babble on a daily basis?
-
Fission is fission. The same fission discovered by Hahn is the same fission that produces an atomic explosion. What differs is the way in which the process is activated and controlled, or not controlled.
You cannot demand evidence in support of arguments that disagree with you and then immediately dismiss those arguments just because they disagree with you. It's dishonest. No surprise there.
Even if you are correct and the only fission that exists is the one that generates electricity you will find that the law you insist on quoting specifically says you can and should discuss that sort of fission, so you're wrong. Again.
Even if your interpretation of the law was correct, which it is not, it is a US law. It does not have jurisdiction in any of the other countries that have produced nuclear weapons. The UK has no death penalty. We tested atomic weapons in front of British troops, who sued the government for damages thanks to the radiation related illnesses they suffered. Notice I am free to discuss them. France has its own nuclear weapons programme. What is their policy on discussing nuclear weapons? If it is punishable by death to discuss them, why are still suffering your nonsensical babble on a daily basis?
Thanks for comments. There is only one type of fission. It was discovered by Hahn 1938, where neutrons split atoms releasing energy and more neutrons. It only works in nuclear power plants or similar, where the neutrons are controlled to split the atoms of 80-100 tons of nuclear fuel (uranium oxide pellets) at reasonable temperatures. It takes years to fission all the fuel.
There is no secret, military, destructive fission, where neutrons suddenly fission 61 kgs of soild uranium metal in a FLASH at 100 000 000K. It cannot be started in any way and, if started, when the temperature is only 3 000K, it melts and destroys itself.
The French a-bombs were invented by president De Gaulle in the 1960's and tested (LOL) in remote places in Sahara and the Pacific Ocean. It was just one big hoax. Similar to the British tests in Australia and the Indian Ocean. Another English joke. Just to keep up with the neighbors.
I describe my findings at my website. FDR and Stalin apparently agreed to fake it at Yalta, February 4 to 11, 1945. Hitler was already finished, Stalin could keep east Europe and USA could take over Japan after the war and the winners could say they had (fake) a-bombs.
I know the winners always write the History. They can invent anything.
-
There is no secret, military, destructive fission, where neutrons suddenly fission 61 kgs of soild uranium metal in a FLASH at 100 000 000K. It cannot be started in any way and, if started, when the temperature is only 3 000K, it melts and destroys itself.
I may be wrong with this (I have not enough time to calculate this right now, but I will give it a try in a few weeks), but I think you have to consider the sound-speed of uranium. This is the maximum speed in which things like pressure- or temperature-transfer (except radiative) can take place. If the reaction rate is faster than that, you do not have a problem with that.
Plus, melting would be no problem, the chemical properties of uranium at those energies are quite neglible.
-
So I note that noone can tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!.
Only links to nonsense are given.
IMHO it is clear evidence that I am right - there is no military sudden fission ending in a FLASH.
The only fission that exists is the one discovered by Hahn 1938. But it is restricted data punished by death if discussed.
You have yet to show any evidence to support anything you say.
-
So I note that noone can tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!.
Only links to nonsense are given.
IMHO it is clear evidence that I am right - there is no military sudden fission ending in a FLASH.
The only fission that exists is the one discovered by Hahn 1938. But it is restricted data punished by death if discussed.
You have yet to show any evidence to support anything you say.
Well, all the evidence and links are at my website. Do you suggest that I just make it up or invent it? Why would I do that.
On the other hand I understand why the Manhattan project leaders made it up and invented a fake a-bomb. It was their job.
-
Well, all the evidence and links are at my website. Do you suggest that I just make it up or invent it? Why would I do that.
Because you have a giant ego and have not made the mark on the world that you hoped to in engineering.
On the other hand I understand why the Mahattan project leaders made it up and invented a fake a-bomb. It was their job.
Why would they do that?
-
So I note that noone can tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!.
Only links to nonsense are given.
IMHO it is clear evidence that I am right - there is no military sudden fission ending in a FLASH.
The only fission that exists is the one discovered by Hahn 1938. But it is restricted data punished by death if discussed.
Try reading the post before this one.
-
Well, all the evidence and links are at my website. Do you suggest that I just make it up or invent it? Why would I do that.
A. Because you have a giant ego and have not made the mark on the world that you hoped to in engineering.
On the other hand I understand why the Manhattan project leaders made it up and invented a fake a-bomb. It was their job.
B. Why would they do that?
A. Hm, me ... a giant ego? No, I am just a nice person driving a 1999 Opel Agila living at Beausoleil since 1980 looking down on its suburb run by a prince.
... have not made the mark on the world ... in engineering? What are you on about? My patented oil tanker design made illegal in US ports 1997? No, no.
But what do you think about my books published later? And my website with 2.3 million downloads? Download my books free of charge, there.
B. They got paid for it. Why do you change this interesting discussion about a-bombs to discuss me and my quiet life?
-
Well, all the evidence and links are at my website. Do you suggest that I just make it up or invent it? Why would I do that.
A. Because you have a giant ego and have not made the mark on the world that you hoped to in engineering.
On the other hand I understand why the Manhattan project leaders made it up and invented a fake a-bomb. It was their job.
B. Why would they do that?
A. Hm, me ... a giant ego? No, I am just a nice person driving a 1999 Opel Agila living at Beausoleil since 1980 looking down on its suburb run by a prince.
How does that disqualify you from having an ego?
... have not made the mark on the world ... in engineering? What are you on about? My patented oil tanker design made illegal in US ports 1997? No, no.
Yeah, your oil tanker that was rejected and never used. That one. The one that made no mark on the world.
But what do you think about my books published later?
You wrote books? Oh... No one cares apparently. No mark there.
And my website with 2.3 million downloads?
A very big number that isn't very much in the world of the internet. Google gets 2,000,000 searches/minute!
Download my books free of charge, there.
See? You have achieved so little, you can't even give your book away.
B. They got paid for it.
Why does that mean they would make something up that wasn't true?
Why do you change this interesting discussion about a-bombs to discuss me and my quiet life?
You brought you up.
[/quote]
-
This whole discussion is quite pointless! Everybody who is anybody knows that
If Heiwa cannot understand how something can happen, it simply cannot happen!
Heiwa doesn't understand the re-entry of spacecraft, so the re-entry of spacecraft is not possible.
Heiwa doesn't understand how gravitational slingshot maneuvers can work, so gravitational slingshot maneuvers are not possible.
Etc, etc
So there is no point discussing these issues! If Heiwa cannot understand how something can happen, it simply cannot happen!
-
So I note that noone can tell me how you start a military, secret, uncontrolled, instantaneous destructive type of fission of solid metal ending with a FLASH!.
Only links to nonsense are given.
IMHO it is clear evidence that I am right - there is no military sudden fission ending in a FLASH.
The only fission that exists is the one discovered by Hahn 1938. But it is restricted data punished by death if discussed.
You have yet to show any evidence to support anything you say.
Well, all the evidence and links are at my website. Do you suggest that I just make it up or invent it? Why would I do that.
On the other hand I understand why the Manhattan project leaders made it up and invented a fake a-bomb. It was their job.
Why are you so afraid to copy and paste it here? Your website is a mess and it's impossible to find any thing on it. The simple fact is you have nothing to back up your statements.
-
Yeah, your oil tanker that was rejected and never used. That one. The one that made no mark on the world.
Hm, my oil tanker design was unanimously approved by the United Nations International Maritime Organization 1997 and only later USA, i.e. USCG, informed that the design would not be permitted in US continental ports. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/ce_coulombiegg.htm . The industry, INTERTANKO, thought my design was very good. I like that.
So it was a strange rejection. It seems GWB was told to create an executive order to this effect by some strange lady. I have no idea why new ideas could not be used. But I am still around and in good shape giving good advice to anyone wanting to listen.
-
Hm, my oil tanker design was unanimously approved by the United Nations International Maritime Organization 1997 and only later USA, i.e. USCG, informed that the design would not be permitted in US continental ports.
If your tanker design is so great, then why doesn't the rest of the world use it? It isn't as if the US is the only market in the oil industry. You'd think that someone would at least commission a prototype.
-
Hm, my oil tanker design was unanimously approved by the United Nations International Maritime Organization 1997 and only later USA, i.e. USCG, informed that the design would not be permitted in US continental ports.
If your tanker design is so great, then why doesn't the rest of the world use it? It isn't as if the US is the only market in the oil industry. You'd think that someone would at least commission a prototype.
In shipping (oil transport) a tanker must be able to trade to all ports in the world. Sometimes you load a tanker and doesn't even know where it will discharge, etc. So by making it illegal for an innovative (safer, less pollution risk, cheaper to build and maintain) tanker design to enter US ports, the US authorities killed it. You should really wonder why. Was the design dangerous? A risk to the USA? Of course not!
No, US interests wanted to buy the design and use it themselves. But the design was not for sale.
-
Hm, my oil tanker design was unanimously approved by the United Nations International Maritime Organization 1997 and only later USA, i.e. USCG, informed that the design would not be permitted in US continental ports.
If your tanker design is so great, then why doesn't the rest of the world use it? It isn't as if the US is the only market in the oil industry. You'd think that someone would at least commission a prototype.
In shipping (oil transport) a tanker must be able to trade to all ports in the world. Sometimes you load a tanker and doesn't even know where it will discharge, etc. So by making it illegal for an innovative (safer, less pollution risk, cheaper to build and maintain) tanker design to enter US ports, the US authorities killed it. You should really wonder why. Was the design dangerous? A risk to the USA? Of course not!
No, US interests wanted to buy the design and use it themselves. But the design was not for sale.
According to the official sources they did it because in the US, by law (not the one you always talk about, the real law), an oil tanker must not spill any oil in minor accidents (contact with ground or such), which in your design they would.
-
Hm, my oil tanker design was unanimously approved by the United Nations International Maritime Organization 1997 and only later USA, i.e. USCG, informed that the design would not be permitted in US continental ports.
If your tanker design is so great, then why doesn't the rest of the world use it? It isn't as if the US is the only market in the oil industry. You'd think that someone would at least commission a prototype.
In shipping (oil transport) a tanker must be able to trade to all ports in the world. Sometimes you load a tanker and doesn't even know where it will discharge, etc. So by making it illegal for an innovative (safer, less pollution risk, cheaper to build and maintain) tanker design to enter US ports, the US authorities killed it. You should really wonder why. Was the design dangerous? A risk to the USA? Of course not!
No, US interests wanted to buy the design and use it themselves. But the design was not for sale.
According to the official sources they did it because in the US, by law (not the one you always talk about, the real law), an oil tanker must not spill any oil in minor accidents (contact with ground or such), which in your design they would.
The IMO Marpol rules (approved by US) allow single bottom protection in combination with hydrostatic loading, which means zero oil spill in minor groundings and 1% oil spill in more severe groundings. These are spills that are easy to clean up and the main reason why such protection is permitted. My design (Coulombi Egg, CE) uses an improved version of such protection (the oil may be transferred to the TSBWT).
The advantage of the Coulombi egg is superior collision protection compared to any other design. As 80% of all collisions only damage the side above waterline, the CE design maximizes the protection there. The US double hull design is much inferior in collisions.
From a pure clean up cost approach, hypothetical spills of the CE design in all assumed incidents (according probabilities) are much less costly to clean up than spills of the US design. This was the major reason for the IMO approval.
Anyway, the US laws still allows alternative designs to be examined but US authorities refuse to carry out such examinations since 1998. It is a long, sad story - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscg.htm . Note how many 'experts' meet to discuss better oil tanker design ... without ever discussing the only oil tanker design approved by IMO as such.
But this has nothing to do with topic - why nukes do not work - except it shows how easy it is first to manipulate scientific studies and then fool the public with Fake News.
-
Hm, my oil tanker design was unanimously approved by the United Nations International Maritime Organization 1997 and only later USA, i.e. USCG, informed that the design would not be permitted in US continental ports.
If your tanker design is so great, then why doesn't the rest of the world use it? It isn't as if the US is the only market in the oil industry. You'd think that someone would at least commission a prototype.
In shipping (oil transport) a tanker must be able to trade to all ports in the world. Sometimes you load a tanker and doesn't even know where it will discharge, etc. So by making it illegal for an innovative (safer, less pollution risk, cheaper to build and maintain) tanker design to enter US ports, the US authorities killed it. You should really wonder why. Was the design dangerous? A risk to the USA? Of course not!
No, US interests wanted to buy the design and use it themselves. But the design was not for sale.
According to the official sources they did it because in the US, by law (not the one you always talk about, the real law), an oil tanker must not spill any oil in minor accidents (contact with ground or such), which in your design they would.
The IMO Marpol rules (approved by US) allow single bottom protection in combination with hydrostatic loading, which means zero oil spill in minor groundings and 1% oil spill in more severe groundings. These are spills that are easy to clean up and the main reason why such protection is permitted. My design (Coulombi Egg, CE) uses an improved version of such protection (the oil may be transferred to the TSBWT).
The advantage of the Coulombi egg is superior collision protection compared to any other design. As 80% of all collisions only damage the side above waterline, the CE design maximizes the protection there. The US double hull design is much inferior in collisions.
From a pure clean up cost approach, hypothetical spills of the CE design in all assumed incidents (according probabilities) are much less costly to clean up than spills of the US design. This was the major reason for the IMO approval.
Anyway, the US laws still allows alternative designs to be examined but US authorities refuse to carry out such examinations since 1998. It is a long, sad story - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscg.htm . Note how many 'experts' meet to discuss better oil tanker design ... without ever discussing the only oil tanker design approved by IMO as such.
But this has nothing to do with topic - why nukes do not work - except it shows how easy it is first to manipulate scientific studies and then fool the public with Fake News.
If you had not been so dishonest all the time I would actually believe you; personally my knowledge on this topic is quite limited, this is, after all, your expertise.
As I said, I am quite busy at the time, studying for exams, so I can not attribute anything new to the discussion (the fact that you do not post a single evidence, just link to your website, etc. pp. has been discussed over at least 10 pages now). I will come back to you in a few weeks when I will try to present an actual calculation.
Note that it might be a bit oversimplified, I am not a team of researchers who gets paid to do this stuff full-time over 3 years, I am a student doing this for fun in my free-time. And no, I will not try to win your "challenge", it is unwinnable, as you claimed so many times (the reason why it is unwinnable is not the one you claim, but that does not change the fact).
-
The IMO Marpol rules (approved by US) allow single bottom protection in combination with hydrostatic loading, which means zero oil spill in minor groundings and 1% oil spill in more severe groundings. These are spills that are easy to clean up and the main reason why such protection is permitted. My design (Coulombi Egg, CE) uses an improved version of such protection (the oil may be transferred to the TSBWT).
The advantage of the Coulombi egg is superior collision protection compared to any other design. As 80% of all collisions only damage the side above waterline, the CE design maximizes the protection there. The US double hull design is much inferior in collisions.
From a pure clean up cost approach, hypothetical spills of the CE design in all assumed incidents (according probabilities) are much less costly to clean up than spills of the US design. This was the major reason for the IMO approval.
Anyway, the US laws still allows alternative designs to be examined but US authorities refuse to carry out such examinations since 1998. It is a long, sad story - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscg.htm . Note how many 'experts' meet to discuss better oil tanker design ... without ever discussing the only oil tanker design approved by IMO as such.
But this has nothing to do with topic - why nukes do not work - except it shows how easy it is first to manipulate scientific studies and then fool the public with Fake News.
If you had not been so dishonest all the time I would actually believe you; personally my knowledge on this topic is quite limited, this is, after all, your expertise.
As I said, I am quite busy at the time, studying for exams, so I can not attribute anything new to the discussion (the fact that you do not post a single evidence, just link to your website, etc. pp. has been discussed over at least 10 pages now). I will come back to you in a few weeks when I will try to present an actual calculation.
Note that it might be a bit oversimplified, I am not a team of researchers who gets paid to do this stuff full-time over 3 years, I am a student doing this for fun in my free-time. And no, I will not try to win your "challenge", it is unwinnable, as you claimed so many times (the reason why it is unwinnable is not the one you claim, but that does not change the fact).
What topic?
Oil tankers or a-bombs?
I know a little about oil tankers as shown above. They leak oil at sea and it is all my fault working for the tanker owners. My efforts to change matters were stopped by a GWB executive order 1998 encouraged by a crazy witch. Nothing dishonest about it. Why would I hide that oil is spilt at sea?
A-bombs? All data about them are restricted and you will be sentenced to death, if you do not toe the line. I got curious about that - being sentenced to death - so I tried to find out how you start an a-bomb explosion. At the right location and time.
Being ex-military I remember that time and location for an attack to wipe out the enemy were vital.
Don't forget it! Many US veterans were at the wrong time in the wrong location and got ... out of action.
It seems you must suddenly connect two sub-critical masses of fissionable uranium/plutonium metal to become one critical mass.
The one critical mass then in a FLASH is transformed into energy ... and a mushroom cloud.
I don't believe in it. I explain why at my website and, to encourage busy students like you, I pay €1M to prove me wrong. It is an honest gesture of my part.
-
A-bombs? All data about them are restricted and you will be sentenced to death, if you do not toe the line.
Still a lie as has been shown in this thread. Everyone knows at this point that you make this up to make yourself look more important. How sad for you.
I don't believe in it. I explain why at my website and, to encourage busy students like you, I pay €1M to prove me wrong. It is an honest gesture of my part.
nothing honest about it. You are NOT honestly offering any money as you've already decided it is unwinnable before seeing all the evidence. More LIES from Heiwa.
-
What topic?
Oil tankers or a-bombs?
I know a little about oil tankers as shown above. They leak oil at sea and it is all my fault working for the tanker owners. My efforts to change matters were stopped by a GWB executive order 1998 encouraged by a crazy witch. Nothing dishonest about it. Why would I hide that oil is spilt at sea?
A-bombs? All data about them are restricted and you will be sentenced to death, if you do not toe the line. I got curious about that - being sentenced to death - so I tried to find out how you start an a-bomb explosion. At the right location and time.
Being ex-military I remember that time and location for an attack to wipe out the enemy were vital.
Don't forget it! Many US veterans were at the wrong time in the wrong location and got ... out of action.
It seems you must suddenly connect two sub-critical masses of fissionable uranium/plutonium metal to become one critical mass.
The one critical mass then in a FLASH is transformed into energy ... and a mushroom cloud.
I don't believe in it. I explain why at my website and, to encourage busy students like you, I pay €1M to prove me wrong. It is an honest gesture of my part.
I will admit that you probably know more about oil tankers than me. But I would also like to point out that you can obviously not perform the simplest calculations and have obviously no idea about orbital mechanics. Everyone has his specialties, a-bombs and space travel are definitely not yours.
You are clearly biased towards the opinion that a-bombs do not exist. A biased judge contradicts a fair challenge. So until you prove that you have the money and announce a neutral judge for the challenge I will consider this as a free-time activity for fun and not as an attempt to win the challenge. This is final. Nobody believes in your challenge, nobody tries to win it, it is neither honest nor fair so please, for the love of god, stop rabling about it!
-
What topic?
Oil tankers or a-bombs?
I know a little about oil tankers as shown above. They leak oil at sea and it is all my fault working for the tanker owners. My efforts to change matters were stopped by a GWB executive order 1998 encouraged by a crazy witch. Nothing dishonest about it. Why would I hide that oil is spilt at sea?
A-bombs? All data about them are restricted and you will be sentenced to death, if you do not toe the line. I got curious about that - being sentenced to death - so I tried to find out how you start an a-bomb explosion. At the right location and time.
Being ex-military I remember that time and location for an attack to wipe out the enemy were vital.
Don't forget it! Many US veterans were at the wrong time in the wrong location and got ... out of action.
It seems you must suddenly connect two sub-critical masses of fissionable uranium/plutonium metal to become one critical mass.
The one critical mass then in a FLASH is transformed into energy ... and a mushroom cloud.
I don't believe in it. I explain why at my website and, to encourage busy students like you, I pay €1M to prove me wrong. It is an honest gesture of my part.
I will admit that you probably know more about oil tankers than me. But I would also like to point out that you can obviously not perform the simplest calculations and have obviously no idea about orbital mechanics. Everyone has his specialties, a-bombs and space travel are definitely not yours.
You are clearly biased towards the opinion that a-bombs do not exist. A biased judge contradicts a fair challenge. So until you prove that you have the money and announce a neutral judge for the challenge I will consider this as a free-time activity for fun and not as an attempt to win the challenge. This is final. Nobody believes in your challenge, nobody tries to win it, it is neither honest nor fair so please, for the love of god, stop rabling about it!
Orbital mechanics? Sorry, not the topic here. Try to be on topic!
Money! Suggest you prove that I haven't any before we discuss further.
A neutral judge! What are you talking about? Do you know what a judge is?
Anyway, my Challenges are games for fun and I am the sole referee. I control them. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
-
Anyway, my Challenges are games for fun and I am the sole referee. I control them. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
Exactly. Thank you. I do not like it. I do not want to participate.
-
Anyway, my Challenges are games for fun and I am the sole referee. I control them. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
Exactly. Thank you. I do not like it. I do not want to participate.
It was the money? You couldn't prove I didn't have it. You are a loser! Go back to your studies. Don't waste your time here.
-
Anyway, my Challenges are games for fun and I am the sole referee. I control them. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
Exactly. Thank you. I do not like it. I do not want to participate.
It was the money? You couldn't prove I didn't have it. You are a loser! Go back to your studies. Don't waste your time here.
How the hell am I supposed to prove that you do not have the money?
Okay. Prove that I do not have 1M € please.
-
(https://s30.postimg.org/nln7lxqfl/Heiwa7.png)
-
Anyway, my Challenges are games for fun and I am the sole referee. I control them. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
Exactly. Thank you. I do not like it. I do not want to participate.
It was the money? You couldn't prove I didn't have it. You are a loser! Go back to your studies. Don't waste your time here.
I'm sorry but that's a statement an 8 year old would make. Of course you can't prove a negative. However, you are throne making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Just like with your statements about nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is on you. And you fail to supply even a shrewd of evidence.
No, it isn't on your website, if it was you would have copy and pasted it here as you have been asked to do so many times. You cannot because it doesn't exist.
-
Anyway, my Challenges are games for fun and I am the sole referee. I control them. If you don't like it, you don't have to participate.
Exactly. Thank you. I do not like it. I do not want to participate.
It was the money? You couldn't prove I didn't have it. You are a loser! Go back to your studies. Don't waste your time here.
I'm sorry but that's a statement an 8 year old would make. Of course you can't prove a negative. However, you are throne making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Just like with your statements about nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is on you. And you fail to supply even a shrewd of evidence.
No, it isn't on your website, if it was you would have copy and pasted it here as you have been asked to do so many times. You cannot because it doesn't exist.
It seems like heiwa is drunk today.. he also wanted to dispute whether -1/12 is a number...
-
A neutral judge! What are you talking about? Do you know what a judge is?
Do you?
-
Nobody believes in your challenge, nobody tries to win it, it is neither honest nor fair so please, for the love of god, stop rabling about it!
Amen!
-
Of course you can't prove a negative. However, you are throne making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Just like with your statements about nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is on you. And you fail to supply even a shrewd of evidence.
No, it isn't on your website, if it was you would have copy and pasted it here as you have been asked to do so many times. You cannot because it doesn't exist.
You are right. I cannot prove that nuclear weapons do not work - a negative. But at my website I present plenty data that nuclear weapons are a hoax invented 1942/5 to scare you.
We all know what peaceful fission, used in nuclear power plants, is. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Just copy/paste anything wrong there.
But military, destructive fission that suddenly produces a FLASH! It is really nonsense made up by children.
My five CHALLENGES are about negatives. A-bombs do not work, human space travel is not possible, bow visors do not fall off ships, structures do not collapses from top and fusion on Earth is not possible either, and that's why they are hard to win. But you can try anyway - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
-
Of course you can't prove a negative. However, you are throne making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Just like with your statements about nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is on you. And you fail to supply even a shrewd of evidence.
No, it isn't on your website, if it was you would have copy and pasted it here as you have been asked to do so many times. You cannot because it doesn't exist.
You are right. I cannot prove that nuclear weapons do not work - a negative. But at my website I present plenty data that nuclear weapons are a hoax invented 1942/5 to scare you.
We all know what peaceful fission, used in nuclear power plants, is. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Just copy/paste anything wrong there.
But military, destructive fission that suddenly produces a FLASH! It is really nonsense made up by children.
My five CHALLENGES are about negatives. A-bombs do not work, human space travel is not possible, bow visors do not fall off ships, structures do not collapses from top and fusion on Earth is not possible either, and that's why they are hard to win. But you can try anyway - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Good morning! I see you are back to your old self!
-
Of course you can't prove a negative. However, you are throne making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Just like with your statements about nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is on you. And you fail to supply even a shrewd of evidence.
No, it isn't on your website, if it was you would have copy and pasted it here as you have been asked to do so many times. You cannot because it doesn't exist.
You are right. I cannot prove that nuclear weapons do not work - a negative. But at my website I present plenty data that nuclear weapons are a hoax invented 1942/5 to scare you.
We all know what peaceful fission, used in nuclear power plants, is. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Just copy/paste anything wrong there.
But military, destructive fission that suddenly produces a FLASH! It is really nonsense made up by children.
My five CHALLENGES are about negatives. A-bombs do not work, human space travel is not possible, bow visors do not fall off ships, structures do not collapses from top and fusion on Earth is not possible either, and that's why they are hard to win. But you can try anyway - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Another lie. You present no evidence at all if you did you would copy and paste it here but you refuse to. Why is that? Just post your evidence here so we can talk about it. No one is interested in your awful website or your fake challenge. Just post some evidence here, if you dare. But you won't, and we all know it.
-
Of course you can't prove a negative. However, you are throne making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Just like with your statements about nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is on you. And you fail to supply even a shrewd of evidence.
No, it isn't on your website, if it was you would have copy and pasted it here as you have been asked to do so many times. You cannot because it doesn't exist.
You are right. I cannot prove that nuclear weapons do not work - a negative. But at my website I present plenty data that nuclear weapons are a hoax invented 1942/5 to scare you.
We all know what peaceful fission, used in nuclear power plants, is. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Just copy/paste anything wrong there.
But military, destructive fission that suddenly produces a FLASH! It is really nonsense made up by children.
My five CHALLENGES are about negatives. A-bombs do not work, human space travel is not possible, bow visors do not fall off ships, structures do not collapses from top and fusion on Earth is not possible either, and that's why they are hard to win. But you can try anyway - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Another lie. You present no evidence at all if you did you would copy and paste it here but you refuse to. Why is that? Just post your evidence here so we can talk about it. No one is interested in your awful website or your fake challenge. Just post some evidence here, if you dare. But you won't, and we all know it.
No, no lie. My five CHALLENGES are all about five negatives. A-bombs do not work, human space travel is not possible, bow visors do not fall off ships, structures do not collapses from top and fusion on Earth is not possible either, and that's why they are hard to win. But you can try anyway - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Of course plenty clowns - presidents, university professors, astronuts, cosmokrauts, prime ministers, social democratic and conservative party leaders, civil servants at all levels - tell the opposite, so it is difficult to understand what's going on.
As media will not tell you, visit my website http://heiwaco.com .
It is free of charge without any adverts or commercial publications. And great fun.
-
Of course you can't prove a negative. However, you are throne making the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Just like with your statements about nuclear weapons. The burden of proof is on you. And you fail to supply even a shrewd of evidence.
No, it isn't on your website, if it was you would have copy and pasted it here as you have been asked to do so many times. You cannot because it doesn't exist.
You are right. I cannot prove that nuclear weapons do not work - a negative. But at my website I present plenty data that nuclear weapons are a hoax invented 1942/5 to scare you.
We all know what peaceful fission, used in nuclear power plants, is. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Just copy/paste anything wrong there.
But military, destructive fission that suddenly produces a FLASH! It is really nonsense made up by children.
My five CHALLENGES are about negatives. A-bombs do not work, human space travel is not possible, bow visors do not fall off ships, structures do not collapses from top and fusion on Earth is not possible either, and that's why they are hard to win. But you can try anyway - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Another lie. You present no evidence at all if you did you would copy and paste it here but you refuse to. Why is that? Just post your evidence here so we can talk about it. No one is interested in your awful website or your fake challenge. Just post some evidence here, if you dare. But you won't, and we all know it.
No, no lie. My five CHALLENGES are all about five negatives. A-bombs do not work, human space travel is not possible, bow visors do not fall off ships, structures do not collapses from top and fusion on Earth is not possible either, and that's why they are hard to win. But you can try anyway - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Of course plenty clowns - presidents, university professors, astronuts, cosmokrauts, prime ministers, social democratic and conservative party leaders, civil servants at all levels - tell the opposite, so it is difficult to understand what's going on.
As media will not tell you, visit my website http://heiwaco.com .
It is free of charge without any adverts or commercial publications. And great fun.
More failure. You are simply incapable of actually supporting your statements. Why is that?
-
Of course plenty clowns - presidents, university professors, astronuts, cosmokrauts, prime ministers, social democratic and conservative party leaders, civil servants at all levels - tell the opposite, so it is difficult to understand what's going on.
How did you become smarter that presidents, university professors, astronauts, and so on?
-
Of course plenty clowns - presidents, university professors, astronuts, cosmokrauts, prime ministers, social democratic and conservative party leaders, civil servants at all levels - tell the opposite, so it is difficult to understand what's going on.
How did you become smarter that presidents, university professors, astronauts, and so on?
?? They are just clowns when they suggest various things, e.g. that a-bombs work. They have no evidence for what they say. But people love it.
-
Of course plenty clowns - presidents, university professors, astronuts, cosmokrauts, prime ministers, social democratic and conservative party leaders, civil servants at all levels - tell the opposite, so it is difficult to understand what's going on.
How did you become smarter that presidents, university professors, astronauts, and so on?
?? They are just clowns when they suggest various things, e.g. that a-bombs work. They have no evidence for what they say. But people love it.
What evidence do you need that "various things, e.g. that a-bombs" really do work? Aren't countless eye witnesses, photographs, videos, radioactive test sites, scientific testing, reams of documentation, etc. enough? What will it take to finally convince you that you're the clown in all of this?
-
They have no evidence for what they say.
I beg to differ. Try publishing a scientific paper. Without evidence. Then we will talk again.
-
Of course plenty clowns - presidents, university professors, astronuts, cosmokrauts, prime ministers, social democratic and conservative party leaders, civil servants at all levels - tell the opposite, so it is difficult to understand what's going on.
How did you become smarter that presidents, university professors, astronauts, and so on?
?? They are just clowns when they suggest various things, e.g. that a-bombs work. They have no evidence for what they say. But people love it.
What evidence do you need that "various things, e.g. that a-bombs" really do work? Aren't countless eye witnesses, photographs, videos, radioactive test sites, scientific testing, reams of documentation, etc. enough? What will it take to finally convince you that you're the clown in all of this?
Eyewitnesses? They are vaporized by the FLASH! Photographs, videos? Just photoshopped 100%. Radioactive test sistes? No radioactivity at Alamogordo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki! Scientific testing? Haven's seen any! Reams of documentation? All restricted data, punished by death, if discussed.
I just wonder what you do to produce the FLASH! Do you compress metal to double density? What about the critical masses? Why and how do they suddenly become FLASHES?
-
Remind us again when photoshop was invented...
-
Eyewitnesses? They are vaporized by the FLASH!
These eyewitnesses don't look like they were vaporized.
(https://www.neh.gov/files/news/images/atomic_test.jpg)
Photographs, videos? Just photoshopped 100%.
Photoshop didn't exist in the 1940s. Photomaipulation techniques that did exist back then would be pretty obvious today.
Radioactive test sistes? No radioactivity at Alamogordo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki!
Have you ever been to any of those sites with a Geiger counter? BTW, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were air blasts, so there was little radioactive fallout
.
Scientific testing? Haven's seen any!
How hard have you looked?
Reams of documentation? All restricted data, punished by death, if discussed.
Except for the stuff that's been declassified, of course.
I just wonder what you do to produce the FLASH! Do you compress metal to double density? What about the critical masses?
The actual triggering mechanism would depend on the type of bomb you're building. You do know that there are several types of atomic bombs with different triggering methods, don't you?
Why and how do they suddenly become FLASHES?
What else would you expect with the sudden release of a tremendous amount of energy?
-
The actual triggering mechanism would depend on the type of bomb you're building. You do know that there are several types of atomic bombs with different triggering methods, don't you?
No! All restricted data. Punishable by death, etc.
Are you saying there are different types of a-bombs with different triggering methods.
I assume you make it up. You invent it.
Actually it is clear from the beginning. Why do you continue to lie about a-bombs?
Are you paid for it?
-
All restricted data, punished by death, if discussed.
more LIES from Heiwa the pathological liar! It has been shown in this thread that not all data is restricted. It has also been shown you've never had access to restricted data.
-
All restricted data, punished by death, if discussed.
more LIES from Heiwa the pathological liar! It has been shown in this thread that not all data is restricted. It has also been shown you've never had access to restricted data.
?? Published data or propaganda are not restricted. I refer to all restricted data that are punished by death if discussed. You sound like a propagandaist.
Who pays you?
-
All restricted data, punished by death, if discussed.
more LIES from Heiwa the pathological liar! It has been shown in this thread that not all data is restricted. It has also been shown you've never had access to restricted data.
?? Published data or propaganda are not restricted. I refer to all restricted data that are punished by death if discussed.
NONE of which is on your site. Thank you for agreeing you have NOT been sentenced to death.
You sound like a propagandaist.
Only in your opinion.
Who pays you?
As I've said multiple times before, nobody. Why must you resort to the logical fallacy of saying your opponent is paid? All it does is call attention to the fact that your argument is lacking. Of course, everyone already knew that.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit
-
The actual triggering mechanism would depend on the type of bomb you're building. You do know that there are several types of atomic bombs with different triggering methods, don't you?
No! All restricted data. Punishable by death, etc.
Are you saying there are different types of a-bombs with different triggering methods.
I assume you make it up. You invent it.
Actually it is clear from the beginning. Why do you continue to lie about a-bombs?
Are you paid for it?
Ho Lee Fuk
It's already been explained to you multiple times.
Yes there are different types of a bomb with different trigger. Do you have dementia?
-
Who pays you?
As I've said multiple times before, nobody. Why must you resort to the logical fallacy of saying your opponent is paid? All it does is call attention to the fact that your argument is lacking. Of course, everyone already knew that.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit
Prove it! You are just an anonymous shill/troll as far as I am concerned. Do you have a name? Do you live somewhere? Are you a living human? You sound like a robot.
-
The actual triggering mechanism would depend on the type of bomb you're building. You do know that there are several types of atomic bombs with different triggering methods, don't you?
No! All restricted data. Punishable by death, etc.
Are you saying there are different types of a-bombs with different triggering methods.
I assume you make it up. You invent it.
Actually it is clear from the beginning. Why do you continue to lie about a-bombs?
Are you paid for it?
Ho Lee Fuk
It's already been explained to you multiple times.
Yes there are different types of a bomb with different trigger. Do you have dementia?
Different types of a-bombs? Explained to me? Multiple times? With different triggers?
Sorry, I must have missed that.
Are you really certain?
-
Who pays you?
As I've said multiple times before, nobody. Why must you resort to the logical fallacy of saying your opponent is paid? All it does is call attention to the fact that your argument is lacking. Of course, everyone already knew that.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit
Prove it! You are just an anonymous shill/troll as far as I am concerned. Do you have a name? Do you live somewhere? Are you a living human? You sound like a robot.
The shill gambit AGAIN? We already know you don't have any actual argument. You don't have to keep proving it.
If you had ANY decent research skills, then you could find my real name if you were so inclined as I know of a few places it is connected to my username. I'd bet you are too incompetent to find it though.
And of course all you're doing now is trying to draw attention away from the FACT that there is no restricted data on your website, that you have never had access to restricted data and that you have never been sentenced to death.
-
Who pays you?
As I've said multiple times before, nobody. Why must you resort to the logical fallacy of saying your opponent is paid? All it does is call attention to the fact that your argument is lacking. Of course, everyone already knew that.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit
Prove it! You are just an anonymous shill/troll as far as I am concerned. Do you have a name? Do you live somewhere? Are you a living human? You sound like a robot.
The shill gambit AGAIN? We already know you don't have any actual argument. You don't have to keep proving it.
If you had ANY decent research skills, then you could find my real name if you were so inclined as I know of a few places it is connected to my username. I'd bet you are too incompetent to find it though.
And of course all you're doing now is trying to draw attention away from the FACT that there is no restricted data on your website, that you have never had access to restricted data and that you have never been sentenced to death.
Why not introduce yourself? Who are you! Photo! Full style. Like me.
-
Who pays you?
As I've said multiple times before, nobody. Why must you resort to the logical fallacy of saying your opponent is paid? All it does is call attention to the fact that your argument is lacking. Of course, everyone already knew that.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shill_gambit
Prove it! You are just an anonymous shill/troll as far as I am concerned. Do you have a name? Do you live somewhere? Are you a living human? You sound like a robot.
The shill gambit AGAIN? We already know you don't have any actual argument. You don't have to keep proving it.
If you had ANY decent research skills, then you could find my real name if you were so inclined as I know of a few places it is connected to my username. I'd bet you are too incompetent to find it though.
And of course all you're doing now is trying to draw attention away from the FACT that there is no restricted data on your website, that you have never had access to restricted data and that you have never been sentenced to death.
Why not introduce yourself? Who are you! Photo! Full style. Like me.
Why are you so interested in me? You sound like a stalker. Sorry, you're not my type. I like females and far less senile.
But thanks for proving you have zero actual research skills.
And AGAIN, all you're doing now is trying to draw attention away from the FACT that there is no restricted data on your website, that you have never had access to restricted data and that you have never been sentenced to death.
-
Different types of a-bombs? Explained to me? Multiple times? With different triggers?
Sorry, I must have missed that.
So spoke heiwa, the expert on a-bombs.
He is not only drawing attention from the fact that he has no restricted data, he has not even mentioned how on earth the countless photos and videos of exploding a-bombs could have been faked. The original star wars was filmed in 1977. Have you ever seen the original version (not the remastered ones [Han shot first!])? Do you notice how crappy the animations are? Someone who is used to modern CGI might cringe. So how did they fake the videos and photos, before 1977? Not to mention bribing the countless eye witnesses..
-
The actual triggering mechanism would depend on the type of bomb you're building. You do know that there are several types of atomic bombs with different triggering methods, don't you?
No! All restricted data. Punishable by death, etc.
Bullshit. If that was true, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in a public forum where user IP addresses are logged, would we? ::)
Are you saying there are different types of a-bombs with different triggering methods.
Yes, that's what I'm saying.
I assume you make it up. You invent it.
Why would you assume that? It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Actually it is clear from the beginning. Why do you continue to lie about a-bombs?
I could ask you the same thing, but I've heard it said that one should never attribute malice where stupidity is just as likely.
Are you paid for it?
It would be nice if I was, but no, I am not paid to discuss a-bombs.
-
It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Yes - but how do you trigger them to start fission and produce FLASH? By mechanically compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Can you produce any scientific evidence that you can start fission/FLASH by sudden mechanical compression?
-
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1502/1502.00497.pdf
https://www.boundless.com/chemistry/textbooks/boundless-chemistry-textbook/nuclear-chemistry-19/nuclear-fission-137/the-atomic-bomb-544-3501/
E= mc2
Your turn.
-
compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Haven't people told you that this is wrong a few times already, you acknowledge and then the next page you regress back to this state?
-
compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Haven't people told you that this is wrong a few times already, you acknowledge and then the next page you regress back to this state?
?? No, according to the Manhattan project 'experts' 1945 you must suddenly compress the uranium or plutonium metal bits (rings/half spheres) to double density, so that a critical mass is acheived and then ... magic ... exponential, unstoppable fission starts that ends in a FLASH. After it has been started (LOL), it cannot be stopped. Temperature rises to 100 000 000K in nanoseconds without affecting the metal pieces.
IMO it is pseudoscience. What kind of thermometer was used? How was it tested?
Real fission in a nuclear power plant is started and stopped completely differently and no critical masses are required.
-
?? No, according to the Manhattan project 'experts' 1945 you must suddenly compress the uranium or plutonium metal bits (rings/half spheres) to double density, so that a critical mass is acheived and then ... magic ... exponential, unstoppable fission starts that ends in a FLASH. After it has been started (LOL), it cannot be stopped. Temperature rises to 100 000 000K in nanoseconds without affecting the metal pieces.
IMO it is pseudoscience. What kind of thermometer was used? How was it tested?
Real fission in a nuclear power plant is started and stopped completely differently and no critical masses are required.
Yes, the idea that you trigger an a-bomb by compressing two pieces of metal to double density with a neutron in between is really fantastic and a wonderful concept that the American people adore since 70 years. What a joke! To demonstrate that it really works, I offer €1M to anyone doing it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
What if compressing two pieces of metal to double density has nothing at all to do with how atomic bombs work? How do you expect anyone to win your challenge when your challenge is based on a false premise?
You can click the quote to get to the respective page and read through all the arguments again if you really want to, instead of writing it all out again and again and again...
-
compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Haven't people told you that this is wrong a few times already, you acknowledge and then the next page you regress back to this state?
?? No, according to the Manhattan project 'experts' 1945 you must suddenly compress the uranium or plutonium metal bits (rings/half spheres) to double density, so that a critical mass is acheived and then ... magic ... exponential, unstoppable fission starts that ends in a FLASH. After it has been started (LOL), it cannot be stopped. Temperature rises to 100 000 000K in nanoseconds without affecting the metal pieces.
IMO it is pseudoscience. What kind of thermometer was used? How was it tested?
Real fission in a nuclear power plant is started and stopped completely differently and no critical masses are required.
Can you provide a link to that info from the manhattan project? You claim that's what it says but I would like to verify myself. I don't mean a link to your website where you simply make unsupported claims, I mean something to the actual documents from the manhatten project you claim to be quoting.
-
https://www.dymocks.com.au/book/physics-of-the-manhattan-project-by-reed-bruce-cameron-9783662435335/?utm_source=googleps&gclid=Cj0KEQiA_eXEBRDP8fnIlJDXxsIBEiQAAGfyoYbgQty7bMGn8AMtBHonxHTDj3UxKCTvSy7ctrUHwaQaAmnB8P8HAQ#.WJmHKHQZ7qA
I found my next book, thanks, this is way above my paygrade.
-
https://www.dymocks.com.au/book/physics-of-the-manhattan-project-by-reed-bruce-cameron-9783662435335/?utm_source=googleps&gclid=Cj0KEQiA_eXEBRDP8fnIlJDXxsIBEiQAAGfyoYbgQty7bMGn8AMtBHonxHTDj3UxKCTvSy7ctrUHwaQaAmnB8P8HAQ#.WJmHKHQZ7qA
I found my next book, thanks, this is way above my paygrade.
These are cheaper:
http://www.manhattanphysics.com/
http://mafija.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/files/2014_2015/ManhattanProject.pdf
Contact your handler if you feel your pay per post rate is too low.
-
It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Yes - but how do you trigger them to start fission and produce FLASH? By mechanically compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Uranium devices use a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism to achieve a supercritical mass. Plutonium devices use implosion to compress a hollow sphere to achieve supercritical mass.
Can you produce any scientific evidence that you can start fission/FLASH by sudden mechanical compression?
The compression doesn't create the flash. The sudden release of a tremendous amount of energy from a very rapid, uncontrolled fission chain reaction causes the flash.
-
It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Yes - but how do you trigger them to start fission and produce FLASH? By mechanically compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Uranium devices use a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism to achieve a supercritical mass. Plutonium devices use implosion to compress a hollow sphere to achieve supercritical mass.
So how do you achieve a super critical mass of uranium with a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism? Do you shoot one mass against another? Please describe in more detail!
And how do you achieve a super critical mass of plutonium by implosion to compress a hollow sphere? Do you explode something on the outside? Please describe in more detail!
And why does sudden, exponential fission then start to develop into FLASHES? Why doesn't the devices just blow apart without fission?
-
It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Yes - but how do you trigger them to start fission and produce FLASH? By mechanically compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Uranium devices use a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism to achieve a supercritical mass. Plutonium devices use implosion to compress a hollow sphere to achieve supercritical mass.
So how do you achieve a super critical mass of uranium with a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism? Do you shoot one mass against another? Please describe in more detail!
And how do you achieve a super critical mass of plutonium by implosion to compress a hollow sphere? Do you explode something on the outside? Please describe in more detail!
And why does sudden, exponential fission then start to develop into FLASHES? Why doesn't the devices just blow apart without fission?
Read the links with which you have been supplied for answers to your disingenuous questions.
-
Temperature rises to 100 000 000K in nanoseconds without affecting the metal pieces.
IMO it is pseudoscience. What kind of thermometer was used? How was it tested?
It does affect the metal. Else there would be no explosion, right?
Yeah at first they got a guy to stick a high power thermometer into the center of the solid uranium right at the moment the fission occurs. Mostly they used interns because, sad thing, they were surprisingly vaporized by the nuclear explosion.
In case you did not get the sarcasm: The value is either theoretically calculated or obtained by measuring the released energy. You are a special kind of dense, right?
-
Temperature rises to 100 000 000K in nanoseconds without affecting the metal pieces.
IMO it is pseudoscience. What kind of thermometer was used? How was it tested?
It does affect the metal. Else there would be no explosion, right?
Yeah at first they got a guy to stick a high power thermometer into the center of the solid uranium right at the moment the fission occurs. Mostly they used interns because, sad thing, they were surprisingly vaporized by the nuclear explosion.
In case you did not get the sarcasm: The value is either theoretically calculated or obtained by measuring the released energy. You are a special kind of dense, right?
No, I just consider all ideas of sudden, military, exponential fission followed by a FLASH to scare people as pure pseudoscience invented by some sick clowns 1942/5. Imagine if the hoax had been exposed 1946?
Anyway, the proposals how to trigger the FLASH are really ridiculous. Gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism. LOL.
Only idiots can believe in such nonsense ... 72 years later!
-
It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Yes - but how do you trigger them to start fission and produce FLASH? By mechanically compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Uranium devices use a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism to achieve a supercritical mass. Plutonium devices use implosion to compress a hollow sphere to achieve supercritical mass.
So how do you achieve a super critical mass of uranium with a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism? Do you shoot one mass against another? Please describe in more detail!
And how do you achieve a super critical mass of plutonium by implosion to compress a hollow sphere? Do you explode something on the outside? Please describe in more detail!
And why does sudden, exponential fission then start to develop into FLASHES? Why doesn't the devices just blow apart without fission?
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/how-do-nuclear-weapons-work#.WJoXpss76hA (http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/how-do-nuclear-weapons-work#.WJoXpss76hA)
If you disagree with anything there please describe in detail exactly how it is wrong.
-
Temperature rises to 100 000 000K in nanoseconds without affecting the metal pieces.
IMO it is pseudoscience. What kind of thermometer was used? How was it tested?
It does affect the metal. Else there would be no explosion, right?
Yeah at first they got a guy to stick a high power thermometer into the center of the solid uranium right at the moment the fission occurs. Mostly they used interns because, sad thing, they were surprisingly vaporized by the nuclear explosion.
In case you did not get the sarcasm: The value is either theoretically calculated or obtained by measuring the released energy. You are a special kind of dense, right?
No, I just consider all ideas of sudden, military, exponential fission followed by a FLASH to scare people as pure pseudoscience invented by some sick clowns 1942/5. Imagine if the hoax had been exposed 1946?
Anyway, the proposals how to trigger the FLASH are really ridiculous. Gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism. LOL.
Only idiots can believe in such nonsense ... 72 years later!
That's really what it comes down to isn't? You consider it false so it must be. You don't understand it so it must be a lie. You have nothing to support this idea or you would have posted it here. Instead there are pages and pages of you just saying it's impossible. Another failure.
-
Temperature rises to 100 000 000K in nanoseconds without affecting the metal pieces.
IMO it is pseudoscience. What kind of thermometer was used? How was it tested?
It does affect the metal. Else there would be no explosion, right?
Yeah at first they got a guy to stick a high power thermometer into the center of the solid uranium right at the moment the fission occurs. Mostly they used interns because, sad thing, they were surprisingly vaporized by the nuclear explosion.
In case you did not get the sarcasm: The value is either theoretically calculated or obtained by measuring the released energy. You are a special kind of dense, right?
No, I just consider all ideas of sudden, military, exponential fission followed by a FLASH to scare people as pure pseudoscience invented by some sick clowns 1942/5. Imagine if the hoax had been exposed 1946?
Anyway, the proposals how to trigger the FLASH are really ridiculous. Gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism. LOL.
Only idiots can believe in such nonsense ... 72 years later!
That's really what it comes down to isn't? You consider it false so it must be. You don't understand it so it must be a lie. You have nothing to support this idea or you would have posted it here. Instead there are pages and pages of you just saying it's impossible. Another failure.
No, I explain why a-bombs are just an old hoax at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Topic. Topic is not to explain how a-bombs work. It is all restricted data, you know. Cannot be discussed by law.
-
It is all restricted data, you know. Cannot be discussed by law.
And back to the lie. More LIES from Heiwa.
-
It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Yes - but how do you trigger them to start fission and produce FLASH? By mechanically compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Uranium devices use a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism to achieve a supercritical mass. Plutonium devices use implosion to compress a hollow sphere to achieve supercritical mass.
So how do you achieve a super critical mass of uranium with a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism? Do you shoot one mass against another? Please describe in more detail!
Details a plenty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png)
And how do you achieve a super critical mass of plutonium by implosion to compress a hollow sphere? Do you explode something on the outside? Please describe in more detail!
More details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Fat_Man_Internal_Components.png)
And why does sudden, exponential fission then start to develop into FLASHES? Why doesn't the devices just blow apart without fission?
Why does C-4 explode in a flash instead of just blowing apart?
-
Topic is not to explain how a-bombs work.
Then why are you demanding that we do?
-
Temperature rises to 100 000 000K in nanoseconds without affecting the metal pieces.
IMO it is pseudoscience. What kind of thermometer was used? How was it tested?
It does affect the metal. Else there would be no explosion, right?
Yeah at first they got a guy to stick a high power thermometer into the center of the solid uranium right at the moment the fission occurs. Mostly they used interns because, sad thing, they were surprisingly vaporized by the nuclear explosion.
In case you did not get the sarcasm: The value is either theoretically calculated or obtained by measuring the released energy. You are a special kind of dense, right?
No, I just consider all ideas of sudden, military, exponential fission followed by a FLASH to scare people as pure pseudoscience invented by some sick clowns 1942/5. Imagine if the hoax had been exposed 1946?
Anyway, the proposals how to trigger the FLASH are really ridiculous. Gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism. LOL.
Only idiots can believe in such nonsense ... 72 years later!
That's really what it comes down to isn't? You consider it false so it must be. You don't understand it so it must be a lie. You have nothing to support this idea or you would have posted it here. Instead there are pages and pages of you just saying it's impossible. Another failure.
No, I explain why a-bombs are just an old hoax at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Topic. Topic is not to explain how a-bombs work. It is all restricted data, you know. Cannot be discussed by law.
Ok, so since you cannot dispute anything in the link we must assume you agree with it and that nukes are real. You offer no evidence to the contrary here, largely because you cannot.
Of course if there is something specific you disagree with in that link, please post your evidence here, no one is going to your website to dig through pages of nonsense only to have your evidence be, "but of course that is impossible"
Another failure by heiwa, no surprise there.
-
Topic is not to explain how a-bombs work.
Then why are you demanding that we do?
Lol
-
It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Yes - but how do you trigger them to start fission and produce FLASH? By mechanically compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Uranium devices use a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism to achieve a supercritical mass. Plutonium devices use implosion to compress a hollow sphere to achieve supercritical mass.
So how do you achieve a super critical mass of uranium with a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism? Do you shoot one mass against another? Please describe in more detail!
Details a plenty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png)
And how do you achieve a super critical mass of plutonium by implosion to compress a hollow sphere? Do you explode something on the outside? Please describe in more detail!
More details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Fat_Man_Internal_Components.png)
And why does sudden, exponential fission then start to develop into FLASHES? Why doesn't the devices just blow apart without fission?
Why does C-4 explode in a flash instead of just blowing apart?
Hm, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (i.e. my popular website) I use exactly the same figures to explain why the a-bombs cannot explode. The figures are part of the propaganda. You really should visit my website.
-
yes, please visit his website. His ego can't take it if you don't. ::)
-
Hm, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (i.e. my popular website) I use exactly the same figures to explain why the a-bombs cannot explode. The figures are part of the propaganda. You really should visit my website.
I'm sorry but this discussion is happening here, not on your pathetic excuse for a web site. If you have some relevant information to share, then feel free to copy and paste it here.
-
It's a matter of public record that the Hiroshima bomb was a Uranium bomb that was a gun type device while the Nagasaki bomb was a Plutonium bomb that was an implosion type device.
Yes - but how do you trigger them to start fission and produce FLASH? By mechanically compressing Uranium and Plutonium metal to double density?
Uranium devices use a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism to achieve a supercritical mass. Plutonium devices use implosion to compress a hollow sphere to achieve supercritical mass.
So how do you achieve a super critical mass of uranium with a gun type spike and hollow cup mechanism? Do you shoot one mass against another? Please describe in more detail!
Details a plenty:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Little_Boy_Internal_Components.png)
And how do you achieve a super critical mass of plutonium by implosion to compress a hollow sphere? Do you explode something on the outside? Please describe in more detail!
More details:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Fat_Man_Internal_Components.png)
And why does sudden, exponential fission then start to develop into FLASHES? Why doesn't the devices just blow apart without fission?
Why does C-4 explode in a flash instead of just blowing apart?
Hm, at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (i.e. my popular website) I use exactly the same figures to explain why the a-bombs cannot explode. The figures are part of the propaganda. You really should visit my website.
No you don't. You just say it can't work. Can you refute this information or not? Not on your website but right here. Stop pimping your website and actually show your evidence here for once. Why are so afraid to do that?
-
No you don't. You just say it can't work. Can you refute this information or not? Not on your website but right here. Stop pimping your website and actually show your evidence here for once. Why are so afraid to do that?
You really should visit http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm , where I honestly explain (1) why a-bombs do not work and (2) the complete nuclear weapons hoax with plenty evidence of all kind. Reason why I do not copy/paste it here is simply space.
-
No you don't. You just say it can't work. Can you refute this information or not? Not on your website but right here. Stop pimping your website and actually show your evidence here for once. Why are so afraid to do that?
You really should visit http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm , where I honestly explain (1) why a-bombs do not work and (2) the complete nuclear weapons hoax with plenty evidence of all kind. Reason why I do not copy/paste it here is simply space.
Fo sho man, fo sho.
-
No you don't. You just say it can't work. Can you refute this information or not? Not on your website but right here. Stop pimping your website and actually show your evidence here for once. Why are so afraid to do that?
You really should visit http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm , where I honestly explain (1) why a-bombs do not work and (2) the complete nuclear weapons hoax with plenty evidence of all kind. Reason why I do not copy/paste it here is simply space.
No, you really should copy and paste your explanation here. You know, where the discussion is happening.
-
No you don't. You just say it can't work. Can you refute this information or not? Not on your website but right here. Stop pimping your website and actually show your evidence here for once. Why are so afraid to do that?
You really should visit http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm , where I honestly explain (1) why a-bombs do not work and (2) the complete nuclear weapons hoax with plenty evidence of all kind. Reason why I do not copy/paste it here is simply space.
You're right the reason is simple. You simply have no evidence to refute any of this. It isn't on your website, I've been there, no evidence, so you simply lie and dodge the question. If you have evidence post it here or admit you're a fraud.
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
-
Is it punishable by death?
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
Can you please provide a citation?
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
Can you please provide a citation?
Try yourself to copy/paste a web page and post it. A message appears saying your post is too big or something.
-
In other words, heiwa is too incompetent to quote the relevant info and/or break into multiple posts. Plus he needs those hits for his ego!
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
No-one's asking you to c&p the whole thing you idiot, just the relevant parts with facts and citations in. Arguably you have already done that.
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
No-one's asking you to c&p the whole thing you idiot, just the relevant parts with facts and citations in. Arguably you have already done that.
It seems idiots ask me to c&p but, when I do it, I get an idiotic message the c&p is too big, bla, bla and no pictures are c&ped.
So it is much better/easier/smarter to just link to it, IMO. I can't understand why idiots cannot click on a link. Is it too difficult?
-
We want to have a discussion here. Is it too difficult to make your point here in your own words?
I think I see your problem. You had someone else write your website and you don't actually understand much of it.This is why you can't stand on your own two feet and make a coherent argument here.
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
No-one's asking you to c&p the whole thing you idiot, just the relevant parts with facts and citations in. Arguably you have already done that.
It seems idiots ask me to c&p but, when I do it, I get an idiotic message the c&p is too big, bla, bla and no pictures are c&ped.
That's because idiots don't know how to cite relevant passages.
You do know what a relevant passage is, don't you?
So it is much better/easier/smarter to just link to it, IMO. I can't understand why idiots cannot click on a link. Is it too difficult?
Clicking a link isn't difficult. It's finding relevant information on your web page that's damned near impossible..
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
Another lie. People copy and paste stuff here all the time. You really are pathetic failure aren't you?
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
Another lie. People copy and paste stuff here all the time. You really are pathetic failure aren't you?
No - I always get this message when I c&p something:
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (20000 characters).
So it is much better that you follow the link I provide. I know some idiots have difficulties with it, but they have to shape up.
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
-
tldr: "I don't understand it" & "I don't believe it".
There is nothing there that explains why it is not possible. Not one thing.
-
It seems idiots ask me to c&p but, when I do it, I get an idiotic message the c&p is too big, bla, bla and no pictures are c&ped.
The internet is so hard, right? ::)
-
tldr: "I don't understand it" & "I don't believe it".
There is nothing there that explains why it is not possible. Not one thing.
??? So you really do not wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission.
Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
Pls provide scientific evidence that a collision of two metal bits starts fission!
-
It seems idiots ask me to c&p but, when I do it, I get an idiotic message the c&p is too big, bla, bla and no pictures are c&ped.
The internet is so hard, right? ::)
Not at all. I was told by an idiot to c&p a website and it was not possible due to software weaknesses at the forum server.
So I c&p a bit of a website and the software doesn't even do it right.
It is easier to just link to it.
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
Another lie. People copy and paste stuff here all the time. You really are pathetic failure aren't you?
No - I always get this message when I c&p something:
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (20000 characters).
So it is much better that you follow the link I provide. I know some idiots have difficulties with it, but they have to shape up.
Copy smaller pieces, like ones that actually show evidence, instead of 20000 characters.
No one is going to your rambling nonsense website. There is no evidence there. The fact that you refuse to post your evidence here proved it.
Yet another pathetic failure by heiwa.
-
I am sorry to inform that according forum rules I cannot copy/paste my website here.You really have to study it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . It is great stuff.
Another lie. People copy and paste stuff here all the time. You really are pathetic failure aren't you?
No - I always get this message when I c&p something:
The following error or errors occurred while posting this message:
The message exceeds the maximum allowed length (20000 characters).
So it is much better that you follow the link I provide. I know some idiots have difficulties with it, but they have to shape up.
Copy smaller pieces, like ones that actually show evidence, instead of 20000 characters.
No one is going to your rambling nonsense website. There is no evidence there. The fact that you refuse to post your evidence here proved it.
Yet another pathetic failure by heiwa.
No, I just did what you asked it in post #2511 above with clear evidence that a-bombs are hoaxes. Clearly colliding two metal bits at high speed does not produce fission in a FLASH! It is a joke!
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
No, I say that metal in contact with metal in a collision doesn't explode. They just deform and bounce. I don't believe it. I know it. Try to quote me correctly.
Did you read the Los Alamos primer explaining (indoctrinating!) why the whole thing couldn't explode?
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
No, I say that metal in contact with metal in a collision doesn't explode. They just deform and bounce. I don't believe it. I know it. Try to quote me correctly.
Did you read the Los Alamos primer explaining (indoctrinating!) why the whole thing couldn't explode?
You claim to know it, but your claim is not evidence. That's the point, you only make claims, no actual supporting evidence. But again, at least we are getting somewhere and you are actually posting things.
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
No, I say that metal in contact with metal in a collision doesn't explode. They just deform and bounce. I don't believe it. I know it. Try to quote me correctly.
Did you read the Los Alamos primer explaining (indoctrinating!) why the whole thing couldn't explode?
You claim to know it, but your claim is not evidence. That's the point, you only make claims, no actual supporting evidence. But again, at least we are getting somewhere and you are actually posting things.
So you didn't read the Los Alamos primer about indoctrination and propaganda? To produce propaganda you have to invent the misleading info to start with.
In the end they never found out how to trigger/start the exponential, destructive fission ... or they knew it from the start ... and just thought people would believe the compression to double density nonsense.
I think I describe it quite good.
-
It seems idiots ask me to c&p but, when I do it, I get an idiotic message the c&p is too big, bla, bla and no pictures are c&ped.
The internet is so hard, right? ::)
Not at all. I was told by an idiot to c&p a website and it was not possible due to software weaknesses at the forum server.
So I c&p a bit of a website and the software doesn't even do it right.
It is easier to just link to it.
LOL at you blaming your incompetence on the forum software!
-
It seems idiots ask me to c&p but, when I do it, I get an idiotic message the c&p is too big, bla, bla and no pictures are c&ped.
The internet is so hard, right? ::)
Not at all. I was told by an idiot to c&p a website and it was not possible due to software weaknesses at the forum server.
So I c&p a bit of a website and the software doesn't even do it right.
It is easier to just link to it.
LOL at you blaming your incompetence on the forum software!
Not at all. C&p of a website is simply not possible here. But as I always say - it is better to post a link and read it at the original server.
BTW - how do you trigger a-bomb fission resulting in a FLASH? Did you read the Los Alamos primer how an a-bomb functions?
It cannot be c&p here. You have to read it from the server. I was ROTFL reading it.
-
It seems idiots ask me to c&p but, when I do it, I get an idiotic message the c&p is too big, bla, bla and no pictures are c&ped.
The internet is so hard, right? ::)
Not at all. I was told by an idiot to c&p a website and it was not possible due to software weaknesses at the forum server.
So I c&p a bit of a website and the software doesn't even do it right.
It is easier to just link to it.
LOL at you blaming your incompetence on the forum software!
Not at all. C&p of a website is simply not possible here.
Another LIE from Heiwa. C&P works exactly as it should. No other forum will copy links and pictures. If you want those then that is why there is the capability to add them in the post editor.
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page.
Well duh!! ::) That's why we kept asking for relevant passages instead of having to navigate that entire page.
Anyway the link is better.
No, it really isn't.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
The solid target rings fit nicely into the hollow projectile rings. No bouncing required.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
No. That the two masses of Uranium were subcritical kept the bomb from exploding prematurely.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
An engineer that doesn't understand how to lock things in place? ???
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
In theory, yes. In practice, no. That's the main difference between theory and practice.
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
No. The Trinity bomb was a Plutonium implosion device like the Fat Man bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
In 1955, the dangers of radiation weren't as well known as they are today.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda.
I agree. Your entire analysis is stupid, idiotic propaganda nonsense.
It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
Evidently you are wrong about Uranium-235.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction.
No. The fissile nature of U235 is enough to initiate an uncontrolled chain reaction once the hollow projectile rings surround the solid target rings. Neutron reflectors help to increase the odds of fission.
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
The two masses don't need to be compressed into one. They only need to be close enough for the neutrons from one mass to reach the other thereby crossing the threshold from subcritical mass to supercritical mass.
-
The two masses don't need to be compressed into one. They only need to be close enough for the neutrons from one mass to reach the other thereby crossing the threshold from subcritical mass to supercritical mass.
Hm, you sure. Any evidence for it?
According to chapter 20 of http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-00001 you must shoot the inner rings (half critical mass i.e. subcritical) into the outher rings (half critical mass i.e. also subcritical) with a speed of 105 cm/sec ... and then stop (LOL) to become, suddenly, one (super) critical mass and then exponential fission starts ... for mysterious reasons.
But how do you stop something coming flying at 105 cm/sec speed? Maybe the inner rings will just bounce out backwards or continue forward. It seems a nut bolt A must also be tightened properly.
Any ideas?
-
Hilarious.
You provide a document that describes in detail the theory behind the thing you say can't be described, and in a declassified document that you insist is classified because of what it describes. Did the people who authorised its release get murdered?
-
Hilarious.
You provide a document that describes in detail the theory behind the thing you say can't be described, and in a declassified document that you insist is classified because of what it describes. Did the people who authorised its release get murdered?
Not really. All is simple propaganda since 1945. Not one word true. All invented to impress the enemy ... and the US public. Some data is made restricted, bla, bla, other data is made public or leaked. Problem is that some people started to believe their own propaganda to make easy money out of it. I describe it at my popular website. I have plenty happy visitors every day. I consider only idiots believe in a-bombs after having studied my info. What else can I do?
-
The two masses don't need to be compressed into one. They only need to be close enough for the neutrons from one mass to reach the other thereby crossing the threshold from subcritical mass to supercritical mass.
Hm, you sure. Any evidence for it?
Yes. The atomic bomb that exploded over Hiroshima.
According to chapter 20 of http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?what=info:lanl-repo/lareport/LA-00001 you must shoot the inner rings (half critical mass i.e. subcritical) into the outher rings (half critical mass i.e. also subcritical) with a speed of 105 cm/sec ... and then stop (LOL) to become, suddenly, one (super) critical mass and then exponential fission starts ... for mysterious reasons.
It's not a mystery at all if you understand nuclear physics.
But how do you stop something coming flying at 105 cm/sec speed? Maybe the inner rings will just bounce out backwards or continue forward.
According to chapter 3 of that same document, you'll see that it says that the entire reaction must take place in less than 5*10-8 seconds before the whole thing expands too much to sustain the reaction. The time that it would take to bounce back out is probably far greater than that.
BTW, you also seem to have missed the impact absorbing anvil towards the front of the Little Boy bomb diagram.
Any ideas?
Yes. Take some courses in nuclear physics so that you don't sound so foolish.
-
Hilarious.
You provide a document that describes in detail the theory behind the thing you say can't be described, and in a declassified document that you insist is classified because of what it describes. Did the people who authorised its release get murdered?
Not really. All is simple propaganda since 1945. Not one word true. All invented to impress the enemy ... and the US public. Some data is made restricted, bla, bla, other data is made public or leaked.
So it's not restricted? You claimed it was all restricted and then produce a document showing it isn't. Nobody died even though you claimed they would. Oops.
-
The two masses don't need to be compressed into one. They only need to be close enough for the neutrons from one mass to reach the other thereby crossing the threshold from subcritical mass to supercritical mass.
Hm, you sure. Any evidence for it?
Yes. The atomic bomb that exploded over Hiroshima.
So they put half a critical mass of Uranium on top of another half critical mass of Uranium at Hiroshima and the result was a FLASH.
No, no atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima at all. The place was just napalm, carpet fire bombed. The FLASH was propaganda. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Only idiots believe what you believe. But you are not alone.
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
No, I say that metal in contact with metal in a collision doesn't explode. They just deform and bounce. I don't believe it. I know it. Try to quote me correctly.
Did you read the Los Alamos primer explaining (indoctrinating!) why the whole thing couldn't explode?
You claim to know it, but your claim is not evidence. That's the point, you only make claims, no actual supporting evidence. But again, at least we are getting somewhere and you are actually posting things.
So you didn't read the Los Alamos primer about indoctrination and propaganda? To produce propaganda you have to invent the misleading info to start with.
In the end they never found out how to trigger/start the exponential, destructive fission ... or they knew it from the start ... and just thought people would believe the compression to double density nonsense.
I think I describe it quite good.
Ok, that's another claim by you. Show us the evidence to support it.
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
No, I say that metal in contact with metal in a collision doesn't explode. They just deform and bounce. I don't believe it. I know it. Try to quote me correctly.
Did you read the Los Alamos primer explaining (indoctrinating!) why the whole thing couldn't explode?
You claim to know it, but your claim is not evidence. That's the point, you only make claims, no actual supporting evidence. But again, at least we are getting somewhere and you are actually posting things.
So you didn't read the Los Alamos primer about indoctrination and propaganda? To produce propaganda you have to invent the misleading info to start with.
In the end they never found out how to trigger/start the exponential, destructive fission ... or they knew it from the start ... and just thought people would believe the compression to double density nonsense.
I think I describe it quite good.
Ok, that's another claim by you. Show us the evidence to support it.
Only idiots believe what you believe. But you are not alone.
-
The two masses don't need to be compressed into one. They only need to be close enough for the neutrons from one mass to reach the other thereby crossing the threshold from subcritical mass to supercritical mass.
Hm, you sure. Any evidence for it?
Yes. The atomic bomb that exploded over Hiroshima.
So they put half a critical mass of Uranium on top of another half critical mass of Uranium at Hiroshima and the result was a FLASH.
Not quite. The solid target mass was a little less than critical mass and the hollow projectile rings were about 1.5x critical mass (the hollow shape kept the mass from going supercritical). When the projectile rings were fired at the target rings, the total mass was a little over twice critical mass.
No, no atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima at all. The place was just napalm, carpet fire bombed. The FLASH was propaganda.
What about all of the Japanese eyewitnesses that disagree with you? Were they paid off too?
Only idiots believe what you believe. But you are not alone.
No. Only idiots ignore overwhelming evidence and keep on believing what they want. Sadly, you're not alone either.
-
Hilarious.
You provide a document that describes in detail the theory behind the thing you say can't be described, and in a declassified document that you insist is classified because of what it describes. Did the people who authorised its release get murdered?
Not really. All is simple propaganda since 1945. Not one word true. All invented to impress the enemy ... and the US public. Some data is made restricted, bla, bla, other data is made public or leaked. Problem is that some people started to believe their own propaganda to make easy money out of it. I describe it at my popular website. I have plenty happy visitors every day. I consider only idiots believe in a-bombs after having studied my info. What else can I do?
Maybe it would help if learned about nuclear physics so that you could make an informed analysis, rather than relying on your completely unrelated "naval engineering" experience.
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
No, I say that metal in contact with metal in a collision doesn't explode. They just deform and bounce. I don't believe it. I know it. Try to quote me correctly.
Did you read the Los Alamos primer explaining (indoctrinating!) why the whole thing couldn't explode?
You claim to know it, but your claim is not evidence. That's the point, you only make claims, no actual supporting evidence. But again, at least we are getting somewhere and you are actually posting things.
So you didn't read the Los Alamos primer about indoctrination and propaganda? To produce propaganda you have to invent the misleading info to start with.
In the end they never found out how to trigger/start the exponential, destructive fission ... or they knew it from the start ... and just thought people would believe the compression to double density nonsense.
I think I describe it quite good.
Ok, that's another claim by you. Show us the evidence to support it.
Only idiots believe what you believe. But you are not alone.
Ok, another claim. Show your evidence why that would be true
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
No, I say that metal in contact with metal in a collision doesn't explode. They just deform and bounce. I don't believe it. I know it. Try to quote me correctly.
Did you read the Los Alamos primer explaining (indoctrinating!) why the whole thing couldn't explode?
You claim to know it, but your claim is not evidence. That's the point, you only make claims, no actual supporting evidence. But again, at least we are getting somewhere and you are actually posting things.
So you didn't read the Los Alamos primer about indoctrination and propaganda? To produce propaganda you have to invent the misleading info to start with.
In the end they never found out how to trigger/start the exponential, destructive fission ... or they knew it from the start ... and just thought people would believe the compression to double density nonsense.
I think I describe it quite good.
Ok, that's another claim by you. Show us the evidence to support it.
Only idiots believe what you believe. But you are not alone.
Ok, another claim. Show your evidence why that would be true
Look at yourself in a mirror! You ask for evidence, I present the official propaganda lies associated with nuclear weapons that you just repeat.
-
Fo' sho' man, fo' sho'.
-
So you didn't read the Los Alamos primer about indoctrination and propaganda? To produce propaganda you have to invent the misleading info to start with.
In the end they never found out how to trigger/start the exponential, destructive fission ... or they knew it from the start ... and just thought people would believe the compression to double density nonsense.
I think I describe it quite good.
Ok, that's another claim by you. Show us the evidence to support it.
He's mistaking the use of the word "indoctrination" in that document. You know, the declassified document that describes how an atomic bomb works.
-
Here I c&p from chapter 3.5 of http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm of my popular web page why a-bombs cannot explode. Pictures and links are not copied and some errors occur in the text. But it seems it is possible to c&p bits and pieces of a web page. Anyway the link is better.
3.5 Compress mechanically metal Uranium-235 and suddenly it explodes
According underpaid US scientists 1945 the a-bomb above exploded (!), when the 9 projectile rings (item S) of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) were mechanically pushed over and mechanically compressed into (?) the 6 target rings (item H) also of 30.5 kg Uranium-235 (U235) by the projectile Tungsten-Carbide disk (item T) at a speed of >1.000 m/s (according #20 of the Los Alamos Primer) and the projectile steel back (item U) in turn accelerated by exploding cordite power bags (item W). But you cannot compress an atom or a piece of metal by a collision. It just bounces.
At the same time the Uranium-235 rings are compressed together, four Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' (item G) are also compressed. The Beryllium and the radioactive Polonium are initially separated by sheathings of Nickel and Gold absorbing any alpha particles from the Polonium, but when sudden compression occurs the sheathings are broken and the solid Beryllium and solid Polonium are mixed or pressed together producing free neutrons (!) that at 15.000.000 m/s speed (~3% of the speed of light) in turn fission the Uranium-235 rings = a-bomb explosion. That a free neutron flying around at 15.000.000 m/s speed didn't explode the bomb earlier was good news for the bomber crew.
This took place 600 meters above ground, when the bomb itself was dropping vertically at 324.7 m/s speed.
Why the 9 projectile rings did not drop by themselves by gravity is not clear. Maybe they were glued together and to the disk glued to the steel back?
So an a-bomb is very simple! Slide or drop or push (assisted by exploding cordite!) 9 Uranium-235 (U235) projectile rings over 6 Uranium-235 (U235) target rings and compress them together inside a Tungsten-Carbide tube (sleeve/disk/plug) a speed of >1.000 m/s, compress at the same time some Polonium-Beryllium 'initiators' and fission and ... BOOM. Children died! And do not forget to tighten item A - the front nose locknut on the steel rod!
The first a-bomb explosion at 5.30 am, July 16, 1945, 0.016 seconds after destruction at about 20 meters above ground. The FIREBALL (?) is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The picture, allegedly taken by a high speed, 64 fps (one frame every 0.0156 seconds), B/W film camera at a distance 10 000 yard away, is a simple fake! Like this video!
Inside the fake FIREBALL is pure energy that have heated up split and unsplit Uranium atomics and the air to >1.000.000C. The pressure inside the fireball is originally >1.000.000 bar, when it expands at great velocity in all directions ... if you believe the nonsense. The sudden flash flies by at the speed of light!!!!
In this 1955 film you see a little (fake) a-bomb go off, so next day place is safe to visit and have a look at the damages! All nuke bomb films are fake! Russian, American, French, etc.
Above is evidently pure nonsense. Stupid, idiotic propaganda. It does not work! Metal in contact with metal, be it gold, silver, lead, iron, Uranium of any kind incl. Uranium-235 (U235) of any critical mass, do not fission exponentially and explode (initiated by a metallic Polonium-Beryllium mix producing free neutrons at 15.000.000 m/s speed) even after being mechanically compressed together at a speed of >1.000 m/s ... suddenly.
What is supposed to happen to initiate fission? The projectile rings and their steel back (items T and U) - say weight 50 kgs - accelerate down the 2 meters long tube in microseconds and collide with the impact absorbing anvil (item E) with a velocity of v - say v = 150 m/s, which is pretty high (more will blew the tube apart). The total energy applied at collision impact is 562.5 kJ and half of it is absorbed by the impact absorbing anvil (item E) trying to push the projectile rings and its steel back (item U) back up the tube. You know - objects also bounce, not just compress, at impacts. The remaining energy - 281.25 kJ - is supposed to radially compress mechanically the projectile rings and the target rings outwards (total 61 kg) and adjacent items (say also 61 kg) but 2.3 kJ/kg energy will not compress metal a lot in any direction. Compare energy required to destroy WTC 1/2!
You really wonder what idiot or nuclear physicist came up with this crazy idea that two pieces of cold metal (Uranium-235) mechanically compressed together using cordite would start to fission. Would really the two cold metal pieces merge into one? What really happens at the contact surface between the projectile rings and the target rings? Do the rings become one solid mass? And why would it explode? Free neutrons flying around from a Polonium-Beryllium mix?
I must say I am impressed. You actually did it. You actually posted something here instead of just pimping your website. Good for you.
Now as forhis evidence you posted. Well there isn't any. All you have said is you don't believe it. You have not shown any actual evidence it can't work.
But again, thank you for actually posting something.
No, I say that metal in contact with metal in a collision doesn't explode. They just deform and bounce. I don't believe it. I know it. Try to quote me correctly.
Did you read the Los Alamos primer explaining (indoctrinating!) why the whole thing couldn't explode?
You claim to know it, but your claim is not evidence. That's the point, you only make claims, no actual supporting evidence. But again, at least we are getting somewhere and you are actually posting things.
So you didn't read the Los Alamos primer about indoctrination and propaganda? To produce propaganda you have to invent the misleading info to start with.
In the end they never found out how to trigger/start the exponential, destructive fission ... or they knew it from the start ... and just thought people would believe the compression to double density nonsense.
I think I describe it quite good.
Ok, that's another claim by you. Show us the evidence to support it.
Only idiots believe what you believe. But you are not alone.
Ok, another claim. Show your evidence why that would be true
Look at yourself in a mirror! You ask for evidence, I present the official propaganda lies associated with nuclear weapons that you just repeat.
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
-
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
Correct! And I think I show it quite convincingly. There exists no evidence that a-bombs work.
-
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
There exists no evidence that a-bombs work.
Apart from in the document you posted. The declassified one. That should get you killed.
-
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
Correct! And I think I show it quite convincingly. There exists no evidence that a-bombs work.
The evidence that atomic bombs work is in the nuclear physics that you don't understand.
-
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
Correct! And I think I show it quite convincingly. There exists no evidence that a-bombs work.
The evidence that atomic bombs work is in the nuclear physics that you don't understand.
Hm. I understand mechanical sciences very well and ... suddenly compressing bits of metal at high speed collisions to double density doesn't work to start fission. It has nothing to do with nuclear physics. It is pure FDR pseudoscience. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com
Ever heard of FDR? Died young in his bed ... ?
-
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
Correct! And I think I show it quite convincingly. There exists no evidence that a-bombs work.
The evidence that atomic bombs work is in the nuclear physics that you don't understand.
Hm. I understand mechanical sciences very well and ...
I find that hard to believe.
...suddenly compressing bits of metal at high speed collisions to double density doesn't work to start fission.
No one said that it does.
It has nothing to do with nuclear physics.
How would you know that if you don't understand nuclear physics?
It is pure FDR pseudoscience. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com
You do realize that atomic bombs use the same nuclear physics as peaceful nuclear power plants, don't you? The goals and processes may be different, but the physics are the same.
Ever heard of FDR? Died young in his bed ... ?
Completely irrelevant.
-
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
Correct! And I think I show it quite convincingly. There exists no evidence that a-bombs work.
No you don't. You don't show anything. You just claim it. That's not evidence. Show some evidence to support your position.
-
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
Correct! And I think I show it quite convincingly. There exists no evidence that a-bombs work.
No you don't. You don't show anything. You just claim it. That's not evidence. Show some evidence to support your position.
Hm, nuclear weapons do not exist. But according to old, 1945 propaganda nuclear bombs work, e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So I show at my website that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just fire carpet napalm bombed August 1945. At that time Japan was already completely destroyed, starving, sick, etc, and agreed to anything, incl. that the towns were wiped out by two a-bomb FLASHES.
But it was just propaganda. It worked well. The propagandaists quickly believed it themselves. They had been well paid to invent the propaganda and were even better paid to go on with it.
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is great fun. I am happy I am not paid to work for that shit. I just feel sorry for the criminals involved in scaring people with lies.
Remember the M/S Estonia 28 September 1994 sinking ... and all the lies that followed.
-
Yet you do not show any evidence to dispute the official statements. You claim they are propaganda, nothing more.
Correct! And I think I show it quite convincingly. There exists no evidence that a-bombs work.
No you don't. You don't show anything. You just claim it. That's not evidence. Show some evidence to support your position.
Hm, nuclear weapons do not exist. But according to old, 1945 propaganda nuclear bombs work, e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So I show at my website that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just fire carpet napalm bombed August 1945. At that time Japan was already completely destroyed, starving, sick, etc, and agreed to anything, incl. that the towns were wiped out by two a-bomb FLASHES.
But it was just propaganda. It worked well. The propagandaists quickly believed it themselves. They had been well paid to invent the propaganda and were even better paid to go on with it.
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is great fun. I am happy I am not paid to work for that shit. I just feel sorry for the criminals involved in scaring people with lies.
Remember the M/S Estonia 28 September 1994 sinking ... and all the lies that followed.
No, you don't show it at your website, you just make that claim. Show us, right here, your evidence. So far you have completely failed to do so.
-
How many planes did eyewitnesses report at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
How many explosions did they report?
Tokyo was firebombed - completely different operation. What did eyewitnesses record there?
Don't refer me to your website, it's beginning to smell of a pay per click operation the number of times you feel you have to mention it. Discuss it here.
-
How many planes did eyewitnesses report at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
How many explosions did they report?
Tokyo was firebombed - completely different operation. What did eyewitnesses record there?
Don't refer me to your website, it's beginning to smell of a pay per click operation the number of times you feel you have to mention it. Discuss it here.
Sorry, you really have to study my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm and learn about my stay at Yokohama, Japan, 1972/6. What happened to that city May 1945 could not be discussed then. But I learnt a lot. So I describe at my website. It is very popular. Plenty visitors. All free of charge.
-
How many planes did eyewitnesses report at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
How many explosions did they report?
Tokyo was firebombed - completely different operation. What did eyewitnesses record there?
Don't refer me to your website, it's beginning to smell of a pay per click operation the number of times you feel you have to mention it. Discuss it here.
Sorry, you really have to study <some shit website> and learn about my stay at Yokohama, Japan, 1972/6. What happened to that city May 1945 could not be discussed then. But I learnt a lot. So I describe at my website. It is very popular. Plenty visitors. All free of charge.
Nope.
You obviously have no answer. You lose.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
-
How many planes did eyewitnesses report at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
How many explosions did they report?
Tokyo was firebombed - completely different operation. What did eyewitnesses record there?
Don't refer me to your website, it's beginning to smell of a pay per click operation the number of times you feel you have to mention it. Discuss it here.
Sorry, you really have to study my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm and learn about my stay at Yokohama, Japan, 1972/6. What happened to that city May 1945 could not be discussed then. But I learnt a lot. So I describe at my website. It is very popular. Plenty visitors. All free of charge.
No, we really don't. If you have evidence show it here.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Hm, at my website I describe the situation in Japan 1945/53:
In order to hide the truth about the a-bombs USA, when occupying Japan, immediately created the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section. CCD was secret. You could not even say that censorship existed in occupied Japan.
Anybody taking photos of the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suggesting, e.g. that the two a-bombs were fake was simply arrested and maybe executed because such suggestions disturbed public tranquillity.
How was it possible? The CCD was run by United Stasi of America's general Charles A. Willoughby. If Charles had remained in Germany, where he was born 1892, he would probably have had the job of Joseph Goebbels. Charles apparently was a psychopath and as such suitable for US Army service.
The US 1945 generally bombed purely civilian targets - city centers - and avoided industry, communications, ports, railways, etc, in Japan. At that time Japan was already finished and starving to death.
All foreign correspondents in Japan were only allowed to publish what the CCD told them. Same in US proper. Main Stream Media just published what the military told them to publish. Very easy to fake a-bombs then.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Hm, at my website I describe the situation in Japan 1945/53:
In order to hide the truth about the a-bombs USA, when occupying Japan, immediately created the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section. CCD was secret. You could not even say that censorship existed in occupied Japan.
Anybody taking photos of the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suggesting, e.g. that the two a-bombs were fake was simply arrested and maybe executed because such suggestions disturbed public tranquillity.
How was it possible? The CCD was run by United Stasi of America's general Charles A. Willoughby. If Charles had remained in Germany, where he was born 1892, he would probably have had the job of Joseph Goebbels. Charles apparently was a psychopath and as such suitable for US Army service.
The US 1945 generally bombed purely civilian targets - city centers - and avoided industry, communications, ports, railways, etc, in Japan. At that time Japan was already finished and starving to death.
All foreign correspondents in Japan were only allowed to publish what the CCD told them. Same in US proper. Main Stream Media just published what the military told them to publish. Very easy to fake a-bombs then.
AgAin, not going to your website. If you hsve evidence show it here. Another fail.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Hm, at my website I describe the situation in Japan 1945/53:
In order to hide the truth about the a-bombs USA, when occupying Japan, immediately created the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section. CCD was secret. You could not even say that censorship existed in occupied Japan.
Anybody taking photos of the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suggesting, e.g. that the two a-bombs were fake was simply arrested and maybe executed because such suggestions disturbed public tranquillity.
How was it possible? The CCD was run by United Stasi of America's general Charles A. Willoughby. If Charles had remained in Germany, where he was born 1892, he would probably have had the job of Joseph Goebbels. Charles apparently was a psychopath and as such suitable for US Army service.
The US 1945 generally bombed purely civilian targets - city centers - and avoided industry, communications, ports, railways, etc, in Japan. At that time Japan was already finished and starving to death.
All foreign correspondents in Japan were only allowed to publish what the CCD told them. Same in US proper. Main Stream Media just published what the military told them to publish. Very easy to fake a-bombs then.
AgAin, not going to your website. If you hsve evidence show it here. Another fail.
What evidence? That the US Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section was secret and could manipulate news in Japan as they liked or were ordered to do 1945/53? I thought it was a proven fact. The winners always write the history, incl. a-bombs. But it was just propaganda that suddenly became historical facts. Quite interesting how easy it was to manipulate the news then ... and today.
-
You're busy re-writing history yourself. Provide some actual evidence that people were arrested and shot for taking photographs like this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w1xeabLAuRw/VaWCdBuih-I/AAAAAAAAFXE/UBU3OmgdNfY/s1600/Hiroshima%2Bclean%2Bup%2Bafter%2Bnuclear%2Battack13.png
If you search for images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you will find plenty taken by journalists and citizens alike. It was reported widely:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37131894
Naturally you will dismiss this as propaganda, because it helps you maintain your fantasy world of lies: "There is no evidence, oh, apart from this evidence, which is a lie". You can't even get your story straight - you claimed there could be no discussion of Japan's firebombing, and you responded with the bullshit above as a response that is nothing to do with that firebombing when I provided evidence that you just made that crap up.
We have you worked out. You're a liar. You make things up to get attention. Sober up. Get help.
-
You're busy re-writing history yourself. Provide some actual evidence that people were arrested and shot for taking photographs like this:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-w1xeabLAuRw/VaWCdBuih-I/AAAAAAAAFXE/UBU3OmgdNfY/s1600/Hiroshima%2Bclean%2Bup%2Bafter%2Bnuclear%2Battack13.png
If you search for images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you will find plenty taken by journalists and citizens alike. It was reported widely:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-37131894
Naturally you will dismiss this as propaganda, because it helps you maintain your fantasy world of lies: "There is no evidence, oh, apart from this evidence, which is a lie". You can't even get your story straight - you claimed there could be no discussion of Japan's firebombing, and you responded with the bullshit above as a response that is nothing to do with that firebombing when I provided evidence that you just made that crap up.
We have you worked out. You're a liar. You make things up to get attention. Sober up. Get help.
Hm, of course Yokohama was fire bombed May 1945 (the port, shipyards and railways were not damaged) but it could not be discussed then and 1972/6. Why just bomb civilians' housing, schools and hospitals? Only much later a memorial monument could be built. Anyway, at my website I provide info that a-bombs are just propaganda. Imagine that Stalin built his a-bomb with uranium from Germany. But there was no uranium in Germany. Etc, etc.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Hm, at my website I describe the situation in Japan 1945/53:
In order to hide the truth about the a-bombs USA, when occupying Japan, immediately created the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section. CCD was secret. You could not even say that censorship existed in occupied Japan.
Anybody taking photos of the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suggesting, e.g. that the two a-bombs were fake was simply arrested and maybe executed because such suggestions disturbed public tranquillity.
How was it possible? The CCD was run by United Stasi of America's general Charles A. Willoughby. If Charles had remained in Germany, where he was born 1892, he would probably have had the job of Joseph Goebbels. Charles apparently was a psychopath and as such suitable for US Army service.
The US 1945 generally bombed purely civilian targets - city centers - and avoided industry, communications, ports, railways, etc, in Japan. At that time Japan was already finished and starving to death.
All foreign correspondents in Japan were only allowed to publish what the CCD told them. Same in US proper. Main Stream Media just published what the military told them to publish. Very easy to fake a-bombs then.
AgAin, not going to your website. If you hsve evidence show it here. Another fail.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Hm, at my website I describe the situation in Japan 1945/53:
In order to hide the truth about the a-bombs USA, when occupying Japan, immediately created the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section. CCD was secret. You could not even say that censorship existed in occupied Japan.
Anybody taking photos of the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suggesting, e.g. that the two a-bombs were fake was simply arrested and maybe executed because such suggestions disturbed public tranquillity.
How was it possible? The CCD was run by United Stasi of America's general Charles A. Willoughby. If Charles had remained in Germany, where he was born 1892, he would probably have had the job of Joseph Goebbels. Charles apparently was a psychopath and as such suitable for US Army service.
The US 1945 generally bombed purely civilian targets - city centers - and avoided industry, communications, ports, railways, etc, in Japan. At that time Japan was already finished and starving to death.
All foreign correspondents in Japan were only allowed to publish what the CCD told them. Same in US proper. Main Stream Media just published what the military told them to publish. Very easy to fake a-bombs then.
AgAin, not going to your website. If you hsve evidence show it here. Another fail.
What evidence? That the US Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section was secret and could manipulate news in Japan as they liked or were ordered to do 1945/53? I thought it was a proven fact. The winners always write the history, incl. a-bombs. But it was just propaganda that suddenly became historical facts. Quite interesting how easy it was to manipulate the news then ... and today.
Try to focus here. The subject is nuclear bombs don't work. You claim that's true. You claim you have evidence of that. Show us your evidence here.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Hm, at my website I describe the situation in Japan 1945/53:
In order to hide the truth about the a-bombs USA, when occupying Japan, immediately created the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section. CCD was secret. You could not even say that censorship existed in occupied Japan.
Anybody taking photos of the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suggesting, e.g. that the two a-bombs were fake was simply arrested and maybe executed because such suggestions disturbed public tranquillity.
How was it possible? The CCD was run by United Stasi of America's general Charles A. Willoughby. If Charles had remained in Germany, where he was born 1892, he would probably have had the job of Joseph Goebbels. Charles apparently was a psychopath and as such suitable for US Army service.
The US 1945 generally bombed purely civilian targets - city centers - and avoided industry, communications, ports, railways, etc, in Japan. At that time Japan was already finished and starving to death.
All foreign correspondents in Japan were only allowed to publish what the CCD told them. Same in US proper. Main Stream Media just published what the military told them to publish. Very easy to fake a-bombs then.
AgAin, not going to your website. If you hsve evidence show it here. Another fail.
What evidence? That the US Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section was secret and could manipulate news in Japan as they liked or were ordered to do 1945/53? I thought it was a proven fact. The winners always write the history, incl. a-bombs. But it was just propaganda that suddenly became historical facts. Quite interesting how easy it was to manipulate the news then ... and today.
Try to focus here. The subject is nuclear bombs don't work. You claim that's true. You claim you have evidence of that. Show us your evidence here.
No, you really have to see my evidence at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Why are you afraid to click on the link?
-
No, you really have to see my evidence at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Why are you afraid to click on the link?
Because it gives a teeny tiny hard-on when you see your visitor stats, and because you plug it so often it sounds more and more like you are on a cash for clicks scam.
The discussion is here, not on your site. You present no useful information on your site, just lies and ignorance masquerading as fact with no right of reply to any of the gibberish you've scribbled there.
Make your point here. Present your evidence here. Debate it here.
-
No, you really have to see my evidence at <> . Why are you afraid to click on the link?
It appears you are incapable of making an argument in your own words on this forum.
Your belief seems to be that you are very competent in nuclear physics and yet you don't seem to believe that you can make a coherent argument supporting your position on this forum.
I would say that you are in a state of having inconsistent beliefs.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Hm, at my website I describe the situation in Japan 1945/53:
In order to hide the truth about the a-bombs USA, when occupying Japan, immediately created the Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section. CCD was secret. You could not even say that censorship existed in occupied Japan.
Anybody taking photos of the ruins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and suggesting, e.g. that the two a-bombs were fake was simply arrested and maybe executed because such suggestions disturbed public tranquillity.
How was it possible? The CCD was run by United Stasi of America's general Charles A. Willoughby. If Charles had remained in Germany, where he was born 1892, he would probably have had the job of Joseph Goebbels. Charles apparently was a psychopath and as such suitable for US Army service.
The US 1945 generally bombed purely civilian targets - city centers - and avoided industry, communications, ports, railways, etc, in Japan. At that time Japan was already finished and starving to death.
All foreign correspondents in Japan were only allowed to publish what the CCD told them. Same in US proper. Main Stream Media just published what the military told them to publish. Very easy to fake a-bombs then.
AgAin, not going to your website. If you hsve evidence show it here. Another fail.
What evidence? That the US Civil Censorship Detachment (CCD) within its Civil Information Section was secret and could manipulate news in Japan as they liked or were ordered to do 1945/53? I thought it was a proven fact. The winners always write the history, incl. a-bombs. But it was just propaganda that suddenly became historical facts. Quite interesting how easy it was to manipulate the news then ... and today.
Try to focus here. The subject is nuclear bombs don't work. You claim that's true. You claim you have evidence of that. Show us your evidence here.
No, you really have to see my evidence at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Why are you afraid to click on the link?
I've been there, it's garbage. Why are you afraid to show your evidence here where you are making the claims? Seriously what are you afraid of? If you actually have evidence then present it here, or admit you have failed.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
Yes, the US firebombed 67 cities in Japan during WWII and few Americans at the time lost any sleep about it. What does that have to do with whether or not atomic bombs work?
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
Missed the point again didn't you. You claimed these things were not allowed to be discussed. There they are on the front page of the papers.
Try reading up about them and find out how many planes and personnel were involved, and what eyewitnesses described about the attack.
Now go and find out how many planes and personnel were involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and eyewitnesses described about them.
See if you can work out what the difference is there.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
Missed the point again didn't you. You claimed these things were not allowed to be discussed. There they are on the front page of the papers.
Try reading up about them and find out how many planes and personnel were involved, and what eyewitnesses described about the attack.
Now go and find out how many planes and personnel were involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and eyewitnesses described about them.
See if you can work out what the difference is there.
Hm, by law they were not permitted to be discussed in Japan! You really have to read what I write at http://heiwaco.com . In USA bombing Japanese yellow monkies was popular 1945.
After having unconditionally surrendered the Japanese just had to agree to everything incl. having been a-bombed. The winners wrote the history and believed their own propaganda. You seem to do it too.
The only evidence you can provide about a-bombs are links to old US newspapers writing about it. But it was just propaganda US media had to print.
Fission doesn't work as suggested by the US scientists. Fission only works under moderated/controlled conditions in, e.g. a nuclear power plant.
The military fission that cannot be stopped after having been started (some way or other?) ending in a FLASH is pseudoscientific nonsense.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
Missed the point again didn't you. You claimed these things were not allowed to be discussed. There they are on the front page of the papers.
Try reading up about them and find out how many planes and personnel were involved, and what eyewitnesses described about the attack.
Now go and find out how many planes and personnel were involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and eyewitnesses described about them.
See if you can work out what the difference is there.
Hm, by law they were not permitted to be discussed in Japan! You really have to read what I write at http://heiwaco.com . In USA bombing Japanese yellow monkies was popular 1945.
After having unconditionally surrendered the Japanese just had to agree to everything incl. having been a-bombed. The winners wrote the history and believed their own propaganda. You seem to do it too.
The only evidence you can provide about a-bombs are links to old US newspapers writing about it. But it was just propaganda US media had to print.
Fission doesn't work as suggested by the US scientists. Fission only works under moderated/controlled conditions in, e.g. a nuclear power plant.
The military fission that cannot be stopped after having been started (some way or other?) ending in a FLASH is pseudoscientific nonsense.
It doesn't work that way? Ok, why not? Show us your evidence. No, don't say go to the website, its trash, you made the claim here, support it here. Show us your physics that disproves all accepted scientific evidence. Show it here.
Oh, and don't try to copy and paste your entire website onto this forum. That was just kind of retarded. Paste the paragraphs that actually support your statement.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
Missed the point again didn't you. You claimed these things were not allowed to be discussed. There they are on the front page of the papers.
Try reading up about them and find out how many planes and personnel were involved, and what eyewitnesses described about the attack.
Now go and find out how many planes and personnel were involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and eyewitnesses described about them.
See if you can work out what the difference is there.
Hm, by law they were not permitted to be discussed in Japan! You really have to read what I write at http://heiwaco.com . In USA bombing Japanese yellow monkies was popular 1945.
After having unconditionally surrendered the Japanese just had to agree to everything incl. having been a-bombed. The winners wrote the history and believed their own propaganda. You seem to do it too.
The only evidence you can provide about a-bombs are links to old US newspapers writing about it. But it was just propaganda US media had to print.
Fission doesn't work as suggested by the US scientists. Fission only works under moderated/controlled conditions in, e.g. a nuclear power plant.
The military fission that cannot be stopped after having been started (some way or other?) ending in a FLASH is pseudoscientific nonsense.
It doesn't work that way? Ok, why not? Show us your evidence. No, don't say go to the website, its trash, you made the claim here, support it here. Show us your physics that disproves all accepted scientific evidence. Show it here.
Oh, and don't try to copy and paste your entire website onto this forum. That was just kind of retarded. Paste the paragraphs that actually support your statement.
Hm, why don't you do it yourself, i.e. post any data supporting the idea that a neutron can start exponential fission of a piece of uranium/plutonium metal so it disappears in a FLASH releasing energy, more neutrons and new atoms of all sorts.
Please don't copy/paste old propaganda (restricted data?) pseudoscience nonsense about critical masses, bla, bla.
You seem to be serious case of cognitive dissonance believing all sorts of nonsense.
-
"Please post some data but don't post any data"?
What kind of fuckery is this?
You already posted a perfectly acceptable link explaining how it works. You remember? The classified document that will get you killed, except it was declassified and you are somehow still breathing?
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
Missed the point again didn't you. You claimed these things were not allowed to be discussed. There they are on the front page of the papers.
Try reading up about them and find out how many planes and personnel were involved, and what eyewitnesses described about the attack.
Now go and find out how many planes and personnel were involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and eyewitnesses described about them.
See if you can work out what the difference is there.
Hm, by law they were not permitted to be discussed in Japan! You really have to read what I write at http://heiwaco.com . In USA bombing Japanese yellow monkies was popular 1945.
After having unconditionally surrendered the Japanese just had to agree to everything incl. having been a-bombed. The winners wrote the history and believed their own propaganda. You seem to do it too.
The only evidence you can provide about a-bombs are links to old US newspapers writing about it. But it was just propaganda US media had to print.
Fission doesn't work as suggested by the US scientists. Fission only works under moderated/controlled conditions in, e.g. a nuclear power plant.
The military fission that cannot be stopped after having been started (some way or other?) ending in a FLASH is pseudoscientific nonsense.
It doesn't work that way? Ok, why not? Show us your evidence. No, don't say go to the website, its trash, you made the claim here, support it here. Show us your physics that disproves all accepted scientific evidence. Show it here.
Oh, and don't try to copy and paste your entire website onto this forum. That was just kind of retarded. Paste the paragraphs that actually support your statement.
Hm, why don't you do it yourself, i.e. post any data supporting the idea that a neutron can start exponential fission of a piece of uranium/plutonium metal so it disappears in a FLASH releasing energy, more neutrons and new atoms of all sorts.
Please don't copy/paste old propaganda (restricted data?) pseudoscience nonsense about critical masses, bla, bla.
You seem to be serious case of cognitive dissonance believing all sorts of nonsense.
Ok so another failure by you. You make wild claims you cannot support. You are afraid to show your evidence here and are only capable of pimping out your horrible website. If you have evidence then show it here. Otherwise be known for the joke you are.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
Missed the point again didn't you. You claimed these things were not allowed to be discussed. There they are on the front page of the papers.
Try reading up about them and find out how many planes and personnel were involved, and what eyewitnesses described about the attack.
Now go and find out how many planes and personnel were involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and eyewitnesses described about them.
See if you can work out what the difference is there.
Hm, by law they were not permitted to be discussed in Japan! You really have to read what I write at http://heiwaco.com . In USA bombing Japanese yellow monkies was popular 1945.
After having unconditionally surrendered the Japanese just had to agree to everything incl. having been a-bombed. The winners wrote the history and believed their own propaganda. You seem to do it too.
The only evidence you can provide about a-bombs are links to old US newspapers writing about it. But it was just propaganda US media had to print.
Fission doesn't work as suggested by the US scientists. Fission only works under moderated/controlled conditions in, e.g. a nuclear power plant.
The military fission that cannot be stopped after having been started (some way or other?) ending in a FLASH is pseudoscientific nonsense.
It doesn't work that way? Ok, why not? Show us your evidence. No, don't say go to the website, its trash, you made the claim here, support it here. Show us your physics that disproves all accepted scientific evidence. Show it here.
Oh, and don't try to copy and paste your entire website onto this forum. That was just kind of retarded. Paste the paragraphs that actually support your statement.
Hm, why don't you do it yourself, i.e. post any data supporting the idea that a neutron can start exponential fission of a piece of uranium/plutonium metal so it disappears in a FLASH releasing energy, more neutrons and new atoms of all sorts.
Please don't copy/paste old propaganda (restricted data?) pseudoscience nonsense about critical masses, bla, bla.
You seem to be serious case of cognitive dissonance believing all sorts of nonsense.
Ok so another failure by you. You make wild claims you cannot support. You are afraid to show your evidence here and are only capable of pimping out your horrible website. If you have evidence then show it here. Otherwise be known for the joke you are.
No. I just suggest that a-bomb FLASHES are propaganda invented to scare. My evidence is intelligent explanations published at my web site that you are afraid to study.
The scientific explanation how the FLASH is triggered is really stupid: Put a bit of uranium in contact with another piece of uranium and - FLASH .
Reason? The two masses are sub-critical but in contact with each other they are CRITICAL and a little neutron transforms them into a FLASH.
How old are you? Five?
-
FLASHES
FLASH
FLASH .
FLASH.
@Heiwa How old are you? Five?
-
Hm, by law they were not permitted to be discussed in Japan!
Show us the law. Show us the proof. Or is this another one of your lies? Do we need to start looking at old Japanese newspapers too?
You really have to read what I write at <my shitty website>. In USA bombing Japanese yellow monkies was popular 1945.
And now you're just showing that you're a racist shitbag as well as a a liar and a fraud.
After having unconditionally surrendered the Japanese just had to agree to everything incl. having been a-bombed.
Think about what you just wrote there.
The winners wrote the history and believed their own propaganda. You seem to do it too.
The only evidence you can provide about a-bombs are links to old US newspapers writing about it. But it was just propaganda US media had to print.
Nope, you lie again, that's not why I posted them. The newspapers are proof that you lied when you claimed things couldn't be discussed. You posted evidence yourself that it works. In a declassified document you claim is classified and that hasn't yet got you killed. There's time though.
Fission doesn't work as suggested by the US scientists. Fission only works under moderated/controlled conditions in, e.g. a nuclear power plant.
False. You do not understand what fission is. If fission didn't happen there would be no need to moderate it now would there?
The military fission that cannot be stopped after having been started (some way or other?) ending in a FLASH is pseudoscientific nonsense.
Fission is fission. There is no civilian and military fission, just fission. The only difference is how it is managed. You have no fucking clue about how that works.
-
Hm, by law they were not permitted to be discussed in Japan!
Show us the law. Show us the proof. Or is this another one of your lies? Do we need to start looking at old Japanese newspapers too?
You really have to read what I write at <my shitty website>. In USA bombing Japanese yellow monkies was popular 1945.
And now you're just showing that you're a racist shitbag as well as a a liar and a fraud.
After having unconditionally surrendered the Japanese just had to agree to everything incl. having been a-bombed.
Think about what you just wrote there.
The winners wrote the history and believed their own propaganda. You seem to do it too.
The only evidence you can provide about a-bombs are links to old US newspapers writing about it. But it was just propaganda US media had to print.
Nope, you lie again, that's not why I posted them. The newspapers are proof that you lied when you claimed things couldn't be discussed. You posted evidence yourself that it works. In a declassified document you claim is classified and that hasn't yet got you killed. There's time though.
Fission doesn't work as suggested by the US scientists. Fission only works under moderated/controlled conditions in, e.g. a nuclear power plant.
False. You do not understand what fission is. If fission didn't happen there would be no need to moderate it now would there?
The military fission that cannot be stopped after having been started (some way or other?) ending in a FLASH is pseudoscientific nonsense.
Fission is fission. There is no civilian and military fission, just fission. The only difference is how it is managed. You have no fucking clue about how that works.
Why so upset? If there is fission being managed in two different ways, show it! I suggest there is only one type of fission - the Otto Hahn 1938 type.
The Manhattan project, FDR/Stalin fission 1942/9 is a hoax. Invented by two sick persons. I describe it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I even pay you, monkey, €1M to prove me wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Do you really believe uncle Joe managed to build an a-bomb? He was just a clever mass murderer that FDR liked a lot.
-
A prime example of double:
Density
-
A prime example of double:
Density
Yes, life is dense. A friend of mine had a little incident some time ago and was sentenced to jail.
16+ years!
I really feel sorry for him. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm .
Of course he is innocent. But the boss is ... American.
-
Maybe be more active than sitting at your computer arguing about topics you know nothing about(science) and try and help him.
-
Why so upset? If there is fission being managed in two different ways, show it!
Fast neutron breeder reactors.
I suggest there is only one type of fission - the Otto Hahn 1938 type.
You can suggest all you want, but can you prove what you suggest?
The Manhattan project, FDR/Stalin fission 1942/9 is a hoax. Invented by two sick persons. I describe it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Do you think that Einstein was a sick person for endorsing the Manhattan Project to FDR?
I even pay you, monkey, €1M to prove me wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
No, you won't because you will never admit that you're wrong regardless of what evidence is provided.
Do you really believe uncle Joe managed to build an a-bomb?
No, I don't believe that Stalin managed to build an a-bomb. But I do believe that, with the aid of stolen American atomic secrets, Stalin's own nuclear scientists were able to build a number of a-bombs.
He was just a clever mass murderer that FDR liked a lot.
??? What makes you think that FDR liked Stalin at all? The enemy of your enemy is not always a friend.
-
Maybe be more active than sitting at your computer arguing about topics you know nothing about(science) and try and help him.
I do ... http://heiwaco.com/news811.htm .
Imagine ... doing your job ... and BAM ... a little later you are sentenced to prison 16+ years.
I am lucky it didn't happy to me. I knew the father of the son that arranged destroying the Master.
The father was a nice person. The son married a secretary in the office and they all went to Florida, USA. It was 1979. They asked me to go along.
But I decided to stay.
-
A prime example of :
Density
Yes, life is dense. A friend of mine had a little incident some time ago and was sentenced to jail.
I really feel sorry for him. <> .
Of course he is innocent. But the boss is ... American.
Are you drunk again? What does that have to do with anything?
Life is not doubly dense compared to other lifes. You are doubly dense as compared to other human beings and quadruply dense compared to other engineers.
Plus I think you've had a little too much cheap beer!
-
A prime example of :
Density
Yes, life is dense. A friend of mine had a little incident some time ago and was sentenced to jail.
I really feel sorry for him. <> .
Of course he is innocent. But the boss is ... American.
Are you drunk again? What does that have to do with anything?
Life is not doubly dense compared to other lifes. You are doubly dense as compared to other human beings and quadruply dense compared to other engineers.
Plus I think you've had a little too much cheap beer!
You think? Prove it!
BTW - you don't feel sorry for an innocent human being put in jail 16+ years? http://heiwaco.com /news8.htm ?
-
A prime example of :
Density
Yes, life is dense. A friend of mine had a little incident some time ago and was sentenced to jail.
I really feel sorry for him. <> .
Of course he is innocent. But the boss is ... American.
Are you drunk again? What does that have to do with anything?
Life is not doubly dense compared to other lifes. You are doubly dense as compared to other human beings and quadruply dense compared to other engineers.
Plus I think you've had a little too much cheap beer!
You think? Prove it!
BTW - you don't feel sorry for an innocent human being put in jail 16+ years?<>?
If you were really an engineer you would know that I couldn't prove something like that over the internet. However, you are providing more supporting evidence every time you post!
I feel sorry for people who are wrongly incarcerated but how does that have anything whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand? ???
Changing the subject doesn't keep us from noticing that you have no clue what you are talking about regarding nuclear weapons etc. If you want to rebuild your credibility you better make a coherent response to Big monkey and Markjo.
-
A prime example of :
Density
Yes, life is dense. A friend of mine had a little incident some time ago and was sentenced to jail.
I really feel sorry for him. <> .
Of course he is innocent. But the boss is ... American.
Are you drunk again? What does that have to do with anything?
Life is not doubly dense compared to other lifes. You are doubly dense as compared to other human beings and quadruply dense compared to other engineers.
Plus I think you've had a little too much cheap beer!
You think? Prove it!
BTW - you don't feel sorry for an innocent human being put in jail 16+ years?<>?
If you were really an engineer you would know that I couldn't prove something like that over the internet. However, you are providing more supporting evidence every time you post!
I feel sorry for people who are wrongly incarcerated but how does that have anything whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand? ???
Changing the subject doesn't keep us from noticing that you have no clue what you are talking about regarding nuclear weapons etc. If you want to rebuild your credibility you better make a coherent response to Big monkey and Markjo.
But I have! They just tell me I am a stupid idiot. I hear it all the time. It does not promote this forum debate. My credibility is very good. http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm .
-
A prime example of :
Density
Yes, life is dense. A friend of mine had a little incident some time ago and was sentenced to jail.
I really feel sorry for him. <> .
Of course he is innocent. But the boss is ... American.
Are you drunk again? What does that have to do with anything?
Life is not doubly dense compared to other lifes. You are doubly dense as compared to other human beings and quadruply dense compared to other engineers.
Plus I think you've had a little too much cheap beer!
You think? Prove it!
BTW - you don't feel sorry for an innocent human being put in jail 16+ years?<>?
If you were really an engineer you would know that I couldn't prove something like that over the internet. However, you are providing more supporting evidence every time you post!
I feel sorry for people who are wrongly incarcerated but how does that have anything whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand? ???
Changing the subject doesn't keep us from noticing that you have no clue what you are talking about regarding nuclear weapons etc. If you want to rebuild your credibility you better make a coherent response to Big monkey and Markjo.
But I have! They just tell me I am a stupid idiot. I hear it all the time. It does not promote this forum debate. My credibility is very good. <> .
No you have not! Post it here and post it now!
Otherwise leave with your tail between your legs or stay and endure us all pointing and laughing at you.
-
A prime example of :
Density
Yes, life is dense. A friend of mine had a little incident some time ago and was sentenced to jail.
I really feel sorry for him. <> .
Of course he is innocent. But the boss is ... American.
Are you drunk again? What does that have to do with anything?
Life is not doubly dense compared to other lifes. You are doubly dense as compared to other human beings and quadruply dense compared to other engineers.
Plus I think you've had a little too much cheap beer!
You think? Prove it!
BTW - you don't feel sorry for an innocent human being put in jail 16+ years?<>?
If you were really an engineer you would know that I couldn't prove something like that over the internet. However, you are providing more supporting evidence every time you post!
I feel sorry for people who are wrongly incarcerated but how does that have anything whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand? ???
Changing the subject doesn't keep us from noticing that you have no clue what you are talking about regarding nuclear weapons etc. If you want to rebuild your credibility you better make a coherent response to Big monkey and Markjo.
But I have! They just tell me I am a stupid idiot. I hear it all the time. It does not promote this forum debate. My credibility is very good. <> .
No you have not! Post it here and post it now!
Otherwise leave with your tail between your legs or stay and endure us all pointing and laughing at you.
Hm, you really have to study what I say/write at my website. I am sorry I cannot copy/paste it here but so are the RULES.
If you believe that nuclear weapons explode when two pieces of metal are brought in contact with each other, I suggest you are sick. Don't blame me. Plenty people promote that propaganda nonsense.
They are paid for it.
I am just a nice guy trying to make people happy.
-
Another prime example of double:
Density
-
Another prime example of double:
Density
Thats actually a reasonable point, I will have to ask scepti how this works in denpressure, Heiwa is so dense he should have the mass of a small neutron star.
Sorry for the shotpost but this thread is pretty far gone.
-
Nope, no-one allowed to discuss the firebombing of Japan...
http://www.historicnewspapersandcomics.co.uk/ekmps/shops/historic/images/seasonal-newspaper-ww2-june-5-1945-superfortress-b-29-raid-kobe-yokohama-jdn-97931-p.jpg
http://images.rarenewspapers.com/ebayimgs/8.10.2012/image011.jpg
http://s47.photobucket.com/user/Lisa_Simpson/media/1942/April/0418/0418-damage.jpg.html
http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/us_navy_pages/aircraft_carriers/hornet_cv_8/newspaper_articles/05_charleston_daily_mail.jpg
Thanks for the links. They do not prove anything about topic though. We all know US firebombed Japanese civilian targets 1945 and that few were upset about in the USA.
Missed the point again didn't you. You claimed these things were not allowed to be discussed. There they are on the front page of the papers.
Try reading up about them and find out how many planes and personnel were involved, and what eyewitnesses described about the attack.
Now go and find out how many planes and personnel were involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and eyewitnesses described about them.
See if you can work out what the difference is there.
Hm, by law they were not permitted to be discussed in Japan! You really have to read what I write at http://heiwaco.com . In USA bombing Japanese yellow monkies was popular 1945.
After having unconditionally surrendered the Japanese just had to agree to everything incl. having been a-bombed. The winners wrote the history and believed their own propaganda. You seem to do it too.
The only evidence you can provide about a-bombs are links to old US newspapers writing about it. But it was just propaganda US media had to print.
Fission doesn't work as suggested by the US scientists. Fission only works under moderated/controlled conditions in, e.g. a nuclear power plant.
The military fission that cannot be stopped after having been started (some way or other?) ending in a FLASH is pseudoscientific nonsense.
It doesn't work that way? Ok, why not? Show us your evidence. No, don't say go to the website, its trash, you made the claim here, support it here. Show us your physics that disproves all accepted scientific evidence. Show it here.
Oh, and don't try to copy and paste your entire website onto this forum. That was just kind of retarded. Paste the paragraphs that actually support your statement.
Hm, why don't you do it yourself, i.e. post any data supporting the idea that a neutron can start exponential fission of a piece of uranium/plutonium metal so it disappears in a FLASH releasing energy, more neutrons and new atoms of all sorts.
Please don't copy/paste old propaganda (restricted data?) pseudoscience nonsense about critical masses, bla, bla.
You seem to be serious case of cognitive dissonance believing all sorts of nonsense.
Ok so another failure by you. You make wild claims you cannot support. You are afraid to show your evidence here and are only capable of pimping out your horrible website. If you have evidence then show it here. Otherwise be known for the joke you are.
No. I just suggest that a-bomb FLASHES are propaganda invented to scare. My evidence is intelligent explanations published at my web site that you are afraid to study.
The scientific explanation how the FLASH is triggered is really stupid: Put a bit of uranium in contact with another piece of uranium and - FLASH .
Reason? The two masses are sub-critical but in contact with each other they are CRITICAL and a little neutron transforms them into a FLASH.
How old are you? Five?
There is no evidence on your website. If you have any, show it here, otherwise the entirety of your evidence seems to be, you don't understand it so it must be lies.
Another failure
-
A prime example of :
Density
Yes, life is dense. A friend of mine had a little incident some time ago and was sentenced to jail.
I really feel sorry for him. <> .
Of course he is innocent. But the boss is ... American.
Are you drunk again? What does that have to do with anything?
Life is not doubly dense compared to other lifes. You are doubly dense as compared to other human beings and quadruply dense compared to other engineers.
Plus I think you've had a little too much cheap beer!
You think? Prove it!
BTW - you don't feel sorry for an innocent human being put in jail 16+ years?<>?
If you were really an engineer you would know that I couldn't prove something like that over the internet. However, you are providing more supporting evidence every time you post!
I feel sorry for people who are wrongly incarcerated but how does that have anything whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand? ???
Changing the subject doesn't keep us from noticing that you have no clue what you are talking about regarding nuclear weapons etc. If you want to rebuild your credibility you better make a coherent response to Big monkey and Markjo.
But I have! They just tell me I am a stupid idiot. I hear it all the time. It does not promote this forum debate. My credibility is very good. <> .
No you have not! Post it here and post it now!
Otherwise leave with your tail between your legs or stay and endure us all pointing and laughing at you.
Hm, you really have to study what I say/write at my website. I am sorry I cannot copy/paste it here but so are the RULES.
If you believe that nuclear weapons explode when two pieces of metal are brought in contact with each other, I suggest you are sick. Don't blame me. Plenty people promote that propaganda nonsense.
They are paid for it.
I am just a nice guy trying to make people happy.
Wow you really are thick. You tried to copy and paste your entire website to here. Of course it didn't work. Just paste the pertinent few paragraphs. If there are any
-
Heiwa - bravely fighting a death sentence by the most powerful government in the world. But the forum rules of the flat earth society - who would dare mess with them? :D
-
I am just a nice guy trying to make people happy.
You seem to aggravate the hell out of people, but, I get what you mean by that. ;)
-
Heiwa - bravely fighting a death sentence by the most powerful government in the world. But the forum rules of the flat earth society - who would dare mess with them? :D
(http://static.knittingparadise.com/upload/2012/9/24/1348488761322-smiley_rofl.gif)
-
There is no evidence on your website. If you have any, show it here, otherwise the entirety of your evidence seems to be, you don't understand it so it must be lies.
Another failure
Hm, you really have to study what I write at my website. Try again. It isn't so hard. It is all true facts.
-
Heiwa - bravely fighting a death sentence by the most powerful government in the world. But the forum rules of the flat earth society - who would dare mess with them? :D
(http://static.knittingparadise.com/upload/2012/9/24/1348488761322-smiley_rofl.gif)
You guys dare doubt the power of weaponized FET?
-
Heiwa - bravely fighting a death sentence by the most powerful government in the world. But the forum rules of the flat earth society - who would dare mess with them? :D
(http://static.knittingparadise.com/upload/2012/9/24/1348488761322-smiley_rofl.gif)
You guys dare doubt the power of weaponized FET?
You're causing me to have sober second thoughts! I forgot about the penguins! Heiwa fears the bio-engineered penguins!!!
-
I am just a nice guy trying to make people happy.
You seem to aggravate the hell out of people, but, I get what you mean by that. ;)
Hm, my objective is just to assist people to think clearly. I know it upsets plenty people but what can I do? I lived almost five years 1972/6 in a town that had been bombed back to the stone age May 1945, so I was curious to know what happened. I was simply told then that it could not be discussed locally. Same at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And there we are today. Not to forget my good friend WM that assisted Stalin 1946/58 at little Freiberg i.Sa. to put together something Stalin said was an a-bomb. Imagine that. The father WM of my friend EM helped Stalin to build an a-bomb!!! Poor WM was almost tortured GWB style to death 1958/9 but survived and EM thought daddy and mummy were dead but ... no. All survived. So I could tell you.
What do you want me to do? Copy the torture protocols of WM at Leipzig 1958?
-
There is no evidence on your website. If you have any, show it here, otherwise the entirety of your evidence seems to be, you don't understand it so it must be lies.
Another failure
Hm, you really have to study what I write at my website. Try again. It isn't so hard. It is all true facts.
Yes, you do provide some true facts on your website. Unfortunately for you, none of those facts support your arguments. You provide the true facts and then simply deny them as propaganda.
-
There is no evidence on your website. If you have any, show it here, otherwise the entirety of your evidence seems to be, you don't understand it so it must be lies.
Another failure
Hm, you really have to study what I write at my website. Try again. It isn't so hard. It is all true facts.
Nope, no evidence there. If you have some prove me wrong and post it here. You won't of course because there is no such evidence.
-
I am just a nice guy trying to make people happy.
You seem to aggravate the hell out of people, but, I get what you mean by that. ;)
Hm, my objective is just to assist people to think clearly. I know it upsets plenty people but what can I do? I lived almost five years 1972/6 in a town that had been bombed back to the stone age May 1945, so I was curious to know what happened. I was simply told then that it could not be discussed locally. Same at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And there we are today. Not to forget my good friend WM that assisted Stalin 1946/58 at little Freiberg i.Sa. to put together something Stalin said was an a-bomb. Imagine that. The father WM of my friend EM helped Stalin to build an a-bomb!!! Poor WM was almost tortured GWB style to death 1958/9 but survived and EM thought daddy and mummy were dead but ... no. All survived. So I could tell you.
What do you want me to do? Copy the torture protocols of WM at Leipzig 1958?
If that is your objective then post some evidence here. Pretty simple really. But you won't do it.
-
I am just a nice guy trying to make people happy.
You seem to aggravate the hell out of people, but, I get what you mean by that. ;)
Hm, my objective is just to assist people to think clearly. I know it upsets plenty people but what can I do? I lived almost five years 1972/6 in a town that had been bombed back to the stone age May 1945, so I was curious to know what happened. I was simply told then that it could not be discussed locally. Same at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And there we are today. Not to forget my good friend WM that assisted Stalin 1946/58 at little Freiberg i.Sa. to put together something Stalin said was an a-bomb. Imagine that. The father WM of my friend EM helped Stalin to build an a-bomb!!! Poor WM was almost tortured GWB style to death 1958/9 but survived and EM thought daddy and mummy were dead but ... no. All survived. So I could tell you.
What do you want me to do? Copy the torture protocols of WM at Leipzig 1958?
If that is your objective then post some evidence here. Pretty simple really. But you won't do it.
Hm, why not publish some scientific evidence that small bits of metal uranium/plutonium go FLASH after hit by a neutron ... and then producing a mushroom cloud!
Fission doesn't work like that in a nuclear power plant.
So far we have only seen funny photos and copies of newspaper articles about a-bombs - all part of the 1945+ propaganda campagnes, when people believed anything.
Anyway, Stalin could never have built an a-bomb with uranium of Wismut AG because Wismut AG didn't mine any uranium 1945/9. Stalin faked it!
-
Hm, why not publish some scientific evidence that small bits of metal uranium/plutonium go FLASH after hit by a neutron ... and then producing a mushroom cloud!
Fission doesn't work like that in a nuclear power plant.
I should hope not. The fissile material in nuclear power plants simply doesn't have the purity to reach an uncontrolled chain reaction like the high purity fissile material in an atomic bomb.
I'm sorry, but I'm still having a hard time understanding how you can believe that peaceful fast neutron breeder reactors are possible but atomic bombs are not possible when both are based on the same fundamental nuclear physics.
-
Hm, why not publish some scientific evidence that small bits of metal uranium/plutonium go FLASH after hit by a neutron ... and then producing a mushroom cloud!
Fission doesn't work like that in a nuclear power plant.
I should hope not. The fissile material in nuclear power plants simply doesn't have the purity to reach an uncontrolled chain reaction like the high purity fissile material in an atomic bomb.
I'm sorry, but I'm still having a hard time understanding how you can believe that peaceful fast neutron breeder reactors are possible but atomic bombs are not possible when both are based on the same fundamental nuclear physics.
As I say - produce some scientific evidence that an uncontrolled chain reaction can be started using high purity fissile material.
How do you start it? Suddenly producing a 'critical' mass and compressing it with neutrons in between? Is that what Stalin did 1949 with uranium from Wismut AG?
-
I am just a nice guy trying to make people happy.
You seem to aggravate the hell out of people, but, I get what you mean by that. ;)
Hm, my objective is just to assist people to think clearly. I know it upsets plenty people but what can I do? I lived almost five years 1972/6 in a town that had been bombed back to the stone age May 1945, so I was curious to know what happened. I was simply told then that it could not be discussed locally. Same at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And there we are today. Not to forget my good friend WM that assisted Stalin 1946/58 at little Freiberg i.Sa. to put together something Stalin said was an a-bomb. Imagine that. The father WM of my friend EM helped Stalin to build an a-bomb!!! Poor WM was almost tortured GWB style to death 1958/9 but survived and EM thought daddy and mummy were dead but ... no. All survived. So I could tell you.
What do you want me to do? Copy the torture protocols of WM at Leipzig 1958?
If that is your objective then post some evidence here. Pretty simple really. But you won't do it.
Hm, why not publish some scientific evidence that small bits of metal uranium/plutonium go FLASH after hit by a neutron ... and then producing a mushroom cloud!
Fission doesn't work like that in a nuclear power plant.
So far we have only seen funny photos and copies of newspaper articles about a-bombs - all part of the 1945+ propaganda campagnes, when people believed anything.
Anyway, Stalin could never have built an a-bomb with uranium of Wismut AG because Wismut AG didn't mine any uranium 1945/9. Stalin faked it!
Again, as usual, you simply make claims and fail to support them. You have been shown numerous times how a bombs work and your rebuttal is always the same. You don't understand it so it must be false. You never present any evidence. You fail, again.
-
I am just a nice guy trying to make people happy.
You seem to aggravate the hell out of people, but, I get what you mean by that. ;)
Hm, my objective is just to assist people to think clearly. I know it upsets plenty people but what can I do? I lived almost five years 1972/6 in a town that had been bombed back to the stone age May 1945, so I was curious to know what happened. I was simply told then that it could not be discussed locally. Same at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And there we are today. Not to forget my good friend WM that assisted Stalin 1946/58 at little Freiberg i.Sa. to put together something Stalin said was an a-bomb. Imagine that. The father WM of my friend EM helped Stalin to build an a-bomb!!! Poor WM was almost tortured GWB style to death 1958/9 but survived and EM thought daddy and mummy were dead but ... no. All survived. So I could tell you.
What do you want me to do? Copy the torture protocols of WM at Leipzig 1958?
If that is your objective then post some evidence here. Pretty simple really. But you won't do it.
Hm, why not publish some scientific evidence that small bits of metal uranium/plutonium go FLASH after hit by a neutron ... and then producing a mushroom cloud!
Fission doesn't work like that in a nuclear power plant.
So far we have only seen funny photos and copies of newspaper articles about a-bombs - all part of the 1945+ propaganda campagnes, when people believed anything.
Anyway, Stalin could never have built an a-bomb with uranium of Wismut AG because Wismut AG didn't mine any uranium 1945/9. Stalin faked it!
Again, as usual, you simply make claims and fail to support them. You have been shown numerous times how a bombs work and your rebuttal is always the same. You don't understand it so it must be false. You never present any evidence. You fail, again.
Hm, I know very well how a-bombs do not work. I describe it at my website. Stalin just copied the US propaganda. It worked. But no a-bomb ever worked.
-
Hm, why not publish some scientific evidence that small bits of metal uranium/plutonium go FLASH after hit by a neutron ... and then producing a mushroom cloud!
Fission doesn't work like that in a nuclear power plant.
I should hope not. The fissile material in nuclear power plants simply doesn't have the purity to reach an uncontrolled chain reaction like the high purity fissile material in an atomic bomb.
I'm sorry, but I'm still having a hard time understanding how you can believe that peaceful fast neutron breeder reactors are possible but atomic bombs are not possible when both are based on the same fundamental nuclear physics.
As I say - produce some scientific evidence that an uncontrolled chain reaction can be started using high purity fissile material.
??? Are you saying that more fissile atoms closer together would not increase the chance of neutrons striking and splitting more atoms than if the fissile atoms were further apart?
How do you start it? Suddenly producing a 'critical' mass and compressing it with neutrons in between? Is that what Stalin did 1949 with uranium from Wismut AG?
Actually, the first Russian atomic bomb (the RDS-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1)) was a Plutonium device similar to the American Gadget and Fat Man bombs, not a Uranium device like you appear to believe. See, you don't even know your own propaganda.
-
Hm, why not publish some scientific evidence that small bits of metal uranium/plutonium go FLASH after hit by a neutron ... and then producing a mushroom cloud!
Fission doesn't work like that in a nuclear power plant.
I should hope not. The fissile material in nuclear power plants simply doesn't have the purity to reach an uncontrolled chain reaction like the high purity fissile material in an atomic bomb.
I'm sorry, but I'm still having a hard time understanding how you can believe that peaceful fast neutron breeder reactors are possible but atomic bombs are not possible when both are based on the same fundamental nuclear physics.
As I say - produce some scientific evidence that an uncontrolled chain reaction can be started using high purity fissile material.
??? Are you saying that more fissile atoms closer together would not increase the chance of neutrons striking and splitting more atoms than if the fissile atoms were further apart?
How do you start it? Suddenly producing a 'critical' mass and compressing it with neutrons in between? Is that what Stalin did 1949 with uranium from Wismut AG?
Actually, the first Russian atomic bomb (the RDS-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RDS-1)) was a Plutonium device similar to the American Gadget and Fat Man bombs, not a Uranium device like you appear to believe. See, you don't even know your own propaganda.
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
Why do you link to the wikipedia lies? Do you expect me to read that shit?
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Why do you link to the wikipedia lies? Do you expect me to read that shit?
To be honest, I don't really expect you to read anything that contradicts your beliefs, regardless of the source. However, hope springs eternal.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Why do you link to the wikipedia lies? Do you expect me to read that shit?
To be honest, I don't really expect you to read anything that contradicts your beliefs, regardless of the source. However, hope springs eternal.
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
And yet you have still, 87 pages later, failed to post one single piece of evidence to support your claims. You talk about children but it is childish to think that simply because you can't understand something it must be false.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
And yet you have still, 87 pages later, failed to post one single piece of evidence to support your claims. You talk about children but it is childish to think that simply because you can't understand something it must be false.
Well, the evidence to support my findings are at my website. Here I just explain the basics about military, secret, restricted data, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission = pure pseudoscience.
Nobody has provided any evidence that FLASH fission works!
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
And yet you have still, 87 pages later, failed to post one single piece of evidence to support your claims. You talk about children but it is childish to think that simply because you can't understand something it must be false.
Well, the evidence to support my findings are at my website. Here I just explain the basics about military, secret, restricted data, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission = pure pseudoscience.
Nobody has provided any evidence that FLASH fission works!
So another failure. Paste just one bit of actual evidence here, where you are making the claim.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
So how does that prove that they never mined real Uranium? After all, Russia does have peaceful nuclear power plants that need real Uranium.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
So how does that prove that they never mined real Uranium? After all, Russia does have peaceful nuclear power plants that need real Uranium.
Of course there was real Uranium in the mines of Wismut AG. About 0.02% of the ore was some uranium oxide of sorts. If you were lucky. A couple of professors at the Bergakademi, Freiberg confirmed it 1945. If they hadn't done so, Stalin would have shot them on the spot. Could it be mined, asked Stalin. Of course, they said ... and forgot to add that it was impossible to get rid of the other 99.98% minerals of the ore ... mostly just stone. Grey stone. You did not argue with Stalin.
Anyway, all was top secret ... so nobody understood what it was all about.
Propaganda ... you know.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
So how does that prove that they never mined real Uranium? After all, Russia does have peaceful nuclear power plants that need real Uranium.
Of course there was real Uranium in the mines of Wismut AG. About 0.02% of the ore was some uranium oxide of sorts. If you were lucky. A couple of professors at the Bergakademi, Freiberg confirmed it 1945. If they hadn't done so, Stalin would have shot them on the spot. Could it be mined, asked Stalin. Of course, they said ... and forgot to add that it was impossible to get rid of the other 99.98% minerals of the ore ... mostly just stone. Grey stone. You did not argue with Stalin.
Anyway, all was top secret ... so nobody understood what it was all about.
Propaganda ... you know.
Are you saying that Uranium can't be refined from ore? ??? ??? ???
-
Will y'all quit letting heiwa own you!!!
He is the only one winning here! Every word adds to his erection while negatively effecting your mental ability. Eventually there will be nothing left!
Don't make me dig up the old "this is your brain on drugs" commercial with eggs in a frying pan.
Look...I was a heiwa addict once...I admit, and some of you have seen this in the past. I tried to defeat him conventional weapons...He feeds off of them like the evil ball in the 5th element.
But I broke the addiction, regathered, and actually won a battle with him using a different weapon sequestering him down here...
I broke the addiction..YOU CAN TOO ...Let me help you!!
You can break free and win!!
The first step is as always, you must admit you have a problem.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
So how does that prove that they never mined real Uranium? After all, Russia does have peaceful nuclear power plants that need real Uranium.
Of course there was real Uranium in the mines of Wismut AG. About 0.02% of the ore was some uranium oxide of sorts. If you were lucky. A couple of professors at the Bergakademi, Freiberg confirmed it 1945. If they hadn't done so, Stalin would have shot them on the spot. Could it be mined, asked Stalin. Of course, they said ... and forgot to add that it was impossible to get rid of the other 99.98% minerals of the ore ... mostly just stone. Grey stone. You did not argue with Stalin.
Anyway, all was top secret ... so nobody understood what it was all about.
Propaganda ... you know.
Are you saying that Uranium can't be refined from ore? ??? ??? ???
No, when Stalin asked that question 1945, the answer was Da! If you had answered Njet, you would have been shot. On the other hand uranium is not refined from iron ore, if you know what I mean?
-
Will y'all quit letting heiwa own you!!!
He is the only one winning here! Every word adds to his erection while negatively effecting your mental ability. Eventually there will be nothing left!
Don't make me dig up the old "this is your brain on drugs" commercial with eggs in a frying pan.
Look...I was a heiwa addict once...I admit, and some of you have seen this in the past. I tried to defeat him conventional weapons...He feeds off of them like the evil ball in the 5th element.
But I broke the addiction, regathered, and actually won a battle with him using a different weapon sequestering him down here...
I broke the addiction..YOU CAN TOO ...Let me help you!!
You can break free and win!!
The first step is as always, you must admit you have a problem.
-
Yes - I describe at my website that military, destructive, exponential, unstoppable FLASH fission is nonsense ... propaganda ... pseudoscience.
According my sources Wismut AG provided the uranium for Stalin's a-bomb. I describe it too at my website. Of course Wismut AG didn't produce anything! It just drilled holes in the mountains ... .
So you're saying that your sources lied to you about the Uranium?
Hm, Wismut AG ... or what was Wismut AG still exists in Germany today. Of course the official records from 1946/49 are what they are - it was run as a GULAG camps by GULAG people - but as I understand it, the company mines provided Stalin with uranium to build a communist a-bomb. Same as the US one!
The empty mines are still there. Or so they say.
If the official records are honest about the mines being run as a gulag, then why should they lie about the Uranium?
Wismut AG was run by the Stalin's secret police that could do what they liked at the request of Stalin, incl. killing people. Stalin needed fake uranium to build a fake a-bomb. At the time most people believed like children, like you, what they were told ... to stay alive. And then they never grew up and became doubting young persons or old people looking for the real thing ... like me.
So how does that prove that they never mined real Uranium? After all, Russia does have peaceful nuclear power plants that need real Uranium.
Of course there was real Uranium in the mines of Wismut AG. About 0.02% of the ore was some uranium oxide of sorts. If you were lucky. A couple of professors at the Bergakademi, Freiberg confirmed it 1945. If they hadn't done so, Stalin would have shot them on the spot. Could it be mined, asked Stalin. Of course, they said ... and forgot to add that it was impossible to get rid of the other 99.98% minerals of the ore ... mostly just stone. Grey stone. You did not argue with Stalin.
Anyway, all was top secret ... so nobody understood what it was all about.
Propaganda ... you know.
Are you saying that Uranium can't be refined from ore? ??? ??? ???
No, when Stalin asked that question 1945, the answer was Da! If you had answered Njet, you would have been shot. On the other hand uranium is not refined from iron ore, if you know what I mean?
First of all, I seriously doubt that Stalin micromanaged the nuclear project to that extent.
Secondly, what makes you think that .02% Uranium oxide ore is a terrible yield for mining? Mining has always been a very labor intensive procedure. Why should Uranium mining be any different?
-
Are you saying that Uranium can't be refined from ore? ??? ??? ???
No, when Stalin asked that question 1945, the answer was Da! If you had answered Njet, you would have been shot. On the other hand uranium is not refined from iron ore, if you know what I mean?
First of all, I seriously doubt that Stalin micromanaged the nuclear project to that extent.
Secondly, what makes you think that .02% Uranium oxide ore is a terrible yield for mining? Mining has always been a very labor intensive procedure. Why should Uranium mining be any different?
Well Stalin died 1953 and his bomb was produced between 1945/9 with Uranium (not Plutonium) of Wismut AG. It was actually Stalin's second in command that ran the a-bomb show. He, Beria was shot summer 1953. When the first bomb is said to have exploded Stalin/Beria made a lot of people heroes of all kind. IMHO it was all propaganda. The winners write the HIstory!
I am not an expert of underground mining but it is evidently better if the yield is close to 1%. It means that you have to dig away 50 times less mountain to get to the mineral. Anyway, I looks that only ore of no value was mined in Saxony/Soviet occupied Germany by Wismut AG ... as part of the show. Go and have a look at the empty mines yourself!
Note that Stalin/Beria didn't pay anything for what they got. It was simply stolen.
-
Are you saying that Uranium can't be refined from ore? ??? ??? ???
No, when Stalin asked that question 1945, the answer was Da! If you had answered Njet, you would have been shot. On the other hand uranium is not refined from iron ore, if you know what I mean?
First of all, I seriously doubt that Stalin micromanaged the nuclear project to that extent.
Secondly, what makes you think that .02% Uranium oxide ore is a terrible yield for mining? Mining has always been a very labor intensive procedure. Why should Uranium mining be any different?
Well Stalin died 1953 and his bomb was produced between 1945/9 with Uranium (not Plutonium) of Wismut AG.
Plutonium doesn't exist in any significant amounts in nature, so Uranium is generally processed into Plutonium in breeder reactors.
I am not an expert of underground mining but it is evidently better if the yield is close to 1%. It means that you have to dig away 50 times less mountain to get to the mineral.
No kidding. But when you have all kinds of free slave labor, who cares how much mountain you have to dig away?
-
Are you saying that Uranium can't be refined from ore? ??? ??? ???
No, when Stalin asked that question 1945, the answer was Da! If you had answered Njet, you would have been shot. On the other hand uranium is not refined from iron ore, if you know what I mean?
First of all, I seriously doubt that Stalin micromanaged the nuclear project to that extent.
Secondly, what makes you think that .02% Uranium oxide ore is a terrible yield for mining? Mining has always been a very labor intensive procedure. Why should Uranium mining be any different?
Well Stalin died 1953 and his bomb was produced between 1945/9 with Uranium (not Plutonium) of Wismut AG.
Plutonium doesn't exist in any significant amounts in nature, so Uranium is generally processed into Plutonium in breeder reactors.
I am not an expert of underground mining but it is evidently better if the yield is close to 1%. It means that you have to dig away 50 times less mountain to get to the mineral.
No kidding. But when you have all kinds of free slave labor, who cares how much mountain you have to dig away?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project is a good description of the Soviet secret nuclear weapons project. It is 100% propaganda. Like the US one. Not one word is true! Of course all persons of the show are dead today. Isn't it funny?
Note the notice about Wismut AG.
-
Are you saying that Uranium can't be refined from ore? ??? ??? ???
No, when Stalin asked that question 1945, the answer was Da! If you had answered Njet, you would have been shot. On the other hand uranium is not refined from iron ore, if you know what I mean?
First of all, I seriously doubt that Stalin micromanaged the nuclear project to that extent.
Secondly, what makes you think that .02% Uranium oxide ore is a terrible yield for mining? Mining has always been a very labor intensive procedure. Why should Uranium mining be any different?
Well Stalin died 1953 and his bomb was produced between 1945/9 with Uranium (not Plutonium) of Wismut AG.
Plutonium doesn't exist in any significant amounts in nature, so Uranium is generally processed into Plutonium in breeder reactors.
I am not an expert of underground mining but it is evidently better if the yield is close to 1%. It means that you have to dig away 50 times less mountain to get to the mineral.
No kidding. But when you have all kinds of free slave labor, who cares how much mountain you have to dig away?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project is a good description of the Soviet secret nuclear weapons project. It is 100% propaganda. Like the US one. Not one word is true! Of course all persons of the show are dead today. Isn't it funny?
Note the notice about Wismut AG.
You know, I think babyhighspeed has a point. Heiwa never actually brings anything to the discussion. He never supports his wild statements, all he does is pimp his truly terrible websight.
Maybe if everyone simply ignored him he would go away. I mean at least scepti and John Davis and the like try to support their theories. Heiwa has, as far as I can tell, never once produced a shred of evidence to support his. He just makes the claims and then says it is explained on his website.
Spoiler, it isn't, ever.
Maybe ignoring him is the best thing.
-
I don't think he knows much so it probably is pointless to try to get anything out of him. But since he's such an ignoramus it's kind of fun to keep poking him with a stick. ;D
My only worry is that the United States is going to catch all those of us who have participated in this thread and sentence us to Death for talking about nuclear weapons. ;D ;D ;D
-
Are you saying that Uranium can't be refined from ore? ??? ??? ???
No, when Stalin asked that question 1945, the answer was Da! If you had answered Njet, you would have been shot. On the other hand uranium is not refined from iron ore, if you know what I mean?
First of all, I seriously doubt that Stalin micromanaged the nuclear project to that extent.
Secondly, what makes you think that .02% Uranium oxide ore is a terrible yield for mining? Mining has always been a very labor intensive procedure. Why should Uranium mining be any different?
Well Stalin died 1953 and his bomb was produced between 1945/9 with Uranium (not Plutonium) of Wismut AG.
Plutonium doesn't exist in any significant amounts in nature, so Uranium is generally processed into Plutonium in breeder reactors.
I am not an expert of underground mining but it is evidently better if the yield is close to 1%. It means that you have to dig away 50 times less mountain to get to the mineral.
No kidding. But when you have all kinds of free slave labor, who cares how much mountain you have to dig away?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_atomic_bomb_project is a good description of the Soviet secret nuclear weapons project. It is 100% propaganda. Like the US one. Not one word is true! Of course all persons of the show are dead today. Isn't it funny?
Note the notice about Wismut AG.
You know, I think babyhighspeed has a point. Heiwa never actually brings anything to the discussion. He never supports his wild statements, all he does is pimp his truly terrible websight.
Maybe if everyone simply ignored him he would go away. I mean at least scepti and John Davis and the like try to support their theories. Heiwa has, as far as I can tell, never once produced a shred of evidence to support his. He just makes the claims and then says it is explained on his website.
Spoiler, it isn't, ever.
Maybe ignoring him is the best thing.
The topic is what it is and I support it with the addition that a-bombs do not work at all. The experts cannot even explain how to make it explode. Making pure fissile metal bits critical + a neutron = FLASH. It is not science.
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
And a hydrogen bomb! To suggest that you explode an a-bomb to start an h-bomb explosion doesn't sound correct. Shouldn't the a-bomb destroy the h-bomb before the latter explodes?
It is a fact that FDR and Stalin met at Yalta February 1945 and I assume that they then agreed to produce the nuclear weapons show together. It ensured the US military a good reason to steal money from the public eternally.
-
I don't think he knows much so it probably is pointless to try to get anything out of him. But since he's such an ignoramus it's kind of fun to keep poking him with a stick. ;D
My only worry is that the United States is going to catch all those of us who have participated in this thread and sentence us to Death for talking about nuclear weapons. ;D ;D ;D
Believe me, I know. I love poking things with a stick. But I kind of see this as a different version of that. I mean, he has been shown the science countless times, but he pretends to write it off with a simple, I don't believe it. Bottom line is, he is a fraud with literally nothing to support his position. We should just ignore him, that's really the ultimate poke with a stick.
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
No, it is much simpler or impossible to explain how to explode the gadget.
Have a try. I pay you €1M! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
It's like the South Park episode when they ignore cartman. The other kids were like, I didn't know that was an option. He literally adds nothing. No evidence, nothing to support his position just statements that he doesn't believe it and you should really study his website, which is truly shitty
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
It's like the South Park episode when they ignore cartman. The other kids were like, I didn't know that was an option. He literally adds nothing. No evidence, nothing to support his position just statements that he doesn't believe it and you should really study his website, which is truly shitty
2633 replies/comments in this thread about Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and it seems we all agree one way or other.
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
It's like the South Park episode when they ignore cartman. The other kids were like, I didn't know that was an option. He literally adds nothing. No evidence, nothing to support his position just statements that he doesn't believe it and you should really study his website, which is truly shitty
2633 replies/comments in this thread about Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and it seems we all agree one way or other.
Which way is that, exactly?
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
It's like the South Park episode when they ignore cartman. The other kids were like, I didn't know that was an option. He literally adds nothing. No evidence, nothing to support his position just statements that he doesn't believe it and you should really study his website, which is truly shitty
2633 replies/comments in this thread about Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and it seems we all agree one way or other.
Which way is that, exactly?
My way, of course! The others all lost my Challenge.
-
You have lost my challenge so far!
-
You have lost my challenge so far!
But it was a joke. So I lost nothing. I had a good laugh, though.
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
It's like the South Park episode when they ignore cartman. The other kids were like, I didn't know that was an option. He literally adds nothing. No evidence, nothing to support his position just statements that he doesn't believe it and you should really study his website, which is truly shitty
2633 replies/comments in this thread about Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and it seems we all agree one way or other.
Which way is that, exactly?
My way, of course! The others all lost my Challenge.
Huh.. strange.. we must have been in seperate threads. To me it seemed
1.) most of the people were disagreeing with you
2.) noone attempted to do your challenge because it is a fraud with an (at most) questionable source of money and a biased judge
-
You have lost my challenge so far!
But it was a joke. So I lost nothing. I had a good laugh, though.
It's no joke. Win my challenge and I will pay you € 1M. So far you have failed to do so.
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
It's like the South Park episode when they ignore cartman. The other kids were like, I didn't know that was an option. He literally adds nothing. No evidence, nothing to support his position just statements that he doesn't believe it and you should really study his website, which is truly shitty
2633 replies/comments in this thread about Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and it seems we all agree one way or other.
Which way is that, exactly?
That Heiwa is senile?
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
It's like the South Park episode when they ignore cartman. The other kids were like, I didn't know that was an option. He literally adds nothing. No evidence, nothing to support his position just statements that he doesn't believe it and you should really study his website, which is truly shitty
2633 replies/comments in this thread about Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and it seems we all agree one way or other.
Which way is that, exactly?
My way, of course! The others all lost my Challenge.
Huh.. strange.. we must have been in seperate threads. To me it seemed
1.) most of the people were disagreeing with you
2.) noone attempted to do your challenge because it is a fraud with an (at most) questionable source of money and a biased judge
Yes, brainwashed people believing in nuclear weapons evidently disagreed but couldn't prove that the nuclear weapons worked. We gave them a chance to prove they were right. They all suffer from cognitive dissonance and were wrong. So they couldn't win my Challenge.
-
Where's
Waldo Heiwa?
-
Why cannot anyone explain how to make an a-bomb explode?
LOL, Here we are years later and Anders is still trolling eveyone. Ignore him, it's the only way.
It's like the South Park episode when they ignore cartman. The other kids were like, I didn't know that was an option. He literally adds nothing. No evidence, nothing to support his position just statements that he doesn't believe it and you should really study his website, which is truly shitty
2633 replies/comments in this thread about Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist and it seems we all agree one way or other.
Which way is that, exactly?
My way, of course! The others all lost my Challenge.
Huh.. strange.. we must have been in seperate threads. To me it seemed
1.) most of the people were disagreeing with you
2.) noone attempted to do your challenge because it is a fraud with an (at most) questionable source of money and a biased judge
Yes, brainwashed people believing in nuclear weapons evidently disagreed but couldn't prove that the nuclear weapons worked. We gave them a chance to prove they were right. They all suffer from cognitive dissonance and were wrong. So they couldn't win my Challenge.
If you were right you could win my challenge. But you're wrong and you know it. This is why you won't accept my challenge.
-
Yes, brainwashed people believing in nuclear weapons evidently disagreed but couldn't prove that the nuclear weapons worked. We gave them a chance to prove they were right. They all suffer from cognitive dissonance and were wrong. So they couldn't win my Challenge.
Ok so I freely admit I don't know enough about nuclear physics to debate in this thread without resorting to peer pressure and calling the "conspiracy theorists" crazy.
Which I will abstain for moral reasons.
Hint.
However, Heiwa.
I take offense to the brainwashed comments, from a guy who literally doesn't watch TV, use facebook, or listen to commercial radio, the evidence for nuclear weapons (not Saddams wmd's they were figurative, like structural resistance: ) far outweighs the evidence they are a hoax.
For example we have the capacity to create the damage we saw in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (ok my phone has those already auto prepared, kinda creepy.) And we have gotten much much more efficient and effective at creating those weapons.
Nuclear weapons aside, any reasonable person fears deployment of "WMD's" (not saddams), we have the capacity to destroy the earth many times over, no one would argue that.
Why is brainwashing and cognitive dissonance required for this? It seems like if it wasn't nukes it would be some other threat.
I hope it doesn't happen, but if it does we will quickly figure out (the cia knows) in WW3 cyber warfare is far more deadly than any missle.
Why fear a missle you have total control over, amirite?
-
Megatonnes of declassified atom bomb test footage scanned and made available:
https://www.llnl.gov/news/physicist-declassifies-rescued-nuclear-test-films
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvGO_dWo8VfcmG166wKRy5z-GlJ_OQND5
I await the inevitable 'Hollywood magic show' comments with resigned tedium...
-
Megatonnes of declassified atom bomb test footage scanned and made available:
https://www.llnl.gov/news/physicist-declassifies-rescued-nuclear-test-films
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvGO_dWo8VfcmG166wKRy5z-GlJ_OQND5
I await the inevitable 'Hollywood magic show' comments with resigned tedium...
Thanks for the FLASHES and the dirty mushroom smoke clouds. Very impressive.
-
I await the inevitable 'Hollywood magic show' comments with resigned tedium...
Thanks for the FLASHES and the dirty mushroom smoke clouds. Very impressive.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
Last year I bought a book published in 1977 entitled 'Socialism in the Soviet Union' by Jonathan Aurthur which is an astute analysis of the Cold War from a communist perspective. It includes a chapter on military affairs which references a book entitled 'The Sea Power of the State' by Soviet Admiral Gorshkov who incidentally built the Soviet Navy from negligible into a force that could challenge the Americans by the late 1970's.
https://www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-2/aurthur-su.pdf
-
I'd like to quote from pages 156 & 157 of Gorshkov's book which are in the third chapter entitled 'Development of Navies After the Second World War'.
"The use by the Americans in the last stage of the war of the atom bomb produced something like a shock wave among naval theoreticians and government circles of the traditional maritime states. Because of this, for about ten years in the post-war period, the building of fleets practically ceased."
...
"It must be emphasized that the dissemination of views on the omnipotence of the atomic bomb was largely promoted by intentionally inflated propaganda emanating from imperialist circles of the USA in furtherance of many political goals. By all means at its disposal the propaganda sought to elevate the atomic bomb to the status of the sole absolute weapon. Using the monopoly in this means of combat, the American militarists wished to scare the peoples of the world and to consolidate the military superiority of the USA, which was regarded as the most important pre-requisite for political leadership of the world.
This was promoted by the wide publicity given to the atomic weapons tests, including those off the Bikini Atoll in 1946, carried out to establish the influence of damaging factors on ships of different combat classes.
"But the possibilities of American propaganda for whipping up fear and stock exchange gambling over the new weapon were far from boundless. The unrestrained boosting of this weapon and the deliberate exagerration of its potentialities were transformed into its denial. The more strident became the propaganda of deterrence, the more vigorously grew the circle of people capable of grasping and uncovering the real possibilities of the new weapon.
..."
-
Last year I bought a book published in 1977 entitled 'Socialism in the Soviet Union' by Jonathan Aurthur which is an astute analysis of the Cold War from a communist perspective. It includes a chapter on military affairs which references a book entitled 'The Sea Power of the State' by Soviet Admiral Gorshkov who incidentally built the Soviet Navy from negligible into a force that could challenge the Americans by the late 1970's.
As nuclear weapons do not work, USSR decided instead to build many warships or actually some people at Moscow decided it. The warships were then assembled by many shipyards around the country (USSR) using plates, bolts, nuts and guns, etc, etc, supplied by various subcontractors that had been told to do so by people at Moscow. The system worked until 1991, when Moscow stopped deciding everything. Ukraine had many shipyards at the Black Sea but decided to close them and lose >100 000 jobs because only Russians and Jews were concerned and the people that decided lived at Moscow. The Ukrainians lived up in the mountains and got seasick just watching the Black Sea. Sad story. The only positive thing was that Ukraine gave back all their nuclear weapons to Russia - free of charge. They didn't work anyway.
-
Last year I bought a book published in 1977 entitled 'Socialism in the Soviet Union' by Jonathan Aurthur which is an astute analysis of the Cold War from a communist perspective. It includes a chapter on military affairs which references a book entitled 'The Sea Power of the State' by Soviet Admiral Gorshkov who incidentally built the Soviet Navy from negligible into a force that could challenge the Americans by the late 1970's.
As nuclear weapons do not work, USSR decided instead to build many warships or actually some people at Moscow decided it. The warships were then assembled by many shipyards around the country (USSR) using plates, bolts, nuts and guns, etc, etc, supplied by various subcontractors that had been told to do so by people at Moscow. The system worked until 1991, when Moscow stopped deciding everything. Ukraine had many shipyards at the Black Sea but decided to close them and lose >100 000 jobs because only Russians and Jews were concerned and the people that decided lived at Moscow. The Ukrainians lived up in the mountains and got seasick just watching the Black Sea. Sad story. The only positive thing was that Ukraine gave back all their nuclear weapons to Russia - free of charge. They didn't work anyway.
Do you even understand that you're insane?
-
Last year I bought a book published in 1977 entitled 'Socialism in the Soviet Union' by Jonathan Aurthur which is an astute analysis of the Cold War from a communist perspective. It includes a chapter on military affairs which references a book entitled 'The Sea Power of the State' by Soviet Admiral Gorshkov who incidentally built the Soviet Navy from negligible into a force that could challenge the Americans by the late 1970's.
As nuclear weapons do not work, USSR decided instead to build many warships or actually some people at Moscow decided it. The warships were then assembled by many shipyards around the country (USSR) using plates, bolts, nuts and guns, etc, etc, supplied by various subcontractors that had been told to do so by people at Moscow. The system worked until 1991, when Moscow stopped deciding everything. Ukraine had many shipyards at the Black Sea but decided to close them and lose >100 000 jobs because only Russians and Jews were concerned and the people that decided lived at Moscow. The Ukrainians lived up in the mountains and got seasick just watching the Black Sea. Sad story. The only positive thing was that Ukraine gave back all their nuclear weapons to Russia - free of charge. They didn't work anyway.
"Oh look" he says, "fresh meat!"
Meathead!
-
Last year I bought a book published in 1977 entitled 'Socialism in the Soviet Union' by Jonathan Aurthur which is an astute analysis of the Cold War from a communist perspective. It includes a chapter on military affairs which references a book entitled 'The Sea Power of the State' by Soviet Admiral Gorshkov who incidentally built the Soviet Navy from negligible into a force that could challenge the Americans by the late 1970's.
As nuclear weapons do not work, USSR decided instead to build many warships or actually some people at Moscow decided it. The warships were then assembled by many shipyards around the country (USSR) using plates, bolts, nuts and guns, etc, etc, supplied by various subcontractors that had been told to do so by people at Moscow. The system worked until 1991, when Moscow stopped deciding everything. Ukraine had many shipyards at the Black Sea but decided to close them and lose >100 000 jobs because only Russians and Jews were concerned and the people that decided lived at Moscow. The Ukrainians lived up in the mountains and got seasick just watching the Black Sea. Sad story. The only positive thing was that Ukraine gave back all their nuclear weapons to Russia - free of charge. They didn't work anyway.
Do you even understand that you're insane?
Absolutely unnecessary.
Do you?
-
Last year I bought a book published in 1977 entitled 'Socialism in the Soviet Union' by Jonathan Aurthur which is an astute analysis of the Cold War from a communist perspective. It includes a chapter on military affairs which references a book entitled 'The Sea Power of the State' by Soviet Admiral Gorshkov who incidentally built the Soviet Navy from negligible into a force that could challenge the Americans by the late 1970's.
As nuclear weapons do not work, USSR decided instead to build many warships or actually some people at Moscow decided it. The warships were then assembled by many shipyards around the country (USSR) using plates, bolts, nuts and guns, etc, etc, supplied by various subcontractors that had been told to do so by people at Moscow. The system worked until 1991, when Moscow stopped deciding everything. Ukraine had many shipyards at the Black Sea but decided to close them and lose >100 000 jobs because only Russians and Jews were concerned and the people that decided lived at Moscow. The Ukrainians lived up in the mountains and got seasick just watching the Black Sea. Sad story. The only positive thing was that Ukraine gave back all their nuclear weapons to Russia - free of charge. They didn't work anyway.
Do you even understand that you're insane?
Well, 1992-1997 I worked in Ukraine trying to get the shipyards going again by completing a half finished ship I found. It wasn't such a crazy idea. Everyone was a winner. All the parts were there, just to put together. But to build new ships from scratch was impossible. Ukrainians up in the mountains wanted to get paid ... for doing nothing. Anyway, the shipyards were run by Russians and Jews and the Ukrainians didn't like them, so they just closed the yards. Sad. Of course the Ukrainians found out that their nuclear weapons didn't work ... so they just gave that scrap back to Moscow.
It is a pity you haven't been around like me.
-
100 million degrees C, "the temperature of the interior of the Sun", still a kicker... ;D
-
100 million degrees C, "the temperature of the interior of the Sun", still a kicker... ;D
Pfft that's nothing, the Large Hadron Collider has theoretically produced explosions at over 5 trillion degrees Celsius
http://www.seeker.com/lhc-smashes-highest-man-made-temperature-record-1765929082.html
We have also achieved temperatures at fractions of a degree over 0 Kelvins. We are a remarkable species.
You mean you guys 'gave' nuclear weapons (being led to believe it was worthless 'scrap') to the Russians? I think you got owned there. Well I hope your right that they have worthless pieces of scrap in their 'stock pile' but be assured (but not really) that nuclear weapons are indeed very real and very insidious.
Being such a connected world these days the damage done by a nuclear weapon would destroy an unacceptable amount of infrastructure that we all need and use, so no one other than Kim Jong Un is going to want to use them. Care to explain where the seismic activity from his testing?
America used to put on a pretty cool light show in the Nevada desert too. Weren't they the good old days where your own government could drop bombs in your backyard and you would be like 'cool!'
-
You mean you guys 'gave' nuclear weapons (being led to believe it was worthless 'scrap') to the Russians? I think you got owned there. Well I hope your right that they have worthless pieces of scrap in their 'stock pile' but be assured (but not really) that nuclear weapons are indeed very real and very insidious.
Yes, Ukraine just gave their a-bombs to Russia after the fall of the USSR. Ukraine didn't sell them to, e.g. some Arabs and so on. Reason being that what Ukraine had was just mock-ups and stage props; empty shells with no content ... and that no working a-bombs/missiles existed anywhere. How do I know? I was there and was offered to buy plenty military stuff, even a-bombs, but a close inspection revealed what it was. But the ships were pretty good. I bought another one in Russia around 1997.
-
You mean you guys 'gave' nuclear weapons (being led to believe it was worthless 'scrap') to the Russians? I think you got owned there. Well I hope your right that they have worthless pieces of scrap in their 'stock pile' but be assured (but not really) that nuclear weapons are indeed very real and very insidious.
Yes, Ukraine just gave their a-bombs to Russia after the fall of the USSR. Ukraine didn't sell them to, e.g. some Arabs and so on. Reason being that what Ukraine had was just mock-ups and stage props; empty shells with no content ... and that no working a-bombs/missiles existed anywhere. How do I know? I was there and was offered to buy plenty military stuff, even a-bombs, but a close inspection revealed what it was. But the ships were pretty good. I bought another one in Russia around 1997.
Are you sure that the Russians didn't just take the bombs because they were theirs in the first place? It's not as if the Russians are shy about not asking permission before they take stuff anyway.
-
You mean you guys 'gave' nuclear weapons (being led to believe it was worthless 'scrap') to the Russians? I think you got owned there. Well I hope your right that they have worthless pieces of scrap in their 'stock pile' but be assured (but not really) that nuclear weapons are indeed very real and very insidious.
Yes, Ukraine just gave their a-bombs to Russia after the fall of the USSR. Ukraine didn't sell them to, e.g. some Arabs and so on. Reason being that what Ukraine had was just mock-ups and stage props; empty shells with no content ... and that no working a-bombs/missiles existed anywhere. How do I know? I was there and was offered to buy plenty military stuff, even a-bombs, but a close inspection revealed what it was. But the ships were pretty good. I bought another one in Russia around 1997.
Are you sure that the Russians didn't just take the bombs because they were theirs in the first place? It's not as if the Russians are shy about not asking permission before they take stuff anyway.
Stalin was a Georgian that was running USSR 1924/1953 from Moscow and it was he and FDR who invented the fake a-bomb and nuclear weapons in the 1940's. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The Russians at Moscow are today just keeping the show alive. I doesn't cost them much. Of course ethnic Russians in past USSR republics like Ukraine, Azerbaijan, etc, have a hard time today being discriminated and persecuted by many local dictators supported by ... USA. Hard life.
-
(https://s10.postimg.org/hwgntiy3d/holographictowershill.jpg)
-
I'd like to quote from pages 156 & 157 of Gorshkov's book which are in the third chapter entitled 'Development of Navies After the Second World War'.
"The use by the Americans in the last stage of the war of the atom bomb produced something like a shock wave among naval theoreticians and government circles of the traditional maritime states. Because of this, for about ten years in the post-war period, the building of fleets practically ceased."
...
"It must be emphasized that the dissemination of views on the omnipotence of the atomic bomb was largely promoted by intentionally inflated propaganda emanating from imperialist circles of the USA in furtherance of many political goals. By all means at its disposal the propaganda sought to elevate the atomic bomb to the status of the sole absolute weapon. Using the monopoly in this means of combat, the American militarists wished to scare the peoples of the world and to consolidate the military superiority of the USA, which was regarded as the most important pre-requisite for political leadership of the world.
This was promoted by the wide publicity given to the atomic weapons tests, including those off the Bikini Atoll in 1946, carried out to establish the influence of damaging factors on ships of different combat classes.
"But the possibilities of American propaganda for whipping up fear and stock exchange gambling over the new weapon were far from boundless. The unrestrained boosting of this weapon and the deliberate exagerration of its potentialities were transformed into its denial. The more strident became the propaganda of deterrence, the more vigorously grew the circle of people capable of grasping and uncovering the real possibilities of the new weapon..."
My chief source when I started this thread was US Army Major de Seversky, a man who never claimed that nuclear weapons do not exist. His point was that their abilities were grossly exaggerated and also distorted, particularly by American propaganda. This is the same thing that his Soviet enemies like Admiral Gorshkov were saying.
This thread has a valid central thesis, but myself especially and perhaps a very few others overstepped the basis supported by evidence when we claimed that nuclear weapons never existed. Therefore, the name of the thread will change to reflect the reality that American propaganda exaggerates nuclear power.
-
And the name of the thread is changed.
Let it not be truly said that evidence does not affect my conclusions. The initial idea of this thread has a basis in reality. I modified the thesis to accurately reflect what I have learned of the evidence.
That said, I long ago consolidated my collected information into a few successive posts now buried somewhere in the thread. At that time I promised to post photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki taken by Major de Seversky in August 1945 just days after the bombs exploded - photographs that strongly contradict the American lies exaggerating the effects of their bombs.
Those photographs and much more evidence neutering the exaggerated nuclear aspect of American propaganda is included in Alexandre de Seversky's 1950 book 'Air Power: Key to Survival.'
-
And the name of the thread is changed.
Let it not be truly said that evidence does not affect my conclusions. The initial idea of this thread has a basis in reality. I modified the thesis to accurately reflect what I have learned of the evidence.
That said, I long ago consolidated my collected information into a few successive posts now buried somewhere in the thread. At that time I promised to post photographs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki taken by Major de Seversky in August 1945 just days after the bombs exploded - photographs that strongly contradict the American lies exaggerating the effects of their bombs.
Those photographs and much more evidence neutering the exaggerated nuclear aspect of American propaganda is included in Alexandre de Seversky's 1950 book 'Air Power: Key to Survival.'
Thanks a lot for starting this thread. As nuclear weapons are pure propaganda, many people wonder how Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed 6 and 9 August 1945. The answer is very simple. They were not destroyed by any atomic bombs at all! They were destroyed by US napalm carpet bombings during the spring/early summer 1945 like >60 other Japanese towns. Nobody gave a damn about stupid, young American bomber pilots dropping napalm on civilian targets of no military value. It served the yellow monkies right, they thought with their small, snake brains. The rest is just a very successful propaganda project still working at 100%. It doesn't cost much to pay actors of all kind to tell horror stories of nuclear warfare.
However, fact remains; instant, military, nuclear fission in a FLASH doesn't work. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I there also provide some info about peaceful, civilian nuclear power electricity generation and what happens at Fukushima, Japan, right now. It seems everything is OK unless you put your nose into the centre of the nuclear reactor where fission takes place. It is not recommended.
-
Ask Finland and Norway about the damage they suffered when the Russians tested a 50 megaton bomb 'tsar bomba' more than 1000km away. That bomb had the capability of 100 megatons but they figured the plane dropping the bomb wouldn't survive. Even with the 50 megaton bomb and being more than 40km away from the time it exploded, it nearly didn't.
Whoever thinks nuclear weapons are fake or not a big deal is a twit
-
Ask Finland and Norway about the damage they suffered when the Russians tested a 50 megaton bomb 'tsar bomba' more than 1000km away. That bomb had the capability of 100 megatons but they figured the plane dropping the bomb wouldn't survive. Even with the 50 megaton bomb and being more than 40km away from the time it exploded, it nearly didn't.
Whoever thinks nuclear weapons are fake or not a big deal is a twit
Why don't you ask me. I lived in Sweden then? It was a big USSR propaganda show. Noone was hurt. Maybe the Russians sprayed some radioactive dust in the sky to be picked up to be admired, bla, bla.
One reason why it was just a show is that nobody knows how to trigger such a hydrogen, fusion bomb. By setting off a nuclear atomic fission bomb? Doesn't work! Ask any nuclear weapon designer about it. They are few and they will all reply ... it is secret. Tewwowists may get hold of the secret.
Only twerps believe in nuclear weapons.
-
Ask Finland and Norway about the damage they suffered when the Russians tested a 50 megaton bomb 'tsar bomba' more than 1000km away. That bomb had the capability of 100 megatons but they figured the plane dropping the bomb wouldn't survive. Even with the 50 megaton bomb and being more than 40km away from the time it exploded, it nearly didn't.
Whoever thinks nuclear weapons are fake or not a big deal is a twit
Why don't you ask me. I lived in Sweden then? It was a big USSR propaganda show. Noone was hurt. Maybe the Russians sprayed some radioactive dust in the sky to be picked up to be admired, bla, bla.
One reason why it was just a show is that nobody knows how to trigger such a hydrogen, fusion bomb. By setting off a nuclear atomic fission bomb? Doesn't work! Ask any nuclear weapon designer about it. They are few and they will all reply ... it is secret. Tewwowists may get hold of the secret.
Only twerps believe in nuclear weapons.
Prove it. Oh right, you can't because you're just a lying idiot. No references to your website, show your evidence here.
-
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1830498#msg1830498 (all the proofs required)
-
Ask Finland and Norway about the damage they suffered when the Russians tested a 50 megaton bomb 'tsar bomba' more than 1000km away. That bomb had the capability of 100 megatons but they figured the plane dropping the bomb wouldn't survive. Even with the 50 megaton bomb and being more than 40km away from the time it exploded, it nearly didn't.
Whoever thinks nuclear weapons are fake or not a big deal is a twit
Why don't you ask me. I lived in Sweden then? It was a big USSR propaganda show. Noone was hurt. Maybe the Russians sprayed some radioactive dust in the sky to be picked up to be admired, bla, bla.
One reason why it was just a show is that nobody knows how to trigger such a hydrogen, fusion bomb. By setting off a nuclear atomic fission bomb? Doesn't work! Ask any nuclear weapon designer about it. They are few and they will all reply ... it is secret. Tewwowists may get hold of the secret.
Only twerps believe in nuclear weapons.
Prove it. Oh right, you can't because you're just a lying idiot. No references to your website, show your evidence here.
Hm, so tell me how to trigger a hydrogen fusion bomb. What kind of detonator do you use? An a-bomb? So how do you trigger a fission a-bomb? What kind of detonator do you use?
Bringing two subcritical pieces of metal into sudden contact with each other with a neutron in between so that the neutron can start military fission of the metal resulting in a FLASH that lasts nanoseconds releasing energy equivalent of 20 000 tons of TNT? But it will blow the hydrogen fusion bomb into pieces.
Do you really know what fusion is? It cannot be done on Earth! It is impossible. Plenty people say it can be done and a plant - the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is built at at Cadarache, France, two hours drive from my office. However it will not work. It is a joke! http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm
Do you know what fission is? If you do, you should know that it is a slow, moderated process of nuclear fuels producing energy in the form of radiation that heats water into steam. It cannot be used for military purposes.
Any person suggesting anything else is a twerp.
-
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1830498#msg1830498 (all the proofs required)
That is of course correct.
While I do believe that significantly more powerful bombs had been created, the explanation of the science behind it is false.
In particular, the fable of atoms was embraced by bourgeois europeans since the eighteenth century and amended by Lord Rutherford and others in the twentieth to include a miniature solar system of orbiting electrons around a nucleus including protons and electrons which was succinctly refuted by Dewey Larson:
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/
-
Ask Finland and Norway about the damage they suffered when the Russians tested a 50 megaton bomb 'tsar bomba' more than 1000km away. That bomb had the capability of 100 megatons but they figured the plane dropping the bomb wouldn't survive. Even with the 50 megaton bomb and being more than 40km away from the time it exploded, it nearly didn't.
Whoever thinks nuclear weapons are fake or not a big deal is a twit
Why don't you ask me. I lived in Sweden then? It was a big USSR propaganda show. Noone was hurt. Maybe the Russians sprayed some radioactive dust in the sky to be picked up to be admired, bla, bla.
One reason why it was just a show is that nobody knows how to trigger such a hydrogen, fusion bomb. By setting off a nuclear atomic fission bomb? Doesn't work! Ask any nuclear weapon designer about it. They are few and they will all reply ... it is secret. Tewwowists may get hold of the secret.
Only twerps believe in nuclear weapons.
Prove it. Oh right, you can't because you're just a lying idiot. No references to your website, show your evidence here.
Hm, so tell me how to trigger a hydrogen fusion bomb. What kind of detonator do you use? An a-bomb? So how do you trigger a fission a-bomb? What kind of detonator do you use?
Bringing two subcritical pieces of metal into sudden contact with each other with a neutron in between so that the neutron can start military fission of the metal resulting in a FLASH that last nanoseconds releasing energy equivalent of 20 000 tons of TNT? But it will blow the hydrogen fusion bomb into pieces.
Do you really know what fusion is? It cannot be done on Earth! It is impossible. Plenty people say it can be done and a plant - the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is built at at Cadarache, France, two hours drive from my office. However it will not work. It is a joke! http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm
Do you know what fission is? If you do, you should know that it is a slow, moderated process of nuclear fuels producing energy in the form of radiation that heats water into steam. It cannot be used for military purposes.
Any person suggesting anything else is a twerp.
Let me sum up what you just said. You don't understand it so it must be fake.
PROVE IT. Just another failure by the lying moron. Nothing new here.
-
Hm, so tell me how to trigger a hydrogen fusion bomb. What kind of detonator do you use? An a-bomb? So how do you trigger a fission a-bomb? What kind of detonator do you use?
Bringing two subcritical pieces of metal into sudden contact with each other with a neutron in between so that the neutron can start military fission of the metal resulting in a FLASH that lasts nanoseconds releasing energy equivalent of 20 000 tons of TNT? But it will blow the hydrogen fusion bomb into pieces.
First of all, an implosion device is used to set off an H bomb. Secondly, who said that they're using a 20 kiloton device? Thirdly, the secret to initiating fusion before the initial explosion blows it all apart is in the timing of it all.
(http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nuclear-weapons-4.jpg)
Do you really know what fusion is? It cannot be done on Earth! It is impossible. Plenty people say it can be done and a plant - the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is built at at Cadarache, France, two hours drive from my office. However it will not work. It is a joke!
Actually, there are a number of fusion reactors around the world. Why don't you visit one some day?
Do you know what fission is? If you do, you should know that it is a slow, moderated process of nuclear fuels producing energy in the form of radiation that heats water into steam. It cannot be used for military purposes.
Moderated fission reactions still rely on Uranium atoms releasing neutrons as they split in order to split other Uranium atoms, so the concept is still pretty much the same.
Any person suggesting anything else is a twerp.
Any person suggesting that nuclear bombs don't work is in denial.
-
Hm, so tell me how to trigger a hydrogen fusion bomb. What kind of detonator do you use? An a-bomb? So how do you trigger a fission a-bomb? What kind of detonator do you use?
Bringing two subcritical pieces of metal into sudden contact with each other with a neutron in between so that the neutron can start military fission of the metal resulting in a FLASH that lasts nanoseconds releasing energy equivalent of 20 000 tons of TNT? But it will blow the hydrogen fusion bomb into pieces.
First of all, an implosion device is used to set off an H bomb. Secondly, who said that they're using a 20 kiloton device? Thirdly, the secret to initiating fusion before the initial explosion blows it all apart is in the timing of it all.
(http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nuclear-weapons-4.jpg)
Do you really know what fusion is? It cannot be done on Earth! It is impossible. Plenty people say it can be done and a plant - the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is built at at Cadarache, France, two hours drive from my office. However it will not work. It is a joke!
Actually, there are a number of fusion reactors around the world. Why don't you visit one some day?
Do you know what fission is? If you do, you should know that it is a slow, moderated process of nuclear fuels producing energy in the form of radiation that heats water into steam. It cannot be used for military purposes.
Moderated fission reactions still rely on Uranium atoms releasing neutrons as they split in order to split other Uranium atoms, so the concept is still pretty much the same.
Any person suggesting anything else is a twerp.
Any person suggesting that nuclear bombs don't work is in denial.
Thanks - fission is always moderated and slow and energy is released as radiation to heat water to become steam to drive generators producing electricity.
Military speed of light fission transforming metal into pure energy in a FLASH - an a-bomb - is just propaganda. The military of east and west are good at it.
Military fusion - the h-bomb - is more propaganda and doesn't work at all. To start it you must create a plasma at very high temperature and for that you require plenty energy, which you do not have.
That is why no civilian fusion reactors in the world work. And it is also the reason why ITER down the road from me will never work. Just visit their website and study their explanations how to heat up the reactor to 150 000 000 C to get plasma started using an external heating system. And how to inject the fuel - frozen tritium pellets - into the plasma. It is a joke. The reactor walls a few meters from the 150 000 000 C plasma are at the same time cooled down by water to 240 C that is taken from a little canal and ejected into a river after passing some bassins, because in the beginning all energy/heat produced will just be dumped ... if you can start the monster and run it for say 0.01 seconds ... before the whole thing melts. But by 2036 (when I am 90!) the water cooling system will be upgraded to produce steam driving generators producing electricity. But the whole thing is a laugh. I cannot understand how anyone takes these clown seriously.
-
Hm, so tell me how to trigger a hydrogen fusion bomb. What kind of detonator do you use? An a-bomb? So how do you trigger a fission a-bomb? What kind of detonator do you use?
Bringing two subcritical pieces of metal into sudden contact with each other with a neutron in between so that the neutron can start military fission of the metal resulting in a FLASH that lasts nanoseconds releasing energy equivalent of 20 000 tons of TNT? But it will blow the hydrogen fusion bomb into pieces.
First of all, an implosion device is used to set off an H bomb. Secondly, who said that they're using a 20 kiloton device? Thirdly, the secret to initiating fusion before the initial explosion blows it all apart is in the timing of it all.
(http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nuclear-weapons-4.jpg)
Do you really know what fusion is? It cannot be done on Earth! It is impossible. Plenty people say it can be done and a plant - the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is built at at Cadarache, France, two hours drive from my office. However it will not work. It is a joke!
Actually, there are a number of fusion reactors around the world. Why don't you visit one some day?
Do you know what fission is? If you do, you should know that it is a slow, moderated process of nuclear fuels producing energy in the form of radiation that heats water into steam. It cannot be used for military purposes.
Moderated fission reactions still rely on Uranium atoms releasing neutrons as they split in order to split other Uranium atoms, so the concept is still pretty much the same.
Any person suggesting anything else is a twerp.
Any person suggesting that nuclear bombs don't work is in denial.
Thanks - fission is always moderated and slow and energy is released as radiation to heat water to become steam to drive generators producing electricity.
Military speed of light fission transforming metal into pure energy in a FLASH - an a-bomb - is just propaganda. The military of east and west are good at it.
Military fusion - the h-bomb - is more propaganda and doesn't work at all. To start it you must create a plasma at very high temperature and for that you require plenty energy, which you do not have.
That is why no civilian fusion reactors in the world work. And it is also the reason why ITER down the road from me will never work. Just visit their website and study their explanations how to heat up the reactor to 150 000 000 C to get plasma started using an external heating system. And how to inject the fuel - frozen tritium pellets - into the plasma. It is a joke. The reactor walls a few meters from the 150 000 000 C plasma are at the same time cooled down by water to 240 C that is taken from a little canal and ejected into a river after passing some bassins, because in the beginning all energy/heat produced will just be dumped ... if you can start the monster and run it for say 0.01 seconds ... before the whole thing melts. But by 2036 (when I am 90!) the water cooling system will be upgraded to produce steam driving generators producing electricity. But the whole thing is a laugh. I cannot understand how anyone takes these clown seriously.
Let me sum up. You don't understand it so it can't work.
More failure by the lying idiot.
-
Hm, so tell me how to trigger a hydrogen fusion bomb. What kind of detonator do you use? An a-bomb? So how do you trigger a fission a-bomb? What kind of detonator do you use?
Bringing two subcritical pieces of metal into sudden contact with each other with a neutron in between so that the neutron can start military fission of the metal resulting in a FLASH that lasts nanoseconds releasing energy equivalent of 20 000 tons of TNT? But it will blow the hydrogen fusion bomb into pieces.
First of all, an implosion device is used to set off an H bomb. Secondly, who said that they're using a 20 kiloton device? Thirdly, the secret to initiating fusion before the initial explosion blows it all apart is in the timing of it all.
(http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nuclear-weapons-4.jpg)
Do you really know what fusion is? It cannot be done on Earth! It is impossible. Plenty people say it can be done and a plant - the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is built at at Cadarache, France, two hours drive from my office. However it will not work. It is a joke!
Actually, there are a number of fusion reactors around the world. Why don't you visit one some day?
Do you know what fission is? If you do, you should know that it is a slow, moderated process of nuclear fuels producing energy in the form of radiation that heats water into steam. It cannot be used for military purposes.
Moderated fission reactions still rely on Uranium atoms releasing neutrons as they split in order to split other Uranium atoms, so the concept is still pretty much the same.
Any person suggesting anything else is a twerp.
Any person suggesting that nuclear bombs don't work is in denial.
Thanks - fission is always moderated and slow and energy is released as radiation to heat water to become steam to drive generators producing electricity.
Military speed of light fission transforming metal into pure energy in a FLASH - an a-bomb - is just propaganda. The military of east and west are good at it.
Military fusion - the h-bomb - is more propaganda and doesn't work at all. To start it you must create a plasma at very high temperature and for that you require plenty energy, which you do not have.
That is why no civilian fusion reactors in the world work. And it is also the reason why ITER down the road from me will never work. Just visit their website and study their explanations how to heat up the reactor to 150 000 000 C to get plasma started using an external heating system. And how to inject the fuel - frozen tritium pellets - into the plasma. It is a joke. The reactor walls a few meters from the 150 000 000 C plasma are at the same time cooled down by water to 240 C that is taken from a little canal and ejected into a river after passing some bassins, because in the beginning all energy/heat produced will just be dumped ... if you can start the monster and run it for say 0.01 seconds ... before the whole thing melts. But by 2036 (when I am 90!) the water cooling system will be upgraded to produce steam driving generators producing electricity. But the whole thing is a laugh. I cannot understand how anyone takes these clown seriously.
Let me sum up. You don't understand it so it can't work.
More failure by the lying idiot.
Hm, of course I understand it cannot work. Don't you understand?
-
Hm, of course I understand it cannot work.
But do you understand how it does work?
-
Hm, so tell me how to trigger a hydrogen fusion bomb. What kind of detonator do you use? An a-bomb? So how do you trigger a fission a-bomb? What kind of detonator do you use?
Bringing two subcritical pieces of metal into sudden contact with each other with a neutron in between so that the neutron can start military fission of the metal resulting in a FLASH that lasts nanoseconds releasing energy equivalent of 20 000 tons of TNT? But it will blow the hydrogen fusion bomb into pieces.
First of all, an implosion device is used to set off an H bomb. Secondly, who said that they're using a 20 kiloton device? Thirdly, the secret to initiating fusion before the initial explosion blows it all apart is in the timing of it all.
(http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nuclear-weapons-4.jpg)
Do you really know what fusion is? It cannot be done on Earth! It is impossible. Plenty people say it can be done and a plant - the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) is built at at Cadarache, France, two hours drive from my office. However it will not work. It is a joke!
Actually, there are a number of fusion reactors around the world. Why don't you visit one some day?
Do you know what fission is? If you do, you should know that it is a slow, moderated process of nuclear fuels producing energy in the form of radiation that heats water into steam. It cannot be used for military purposes.
Moderated fission reactions still rely on Uranium atoms releasing neutrons as they split in order to split other Uranium atoms, so the concept is still pretty much the same.
Any person suggesting anything else is a twerp.
Any person suggesting that nuclear bombs don't work is in denial.
Thanks - fission is always moderated and slow and energy is released as radiation to heat water to become steam to drive generators producing electricity.
Military speed of light fission transforming metal into pure energy in a FLASH - an a-bomb - is just propaganda. The military of east and west are good at it.
Military fusion - the h-bomb - is more propaganda and doesn't work at all. To start it you must create a plasma at very high temperature and for that you require plenty energy, which you do not have.
That is why no civilian fusion reactors in the world work. And it is also the reason why ITER down the road from me will never work. Just visit their website and study their explanations how to heat up the reactor to 150 000 000 C to get plasma started using an external heating system. And how to inject the fuel - frozen tritium pellets - into the plasma. It is a joke. The reactor walls a few meters from the 150 000 000 C plasma are at the same time cooled down by water to 240 C that is taken from a little canal and ejected into a river after passing some bassins, because in the beginning all energy/heat produced will just be dumped ... if you can start the monster and run it for say 0.01 seconds ... before the whole thing melts. But by 2036 (when I am 90!) the water cooling system will be upgraded to produce steam driving generators producing electricity. But the whole thing is a laugh. I cannot understand how anyone takes these clown seriously.
Let me sum up. You don't understand it so it can't work.
More failure by the lying idiot.
Hm, of course I understand it cannot work. Don't you understand?
Perhaps if you actually showed some evidence to support your position. But of course you have nothing, just more failure on your part.
-
(http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/nuclear-weapons-4.jpg)
So there is a boosted fission primary and a fusion secondary held together by polystyrene foam = a thermonuclear BOMB! And it detonates as follows:
1. Chemical explosion compresses fission fuel to initiate fission!
LOL. Sorry - fission is not initiated by compression!
2. X-rays from primary are reflected by casing and heat foam.
ROTFL. It sounds like a joke! Are you serious?
3. Foam, now a plasma, compresses secondary; fissionable "spark plug" ignites.
You must be joking! A plasma foam! Polystyrene becomes plasma!
4. Fusion fuel ignites.
Fusion fuel is hydrogen/deuterium/tritium. So it just ignites. Any evidence for it? It sounds like stupid propaganda to me. Why do you quote such pseudo-nonsense?
-
Welcome to "Heiwa doesn't understand things so they're impossible, version #698032"!!!
-
Welcome to "Heiwa doesn't understand things so they're impossible, version #698032"!!!
Yes I admit I cannot understand how exploding an a-bomb inside a capsule full of polystyrene foam will produce X-rays bouncing against the capsule walls heating up the foam to 150 000 000 C plasma that compresses a second a-bomb "spark plug" starting fusion.
Polystyrene is a synthetic aromatic polymer made from the monomer styrene. Polystyrene can be solid or foamed. General-purpose polystyrene is clear, hard, and rather brittle. It is an inexpensive resin per unit weight.
I doubt it can be used to detonate a hyrdogene bomb.
-
Welcome to "Heiwa doesn't understand things so they're impossible, version #698032"!!!
Yes I admit I cannot understand how exploding an a-bomb inside a capsule full of polystyrene foam will produce X-rays bouncing against the capsule walls heating up the foam to 150 000 000 C plasma that compresses a second a-bomb "spark plug" starting fusion.
Polystyrene is a synthetic aromatic polymer made from the monomer styrene. Polystyrene can be solid or foamed. General-purpose polystyrene is clear, hard, and rather brittle. It is an inexpensive resin per unit weight.
I doubt it can be used to detonate a hyrdogene bomb.
Cool, come back when you understand it.
I wonder how far we are from the point where you use "Hydrogen bombs are really heavy, I couldn't carry them, therefore they are impractical and stupid and impossible!" as an argument.
-
Welcome to "Heiwa doesn't understand things so they're impossible, version #698032"!!!
Yes I admit I cannot understand how exploding an a-bomb inside a capsule full of polystyrene foam will produce X-rays bouncing against the capsule walls heating up the foam to 150 000 000 C plasma that compresses a second a-bomb "spark plug" starting fusion.
Polystyrene is a synthetic aromatic polymer made from the monomer styrene. Polystyrene can be solid or foamed. General-purpose polystyrene is clear, hard, and rather brittle. It is an inexpensive resin per unit weight.
I doubt it can be used to detonate a hyrdogene bomb.
Cool, come back when you understand it.
I wonder how far we are from the point where you use "Hydrogen bombs are really heavy, I couldn't carry them, therefore they are impractical and stupid and impossible!" as an argument.
Why don't you explain how heating up polystyrene foam to 150 000 000 C using an a-bomb becomes plasma that compresses a second a-bomb "spark plug" starting fusion.
Imagine if tewowrists find out how simple it is! You sound like one.
-
Why don't you explain how heating up polystyrene foam to 150 000 000 C using an a-bomb becomes plasma that compresses a second a-bomb "spark plug" starting fusion.
Imagine if tewowrists find out how simple it is! You sound like one.
WTF. It's the first time I've ever been accused of sounding like a terrorist, and I find it hilarious, just because it comes from you.
Btw the exact way H-bombs work is classified for obvious reasons, so stop asking for detailed descriptions. If you wanted to understand you'd look it up and wouldn't just say "oh, I don't THINK it can work, so it's fake".
Also, who said it's "simple"? Everything you described is incredibly complex.
-
Why don't you explain how heating up polystyrene foam to 150 000 000 C using an a-bomb becomes plasma that compresses a second a-bomb "spark plug" starting fusion.
Imagine if tewowrists find out how simple it is! You sound like one.
WTF. It's the first time I've ever been accused of sounding like a terrorist, and I find it hilarious, just because it comes from you.
Btw the exact way H-bombs work is classified for obvious reasons, so stop asking for detailed descriptions. If you wanted to understand you'd look it up and wouldn't just say "oh, I don't THINK it can work, so it's fake".
Also, who said it's "simple"? Everything you described is incredibly complex.
Classified by obvious reasons? Incredibly complex?
I think heating up polystyrene foam to 150 000 000 C using an a-bomb is plain stupid. What twerp can have invented it?
And I do not believe that 150 000 000 C hot polystyrene foam can compress anything.
I just tested trying to put fire to a bit of polystyrene. It melted. It didn't compress anything. At 100 C!
-
I'm sure the people in Vegas who witnessed the testing thought the explosions were pretty spectacular. But maybe they are all paid shills. I wonder what the victims of the Marshall Islands testing think of these naysayers? Especially those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What a bunch of know nothing know-it-alls.
Yeah I'm sure feudal Japan who had never before surrendered to any foreign power, surrenderd because America snapped a few pictures of a town they simply 'set fire to'.
The fact that they surrendered at all should tell you these bombs are real and to be feared. Anyone who doesn't fear it should lock themselves in the underground bunker when North Korea detonates its next one. We'll believe you if you walk out of there alive.
-
Why don't you explain how heating up polystyrene foam to 150 000 000 C using an a-bomb becomes plasma that compresses a second a-bomb "spark plug" starting fusion.
Do you even know what plasma is? ???
Imagine if tewowrists find out how simple it is! You sound like one.
The basic concepts are quite simple. The actual implementation is very difficult. Why can't you understand the difference? ???
-
I'm sure the people in Vegas who witnessed the testing thought the explosions were pretty spectacular. But maybe they are all paid shills. I wonder what the victims of the Marshall Islands testing think of these naysayers? Especially those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What a bunch of know nothing know-it-alls.
Yeah I'm sure feudal Japan who had never before surrendered to any foreign power, surrenderd because America snapped a few pictures of a town they simply 'set fire to'.
The fact that they surrendered at all should tell you these bombs are real and to be feared. Anyone who doesn't fear it should lock themselves in the underground bunker when North Korea detonates its next one. We'll believe you if you walk out of there alive.
I wouldn't worry to much. You pay a few people to make up all sorts of (fake) stories and then you let som newspapers, radio and TC stations publish them and after a while they have become fact. It helps when censorship is applied and journalists can only write/publish what they are told.
Re Japan it is a fact that US Air army napalm carpet bombed and burnt down >60 Japanese cities - most of them of no military value just full of civilians - first half 1945. Officially US only bombed military targets but, as we know normal houses, office buildings, schools, hospitals, churches and temples can hide enemies, so the best solution is to destroy the lot. You sound like an a-bomb loving twerp but it is not your fault. I would blame lack of education and brains.
-
I hate atomic bombs actually. They are built to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible and leave lasting radiation poison for decades to come.
-
I hate atomic bombs actually. They are built to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible and leave lasting radiation poison for decades to come.
Good! Actually they do not work at all, they have never been used, so they do not leave any lasting, poisonous radiation at all anywhere. Nothing to be scared of. Hiroshima and Nagasaki a-bombings were just jokes! The towns were destroyed by conventional air bombings months earlier. Paid witnesses and standard propaganda produced the rest. It works today almost 72 years later.
-
Claims that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombs prior to August 1945 are a lie.
-
Claims that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombs prior to August 1945 are a lie.
Just prove it, e.g. that they were they not napalm, carpet-bombed before August 1945! All major Japanese ports were bombed ... or just the civilian housing areas a little inland. Quays, docks, cranes and warehouses were left intact. Why was that?
As a military/navy man myself I would just have put mines in the waters outside to make the ports useless. I would never kill civilians in war. What would you have done?
-
I find it disgusting that you have to resort to calling people terrorists or a-bomb lovers for explaining to you things.
The truth is that I haven't heard about polystyrene used in h-bombs. It's not the only speculation that exists, I already told you that the exact mechanism that transports energy from the a-bomb to the fusion core is classified. But your objections to it are ridiculous. "It doesn't sound nice to me. I think it's impossible. I heated up polystyrene at 100C and it didn't do anything.". WTF.
-
I find it disgusting that you have to resort to calling people terrorists or a-bomb lovers for explaining to you things.
The truth is that I haven't heard about polystyrene used in h-bombs. It's not the only speculation that exists, I already told you that the exact mechanism that transports energy from the a-bomb to the fusion core is classified. But your objections to it are ridiculous. "It doesn't sound nice to me. I think it's impossible. I heated up polystyrene at 100C and it didn't do anything.". WTF.
Sorry for hurting your feelings. But as you don't know about polystyrene in h-bombs, I understand that you are confused.
I made a simple test of polystyrene ... and you think it is ridiculous. Ok, you are upset.
But what shall I do? Lick the bottoms of D. Trump, wife, daughter and son-in-law?
I prefer a nice discussion about the matter.
-
I find it disgusting that you have to resort to calling people terrorists or a-bomb lovers for explaining to you things.
The truth is that I haven't heard about polystyrene used in h-bombs. It's not the only speculation that exists, I already told you that the exact mechanism that transports energy from the a-bomb to the fusion core is classified. But your objections to it are ridiculous. "It doesn't sound nice to me. I think it's impossible. I heated up polystyrene at 100C and it didn't do anything.". WTF.
Sorry for hurting your feelings. But as you don't know about polystyrene in h-bombs, I understand that you are confused.
I made a simple test of polystyrene ... and you think it is ridiculous. Ok, you are upset.
But what shall I do? Lick the bottoms of D. Trump, wife, daughter and son-in-law?
I prefer a nice discussion about the matter.
WTF are you even talking about? Why do you want to lick Trump's butt?
Why do you not understand how much different it is heating polystyrene out in the air to 100C and heating it to hundreds of millions of degrees inside a h-bomb?
Someone told me that in order to make french fries I have to put the potatoes in oil and then heat them. I threw a potato in oil and warmed it with my breath and it didn't turn into french fries. What a hoax.
-
I prefer a nice discussion about the matter.
More lies from Heiwa.
this is the person that in previous posts calls anyone that disagrees with him twerps.
But then all he has are the logical fallacies of argument from incredulity and argument from ridicule.
I'd ask you to prove your claims but we all know that will never happen, don't we?
More lies from Heiwa.
-
I find it disgusting that you have to resort to calling people terrorists or a-bomb lovers for explaining to you things.
The truth is that I haven't heard about polystyrene used in h-bombs. It's not the only speculation that exists, I already told you that the exact mechanism that transports energy from the a-bomb to the fusion core is classified. But your objections to it are ridiculous. "It doesn't sound nice to me. I think it's impossible. I heated up polystyrene at 100C and it didn't do anything.". WTF.
Sorry for hurting your feelings. But as you don't know about polystyrene in h-bombs, I understand that you are confused.
I made a simple test of polystyrene ... and you think it is ridiculous. Ok, you are upset.
But what shall I do? Lick the bottoms of D. Trump, wife, daughter and son-in-law?
I prefer a nice discussion about the matter.
WTF are you even talking about? Why do you want to lick Trump's butt?
Why do you not understand how much different it is heating polystyrene out in the air to 100C and heating it to hundreds of millions of degrees inside a h-bomb?
Someone told me that in order to make french fries I have to put the potatoes in oil and then heat them. I threw a potato in oil and warmed it with my breath and it didn't turn into french fries. What a hoax.
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
-
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
I take it that it flew way over your head.
-
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
I take it that it flew way over your head.
No, you just appear stupid. Sniffing butts.
-
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
I take it that it flew way over your head.
No, you just appear stupid. Sniffing butts.
Why are you sniffing butts?
-
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
I take it that it flew way over your head.
No, you just appear stupid. Sniffing butts.
Why don't you see if you can get a couple brain cells moving in the same direction at the same time and explain to us why DNO's "kithen" analogy is invalid?
-
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
I take it that it flew way over your head.
No, you just appear stupid. Sniffing butts.
Why don't you see if you can get a couple brain cells moving in the same direction at the same time and explain to us why DNO's "kithen" analogy is invalid?
Let's keep OT!
-
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
I take it that it flew way over your head.
No, you just appear stupid. Sniffing butts.
Why don't you see if you can get a couple brain cells moving in the same direction at the same time and explain to us why DNO's "kithen" analogy is invalid?
Let's keep OT!
Yes. So explain why the analogy is invalid.
-
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
I take it that it flew way over your head.
No, you just appear stupid. Sniffing butts.
Why don't you see if you can get a couple brain cells moving in the same direction at the same time and explain to us why DNO's "kithen" analogy is invalid?
Let's keep OT!
Yes. So explain why the analogy is invalid.
Why? And it is OT. Sober up. Try to focus!
-
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
I take it that it flew way over your head.
No, you just appear stupid. Sniffing butts.
Why don't you see if you can get a couple brain cells moving in the same direction at the same time and explain to us why DNO's "kithen" analogy is invalid?
Let's keep OT!
Yes. So explain why the analogy is invalid.
Why? And it is OT. Sober up. Try to focus!
I know you're an old curmudgeon but try to follow along. You claimed to have made a valid test disproving the ability for polystyrene to perform in H-bombs as claimed. DNO thought your test was invalid and ridiculous. His analogy demonstrated this. Please explain why it is invalid.
-
I know you're an old curmudgeon but try to follow along. You claimed to have made a valid test disproving the ability for polystyrene to perform in H-bombs as claimed. DNO thought your test was invalid and ridiculous. His analogy demonstrated this. Please explain why it is invalid.
No, I just melted some polystyrene in my kitchen and assumed an a-bomb would do the same ... if it worked. But a-bombs are just military fantasies of sick minds. DNO thinks it is classified and is probably right. Many military fantasies and failures are classified for national security reasons and similar bla, bla, bla.
When I went to school the not so clever ones like you had two choices - go to sea or join the army. Going to sea was not fun but there were girls in the ports, etc, etc. Only the idiots chose the army digging holes in the ground and firering in the air all their lives. And then one of them invented the a-bomb. Sad!
-
I know you're an old curmudgeon but try to follow along. You claimed to have made a valid test disproving the ability for polystyrene to perform in H-bombs as claimed. DNO thought your test was invalid and ridiculous. His analogy demonstrated this. Please explain why it is invalid.
No, I just melted some polystyrene in my kitchen and assumed an a-bomb would do the same ... if it worked. But a-bombs are just military fantasies of sick minds. DNO thinks it is classified and is probably right. Many military fantasies and failures are classified for national security reasons and similar bla, bla, bla.
When I went to school the not so clever ones like you had two choices - go to sea or join the army. Going to sea was not fun but there were girls in the ports, etc, etc. Only the idiots chose the army digging holes in the ground and firering in the air all their lives. And then one of them invented the a-bomb. Sad!
Why is DNO's analogy invalid?
-
No, I just melted some polystyrene in my kitchen and assumed an a-bomb would do the same ...
What would lead you to believe that you have anything in your kitchen powerful enough to turn polystyrene into plasma? ??? ??? ???
-
No, I just melted some polystyrene in my kitchen and assumed an a-bomb would do the same ...
What would lead you to believe that you have anything in your kitchen powerful enough to turn polystyrene into plasma? ??? ??? ???
You haven't seen my kitchen. Come by and I offer coffee.
-
Why is DNO's analogy invalid?
-
Why is DNO's analogy invalid?
You haven't seen my kitchen. Come by and I offer coffee.
-
Why is DNO's analogy invalid?
You haven't seen my kitchen. Come by and I offer coffee.
I don't want coffee. I want to know why you dismissed DNO's analogy out of hand.
-
No, I just melted some polystyrene in my kitchen and assumed an a-bomb would do the same ...
What would lead you to believe that you have anything in your kitchen powerful enough to turn polystyrene into plasma? ??? ??? ???
You haven't seen my kitchen.
That's why I asked. What do you have in your kitchen that can produce enough x-rays to turn polystyrene into plasma?
Come by and I offer coffee.
I don't like coffee, and I don't like fools who think that they can make plasma in their kitchens.
-
No, I just melted some polystyrene in my kitchen and assumed an a-bomb would do the same ...
What would lead you to believe that you have anything in your kitchen powerful enough to turn polystyrene into plasma? ??? ??? ???
You haven't seen my kitchen.
That's why I asked. What do you have in your kitchen that can produce enough x-rays to turn polystyrene into plasma?
Come by and I offer coffee.
I don't like coffee, and I don't like fools who think that they can make plasma in their kitchens.
But I cannot make plasma in my kitchen. Plasma will be produced down the road from me around 2036 ... if you pay them ... it is a great show?
-
Why was DNO's analogy dismissed without explanation?
-
Why was DNO's analogy dismissed without explanation?
I was experimenting in my kitchen? No plasma there!
-
Why was DNO's analogy dismissed without explanation?
I was experimenting in my kitchen? No plasma there!
The fact that there is no plasma in your kitchen is exactly why DNO's analogy is valid. Please explain why you passed it off as invalid.
I know you're an old curmudgeon but try to follow along. You claimed to have made a valid test disproving the ability for polystyrene to perform in H-bombs as claimed. DNO thought your test was invalid and ridiculous. His analogy demonstrated this. Please explain why it is invalid.
-
I was experimenting in my kitchen? No plasma there!
Dude, you're cornered. Take a few days to recuperate, then come back and ignore it ever happened.
-
QFT:
I just tested trying to put fire to a bit of polystyrene. It melted. It didn't compress anything. At 100 C!
... your objections to it are ridiculous. "It doesn't sound nice to me. I think it's impossible. I heated up polystyrene at 100C and it didn't do anything.". WTF.
Sorry for hurting your feelings...
I made a simple test of polystyrene ... and you think it is ridiculous.
Why do you not understand how much different it is heating polystyrene out in the air to 100C and heating it to hundreds of millions of degrees inside a h-bomb?
Someone told me that in order to make french fries I have to put the potatoes in oil and then heat them. I threw a potato in oil and warmed it with my breath and it didn't turn into french fries. What a hoax.
Thanks for kitchen advice. However - it seems plenty twerps here produce nonsense to please their bosses.
SMH
I take it that it flew way over your head.
No, you just appear stupid. Sniffing butts.
SMH
-
Poor confused heiwa. Still no evidence to support any of his positions. Such a failure. It's sad really if it wasn't so funny.
-
I bet he would be fun to hang out with.
-
I bet he would be fun to hang out with.
Do you want some of that famed Heiwa coffee?
-
Poor confused heiwa. Still no evidence to support any of his positions. Such a failure. It's sad really if it wasn't so funny.
Hm, I thought that I had shown, in my kitchen, that heating up polystyrene foam by exploding a uranium a-bomb would not produce a 120 000 000 C plasma that would start the fusion of the hydrogen of the bomb. Down the road from me they use another method to start fusion that will be demonstrated 2036. Then the frozen hydrogen in small pellets - say 2-4 grams each - will be injected into the 120 000 000 C plasma and then fusion will occur, i.e. more energy will be created than required to heat up the machine to 120 000 000 C, when the hydrogen fuses to helium. That very hot energy - in the form of newly created helium gas - is then cooled down to 240 C warm water. It is really magic and will never work. But 700 persons are working hard to make it work 2036. We other must wait 19 years to see it happen.
I still serve coffee in my kitchen. Actually I drink a cup right now. It is a nice, sunny morning outside. Later I will go down to the beach and have a swim. Water is about 20 C.
-
Hm, I thought that I had shown, in my kitchen, that heating up polystyrene foam by exploding a uranium a-bomb would not produce a 120 000 000 C plasma
And I thought I had shown, by warming potatoes with my breath, that frying potatoes would not make you french fries.
-
Poor confused heiwa. Still no evidence to support any of his positions. Such a failure. It's sad really if it wasn't so funny.
Hm, I thought that I had shown, in my kitchen, that heating up polystyrene foam by exploding a uranium a-bomb would not produce a 120 000 000 C plasma that would start the fusion of the hydrogen of the bomb.
You haven't. More specifically you have not addressed DNO's analogy. Why is your experiment any more valid than the one proposed by DNO in which he tries to make french fries by throwing a potato in oil and heating it with his breath?
@DNO I was writing when you posted.
-
Poor confused heiwa. Still no evidence to support any of his positions. Such a failure. It's sad really if it wasn't so funny.
Hm, I thought that I had shown, in my kitchen, that heating up polystyrene foam by exploding a uranium a-bomb would not produce a 120 000 000 C plasma that would start the fusion of the hydrogen of the bomb.
You haven't. More specifically you have not addressed DNO's analogy. Why is your experiment any more valid than the one proposed by DNO in which he tries to make french fries by throwing a potato in oil and heating it with his breath?
You are right. I ignored DNO as I consider him a joke and a good laugh. Like the scientists suggesting heating up polystyrene foam using an a-bomb.
-
Poor confused heiwa. Still no evidence to support any of his positions. Such a failure. It's sad really if it wasn't so funny.
Hm, I thought that I had shown, in my kitchen, that heating up polystyrene foam by exploding a uranium a-bomb would not produce a 120 000 000 C plasma that would start the fusion of the hydrogen of the bomb.
You haven't. More specifically you have not addressed DNO's analogy. Why is your experiment any more valid than the one proposed by DNO in which he tries to make french fries by throwing a potato in oil and heating it with his breath?
You are right. I ignored DNO as I consider him a joke and a good laugh. Like the scientists suggesting heating up polystyrene foam using an a-bomb.
You ignored DNO because you couldn't justify why your ridiculous experiment was any more sensible than his proposed experiment.
Please explain why his analogy is not applicable to the discussion.
-
I bet he would be fun to hang out with.
Do you want some of that famed Heiwa coffee?
Story time . . .
I was a graphic sign design/engineer. Working at my desk.
I took the last cup of coffee at, like 11:00am. Who would want more?
11:15am, Corkey, the CEO, gets on the PA . . . office and shop wide broadcast.
"Whoever takes the last cup of coffee makes a new pot . . . . . . . GLENN"
OK, I filled the filter to the brim with grounds and hit 'go'. It was like tar.
Corky took me aside, "Well played, bitch!" ;D
-
I bet he would be fun to hang out with.
Do you want some of that famed Heiwa coffee?
Story time . . .
I was a graphic sign design/engineer. Working at my desk.
I took the last cup of coffee at, like 11:00am. Who would want more?
11:15am, Corkey, the CEO, gets on the PA . . . office and shop wide broadcast.
"Whoever takes the last cup of coffee makes a new pot . . . . . . . GLENN"
OK, I filled the filter to the brim with grounds and hit 'go'. It was like tar.
Corky took me aside, "Well played, bitch!" ;D
Hahaha, at least he was a good sport, I know some curmudgeons who'd fire you for less than that! ;)
-
Hahaha, at least he was a good sport, I know some curmudgeons who'd fire you for less than that! ;)
We had a 3' wide copy machine. You could feed 24"x36" industrial sized blue prints into it and get a copy.
Second week there I got a page wedged in sideways. It squealed and LED's started blinking.
Corkey told me I fucked up his $11,000 copier.
He let me sweat a while then told me it does that all the time.
We had a service contract. ::)
-
No, I just melted some polystyrene in my kitchen and assumed an a-bomb would do the same ...
What would lead you to believe that you have anything in your kitchen powerful enough to turn polystyrene into plasma? ??? ??? ???
You haven't seen my kitchen.
That's why I asked. What do you have in your kitchen that can produce enough x-rays to turn polystyrene into plasma?
Come by and I offer coffee.
I don't like coffee, and I don't like fools who think that they can make plasma in their kitchens.
But I cannot make plasma in my kitchen.
Then why do you think that it was relevant to mention that?
Plasma will be produced down the road from me around 2036 ... if you pay them ... it is a great show?
Seriously, do you even know what plasma is or how commonly it's used (even in the ship building industry)?
-
You can make some plasma in the kitchen if you microwave fire
-
You can make plasma in your tv, if you're a weirdo who still has a plasma display.
-
You can make plasma in your tv, if you're a weirdo who still has a plasma display.
Thanks, but there is no TV in my kitchen.
But how do I do plasma in a TV? 150 000 000 C ... in a TV? You sound like a stupid shill. Learn about plasma at http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm
-
Poor confused heiwa. Still no evidence to support any of his positions. Such a failure. It's sad really if it wasn't so funny.
Hm, I thought that I had shown, in my kitchen, that heating up polystyrene foam by exploding a uranium a-bomb would not produce a 120 000 000 C plasma that would start the fusion of the hydrogen of the bomb. Down the road from me they use another method to start fusion that will be demonstrated 2036. Then the frozen hydrogen in small pellets - say 2-4 grams each - will be injected into the 120 000 000 C plasma and then fusion will occur, i.e. more energy will be created than required to heat up the machine to 120 000 000 C, when the hydrogen fuses to helium. That very hot energy - in the form of newly created helium gas - is then cooled down to 240 C warm water. It is really magic and will never work. But 700 persons are working hard to make it work 2036. We other must wait 19 years to see it happen.
I still serve coffee in my kitchen. Actually I drink a cup right now. It is a nice, sunny morning outside. Later I will go down to the beach and have a swim. Water is about 20 C.
You showed nothing. You made a claim. Another failure.
-
You can make plasma in your tv, if you're a weirdo who still has a plasma display.
Thanks, but there is no TV in my kitchen.
Why do you think that your kitchen is an appropriate place to make plasma? ???
But how do I do plasma in a TV? 150 000 000 C ... in a TV? You sound like a stupid shill.
Who says that it must be 150,000,000C to be plasma? ???
Again, do you even know what plasma is?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61kZoy2YYtL._SY450_.jpg)
Learn about plasma at http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm
I think that this would be a much better place to learn about plasma: http://www.plasmas.org/applications.htm
-
You can make plasma in your tv, if you're a weirdo who still has a plasma display.
Thanks, but there is no TV in my kitchen.
But how do I do plasma in a TV? 150 000 000 C ... in a TV? You sound like a stupid shill. Learn about plasma at http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm
Guess you didn't know why plasma displays were called plasma displays.
You don't need 150000000 degrees to make plasma. I know what you're going to say, don't say it.
-
You can make plasma in your tv, if you're a weirdo who still has a plasma display.
Thanks, but there is no TV in my kitchen.
Why do you think that your kitchen is an appropriate place to make plasma? ???
But how do I do plasma in a TV? 150 000 000 C ... in a TV? You sound like a stupid shill.
Who says that it must be 150,000,000C to be plasma? ???
Again, do you even know what plasma is?
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61kZoy2YYtL._SY450_.jpg)
Learn about plasma at http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm
I think that this would be a much better place to learn about plasma: http://www.plasmas.org/applications.htm
When I talk about plasma I talk about the plasma required for fusion, e.g. by ITER down the road from me.
https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines
It seems they need plenty power to start fusion at > 120 000 000 C, i.e. to heat up the environment inside the machine to plasma where fusion takes place.
Then you shall inject frozen tritum pellets into this plasma and, voilà, the tritium becomes helium gas, etc, etc.
ITER provides a glossary https://www.iter.org/glossary with explanations what it is all about.
Read it!
-
When I talk about plasma I talk about the plasma required for fusion, e.g. by ITER down the road from me.
https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines
It seems they need plenty power to start fusion at > 120 000 000 C, i.e. to heat up the environment inside the machine to plasma where fusion takes place.
Then you shall inject frozen tritum pellets into this plasma and, voilà, the tritium becomes helium gas, etc, etc.
ITER provides a glossary https://www.iter.org/glossary with explanations what it is all about.
Read it!
It would be nice if you could be this mature all the time.
-
When I talk about plasma I talk about the plasma required for fusion, e.g. by ITER down the road from me.
https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines
It seems they need plenty power to start fusion at > 120 000 000 C, i.e. to heat up the environment inside the machine to plasma where fusion takes place.
Then you shall inject frozen tritum pellets into this plasma and, voilà, the tritium becomes helium gas, etc, etc.
ITER provides a glossary https://www.iter.org/glossary with explanations what it is all about.
Read it!
It would be nice if you could be this mature all the time.
But I am. I prove it at my website http://heiwaco.com . I am 100% serious and sceptical or skeptical but also satirical and never politically correct. Why should I be anything else?
Look at all these twerps attacking me here all the time. Brainwashed monkeys all of them. I assume their parents worked for NASA or similar.
-
When I talk about plasma I talk about the plasma required for fusion, e.g. by ITER down the road from me.
https://www.iter.org/proj/inafewlines
It seems they need plenty power to start fusion at > 120 000 000 C, i.e. to heat up the environment inside the machine to plasma where fusion takes place.
Then you shall inject frozen tritum pellets into this plasma and, voilà, the tritium becomes helium gas, etc, etc.
ITER provides a glossary https://www.iter.org/glossary with explanations what it is all about.
Read it!
It would be nice if you could be this mature all the time.
But I am. I prove it at my website http://heiwaco.com . I am 100% serious and sceptical or skeptical but also satirical and never politically correct. Why should I be anything else?
Look at all these twerps attacking me here all the time. Brainwashed monkeys all of them. I assume their parents worked for NASA or similar.
Well, it was nice while it lasted.
-
This thread is hilarious.
-
When I talk about plasma I talk about the plasma required for fusion, e.g. by ITER down the road from me.
That isn't what H-bombs use the plasma for. The plasma is used to compress a second fission bomb to ignite the deuterium-tritium fusion.
It seems they need plenty power to start fusion at > 120 000 000 C, i.e. to heat up the environment inside the machine to plasma where fusion takes place.
Yes, that's why they have a small fission bomb to supply the energy in the form of x-rays.
-
When I talk about plasma I talk about the plasma required for fusion, e.g. by ITER down the road from me.
That isn't what H-bombs use the plasma for. The plasma is used to compress a second fission bomb to ignite the deuterium-tritium fusion.
It seems they need plenty power to start fusion at > 120 000 000 C, i.e. to heat up the environment inside the machine to plasma where fusion takes place.
Yes, that's why they have a small fission bomb to supply the energy in the form of x-rays.
LOL! You just repeat nonsense. A small fission bomb (an a-bomb) is set off to supply energy (heat) in the form of x-rays to provide hot plasma that compresses a second fission bomb (a second a-bomb) to detonate a hydrogen, fusion bomb.
You sound confused. Are you sure you are OK?
Have you forgotten that 9 July 1962 USA detonated a fake H-bomb in space over Johnston Island in the Pacific. https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/9-july-1962starfish-prime-outer-space
The (fake) explosion took place 400 kilometers above the Johnston Island (atoll). That really was vacuum space! The burst had an explosive yield of 1.45 megatons - approximately a hundred times that of the (fake) Hiroshima bomb (around 13 kilotons), media said:
... a brilliant white flash erased the darkness like a photoflash. Then the entire sky turned light green for about a second. In several more seconds, a deep red aurora, several moon diameters in size, formed where the blast had been. A white plasma jet came slowly out of the top of the red aurora (over Johnston Island) and painted a white stripe across the sky from north to south in about one minute. A deep red aurora appeared over Samoa at the south end of the white plasma jet. This visual display lasted for perhaps ten minutes before slowly fading. There was no sound at all.
Cecil R. Coale, PhD
Remember that this occurred at 400 000 m altitude in vacuum space, when the missile with the bomb was returning after having been further away from Earth. Read http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a955411.pdf what people on ground just below the explosion saw:
"At zero time at Johnston, a white flash occurred, but as soon as one could remove his goggles, no intense light was present. A second after shot time a mottled red disc was observed directly overhead and covered the sky down to about 45 degrees from the zenith. Generally, the red mottled region was more intense on the eastern portions. Along the magnetic north-south line through the burst, a white-yellow streak extended and grew to the north from near zenith. The width of the white streaked region grew from a few degrees at a few seconds to about 5-10 degrees in 30 seconds. Growth of the auroral region to the north was by addition of new lines developing from west to east. The white-yellow auroral streamers receded upward from the horizon to the north and grew to the south and at about 2 minutes the white-yellow bands were still about 10 degrees wide and extended mainly from near zenith to the south. By about two minutes, the red disc region had completed disappearance in the west and was rapidly fading on the eastern portion of the overhead disc". Bla, bla, bla!
What a fireworks display! You can also watch it at . Watch the H-bomb lifting off at time 4.27 to 1 100 000 m top altitude (5.09) to start dropping down to explode at 400 000 m altitude and the explosion a little later ... seen from far away! They forgot to film it from Johnston! However ... it was just early Fake News! Just propaganda invented by the usual clowns and non-existing PhDs. No merchant ships in the vicinity observed anything unusual that night. The event (incl. the fusion) never took place.
-
'Nuclear War Survival Skills'
By Cresson Kearny
http://www.oism.org/nwss/
Aside from a brief bomb shelter fad in the late 1950's and President Reagan's Star Wars defence program in the 1980's, the U.S. showed little interest in common defence of the American people against weapons of mass destruction. The American elite have had secretive plans to save themselves but not the general population.
Communist countries were very different. The Soviets had excellent anti-missile defence systems. Albania had an extensive system of bunkers. Et cetera.
This book by Cresson Kearny is perhaps the most well informed practical book published on the subject published in the U.S. during the Cold War.
-
'The Offensive'
By Colonel Sidorenko
I picked up this book about a year ago. It's a Soviet military strategy for winning a nuclear war published at the end of the 1960's. It was translated into English and published by the U.S. Air Force.
Unlike the American propaganda of the McCarthy era which exaggerated the power of nuclear weapons, this book has a more realistic assessment of the place of weapons of mass destruction in a war alongside the other military components. The book also describes significant qualitative differences in a future nuclear war versus earlier wars like World War II such as the vaster size of the field of battle, et cetera.
The book is methodical and written in a way reminiscent of Sun Tzu. The book actually came to mind when thinking of how to confront people making trouble for my wife at her work based on petty racism. And I thought the shrewdest way would be to first thoroughly prepare both through local or state government human rights agencies and documentation for an ultimate attack if the problem persisted with uncooperativeness in which case we would hit them consistently with the law and legally pressure the employer to assist us or face the government. Just like a military strategy to force them into compliance or retreat.
In the late 1950's and early 1960's, the American establishment realised that their nuclear intimidation propaganda had failed as the Soviets were increasing their power irregardless of the American propaganda. Thus, the American propaganda changed taking somewhat more account of reality. This is reflected in books of that period such as
'The Uncertain Trumpet'
by Gen. Maxwell Taylor which sums up the general American strategy since that time which does not rely exclusively on weapons of mass destruction.
-
You people are making the thread boring again. Stop.
-
Atom & Evil
By the Golden Gate Quartet
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
In the meantime study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Isn't it nice that Fukushima is safe to return to 2017? Of course it was never unsafe to live in. But with help of propaganda it was easy to scare people and those that were not scared, where just removed by miltary and police against their will.
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
[...]
Τhanks Santa.
Wait, I thought Heiwa believed in nuclear reactors.
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
[...]
Τhanks Santa.
Wait, I thought Heiwa believed in nuclear reactors.
Yes, I do. I am a great supporter of nuclear power from moderated fission. It is the military, destructive nuclear FLASH power I just laugh about, where metal uranium/plutonium is converted into pure, hot, high pressure energy in a big FLASH that only lasts nano-seconds. POUFF and Hiroshima was gone August 6, 1945!
I cannot understand how any intelligent person can believe in a FLASH nuclear weapon. Of course military people and politicians do, but they are not very intelligent.
As far as I am concerned Hiroshima was completely destroyed May 1945 in a US napalm, fire bombing attack lasting three hours. I pay you €1M proving me wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
-
I pay you €1M proving your right.
A link to your shitty website will forfeit the prize regardless of whether there is proof there or not.
-
I pay you €1M proving your right.
You do? But I do not need your money. Keep it.
-
I pay you €1M proving your right.
You do? But I do not need your money. Keep it.
No one here wants your money. Keep it!
And shut up about your stupid contest already!
-
I pay you €1M proving your right.
You do? But I do not need your money. Keep it.
No one here wants your money. Keep it!
And shut up about your stupid contest already!
Well, topic is nuclear power exaggerated and I think that it is impossible to release nuclear power in a big FLASH lasting nano-seconds corresponding to exploding 20 000 tons of TNT that blinds any observers before vaporizing them.
Nuclear power - fission - is much slower and is always moderated, so that the energy/radiation can be recovered and transformed inte electricity or hot water.
Only stupid people believe in nuclear weapons going POUFF in a FLASH. You sound like one.
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
[...]
Τhanks Santa.
Wait, I thought Heiwa believed in nuclear reactors.
Yes, I do. I am a great supporter of nuclear power from moderated fission. It is the military, destructive nuclear FLASH power I just laugh about, where metal uranium/plutonium is converted into pure, hot, high pressure energy in a big FLASH that only lasts nano-seconds. POUFF and Hiroshima was gone August 6, 1945!
I cannot understand how any intelligent person can believe in a FLASH nuclear weapon. Of course military people and politicians do, but they are not very intelligent.
As far as I am concerned Hiroshima was completely destroyed May 1945 in a US napalm, fire bombing attack lasting three hours. I pay you €1M proving me wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
Well WTF were you saying about Fukushima then? You don't sound very intelligent. At all.
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
[...]
Τhanks Santa.
Wait, I thought Heiwa believed in nuclear reactors.
Yes, I do. I am a great supporter of nuclear power from moderated fission. It is the military, destructive nuclear FLASH power I just laugh about, where metal uranium/plutonium is converted into pure, hot, high pressure energy in a big FLASH that only lasts nano-seconds. POUFF and Hiroshima was gone August 6, 1945!
I cannot understand how any intelligent person can believe in a FLASH nuclear weapon. Of course military people and politicians do, but they are not very intelligent.
As far as I am concerned Hiroshima was completely destroyed May 1945 in a US napalm, fire bombing attack lasting three hours. I pay you €1M proving me wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
Well WTF were you saying about Fukushima then? You don't sound very intelligent. At all.
I describe the situation at Fukushima at my webpage http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . I think the Japanese authorities exaggerated the situation 2011, falsified the risks and forced plenty people to abandon homes and jobs and to move away. These people (>150 000 ?) were then regarded as sick and contaminated and had a bad life wherever they went in Japan. It is a scandal. Fukushima was never unsafe to live in. And the clean up by unemployed idiots paid by the Japanese mafia (yakusa) was just a sad joke. Of course it is safe to return today. Nobody should have been forced to leave at all.
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
[...]
Τhanks Santa.
Wait, I thought Heiwa believed in nuclear reactors.
Yes, I do. I am a great supporter of nuclear power from moderated fission. It is the military, destructive nuclear FLASH power I just laugh about, where metal uranium/plutonium is converted into pure, hot, high pressure energy in a big FLASH that only lasts nano-seconds. POUFF and Hiroshima was gone August 6, 1945!
I cannot understand how any intelligent person can believe in a FLASH nuclear weapon. Of course military people and politicians do, but they are not very intelligent.
As far as I am concerned Hiroshima was completely destroyed May 1945 in a US napalm, fire bombing attack lasting three hours. I pay you €1M proving me wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
Well WTF were you saying about Fukushima then? You don't sound very intelligent. At all.
I describe the situation at Fukushima at my webpage http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . I think the Japanese authorities exaggerated the situation 2011, falsified the risks and forced plenty people to abandon homes and jobs and to move away. These people (>150 000 ?) were then regarded as sick and contaminated and had a bad life wherever they went in Japan. It is a scandal. Fukushima was never unsafe to live in. And the clean up by unemployed idiots paid by the Japanese mafia (yakusa) was just a sad joke. Of course it is safe to return today. Nobody should have been forced to leave at all.
...and why did they do all that?
-
I pay you €1M proving your right.
You do? But I do not need your money. Keep it.
No one here wants your money. Keep it!
And shut up about your stupid contest already!
Well, topic is nuclear power exaggerated and I think that it is impossible to release nuclear power in a big FLASH lasting nano-seconds corresponding to exploding 20 000 tons of TNT that blinds any observers before vaporizing them.
Nuclear power - fission - is much slower and is always moderated, so that the energy/radiation can be recovered and transformed inte electricity or hot water.
Only stupid people believe in nuclear weapons going POUFF in a FLASH. You sound like one.
I am happy to agree that I am stupid on the condition that you quit posting about your contest!
To anyone: (Go ahead and post this in OOCQ but I thought of it first)
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
[...]
Τhanks Santa.
Wait, I thought Heiwa believed in nuclear reactors.
Yes, I do. I am a great supporter of nuclear power from moderated fission. It is the military, destructive nuclear FLASH power I just laugh about, where metal uranium/plutonium is converted into pure, hot, high pressure energy in a big FLASH that only lasts nano-seconds. POUFF and Hiroshima was gone August 6, 1945!
I cannot understand how any intelligent person can believe in a FLASH nuclear weapon. Of course military people and politicians do, but they are not very intelligent.
As far as I am concerned Hiroshima was completely destroyed May 1945 in a US napalm, fire bombing attack lasting three hours. I pay you €1M proving me wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
Well WTF were you saying about Fukushima then? You don't sound very intelligent. At all.
I describe the situation at Fukushima at my webpage http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . I think the Japanese authorities exaggerated the situation 2011, falsified the risks and forced plenty people to abandon homes and jobs and to move away. These people (>150 000 ?) were then regarded as sick and contaminated and had a bad life wherever they went in Japan. It is a scandal. Fukushima was never unsafe to live in. And the clean up by unemployed idiots paid by the Japanese mafia (yakusa) was just a sad joke. Of course it is safe to return today. Nobody should have been forced to leave at all.
...and why did they do all that?
It was a test! Just scare the shit out the Japanese with Fake News and remind them about Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. Don't you know it is illegal to query the US 1945 a-bomb fakery. 1945/53 you would be shot at once and after that you are extradited to the USA and never heard of again. This is the price Japan has to pay for US protection against a North Korean attack. Quite sad actually. The Japanese are too polite to upset their US warlords.
Have you ever been to Japan? Visit the Nagasaki a-bomb museum and have a good laugh! Nagasaki was never a-bombed. It (or a western suburb) was just napalm carpet bombed June 1945.
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
[...]
Τhanks Santa.
Wait, I thought Heiwa believed in nuclear reactors.
Yes, I do. I am a great supporter of nuclear power from moderated fission. It is the military, destructive nuclear FLASH power I just laugh about, where metal uranium/plutonium is converted into pure, hot, high pressure energy in a big FLASH that only lasts nano-seconds. POUFF and Hiroshima was gone August 6, 1945!
I cannot understand how any intelligent person can believe in a FLASH nuclear weapon. Of course military people and politicians do, but they are not very intelligent.
As far as I am concerned Hiroshima was completely destroyed May 1945 in a US napalm, fire bombing attack lasting three hours. I pay you €1M proving me wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
Well WTF were you saying about Fukushima then? You don't sound very intelligent. At all.
I describe the situation at Fukushima at my webpage http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . I think the Japanese authorities exaggerated the situation 2011, falsified the risks and forced plenty people to abandon homes and jobs and to move away. These people (>150 000 ?) were then regarded as sick and contaminated and had a bad life wherever they went in Japan. It is a scandal. Fukushima was never unsafe to live in. And the clean up by unemployed idiots paid by the Japanese mafia (yakusa) was just a sad joke. Of course it is safe to return today. Nobody should have been forced to leave at all.
...and why did they do all that?
It was a test! Just scare the shit out the Japanese with Fake News and remind them about Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. Don't you know it is illegal to query the US 1945 a-bomb fakery. 1945/53 you would be shot at once and after that you are extradited to the USA and never heard of again. This is the price Japan has to pay for US protection against a North Korean attack. Quite sad actually. The Japanese are too polite to upset their US warlords.
Have you ever been to Japan? Visit the Nagasaki a-bomb museum and have a good laugh! Nagasaki was never a-bombed. It (or a western suburb) was just napalm carpet bombed June 1945.
So they just did it for shits and giggles. Compelling argument.
-
I want Heiwa back on this thread.
[...]
Τhanks Santa.
Wait, I thought Heiwa believed in nuclear reactors.
Yes, I do. I am a great supporter of nuclear power from moderated fission. It is the military, destructive nuclear FLASH power I just laugh about, where metal uranium/plutonium is converted into pure, hot, high pressure energy in a big FLASH that only lasts nano-seconds. POUFF and Hiroshima was gone August 6, 1945!
I cannot understand how any intelligent person can believe in a FLASH nuclear weapon. Of course military people and politicians do, but they are not very intelligent.
As far as I am concerned Hiroshima was completely destroyed May 1945 in a US napalm, fire bombing attack lasting three hours. I pay you €1M proving me wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
Well WTF were you saying about Fukushima then? You don't sound very intelligent. At all.
I describe the situation at Fukushima at my webpage http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . I think the Japanese authorities exaggerated the situation 2011, falsified the risks and forced plenty people to abandon homes and jobs and to move away. These people (>150 000 ?) were then regarded as sick and contaminated and had a bad life wherever they went in Japan. It is a scandal. Fukushima was never unsafe to live in. And the clean up by unemployed idiots paid by the Japanese mafia (yakusa) was just a sad joke. Of course it is safe to return today. Nobody should have been forced to leave at all.
...and why did they do all that?
It was a test! Just scare the shit out the Japanese with Fake News and remind them about Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. Don't you know it is illegal to query the US 1945 a-bomb fakery. 1945/53 you would be shot at once and after that you are extradited to the USA and never heard of again. This is the price Japan has to pay for US protection against a North Korean attack. Quite sad actually. The Japanese are too polite to upset their US warlords.
Have you ever been to Japan? Visit the Nagasaki a-bomb museum and have a good laugh! Nagasaki was never a-bombed. It (or a western suburb) was just napalm carpet bombed June 1945.
So they just did it for shits and giggles. Compelling argument.
No, most Japanese just work hard and do what they are told. Why upset USA with all their military bases in Japan? It is not a big deal. But it seems the South Koreans are finally getting fed up with the US occupation of their land.
The North Korean clown with the funny hair cut is just a paper tiger ... paid by ... USA. But the North Koreans must themselves get rid of him. Shouldn't be too hard. Look what the East Germans did 1989!
-
The world is so simple and easy for you, every issue is a conspiracy, fake, and therefore not an issue. So you don't have to worry about it too much. Oh well, if it helps you sleep at night...
-
Otherwise the nurses will try to force him to take those awful sedatives. He hates them, plus they're probably poisonous.
-
Otherwise the nurses will try to force him to take those awful sedatives. He hates them, plus they're probably poisonous.
Eh, his condition is most likely a conspiracy anyways.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
-
If you can privately prove you're not a fake, I would love to spend a few days with you.
I expect coffee strong enough to chew and a day of sport fishing, on your dime.
-
If you can privately prove you're not a fake, I would love to spend a few days with you.
I expect coffee strong enough to chew and a day of sport fishing, on your dime.
My full style is at http://heiwaco.com and the fish is only 10 minutes away. But I prefer swimming with them.
-
All bullshit aside, let's set this up.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So you don't have any evidence you can produce here? That's what I thought. Yet another failure.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So you don't have any evidence you can produce here? That's what I thought. Yet another failure.
The best evidences I have are at the a-bombs museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and ... Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are all jokes. Especially the Albuquerque, NM, USA, one. Paid for by the US government and its tax payers. I can understand why they built such a museum in the NM desert. Only twerps live there and in the Rio Grande gutter and you cannot fly with hot air balloons every day.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good?
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So you don't have any evidence you can produce here? That's what I thought. Yet another failure.
The best evidences I have are at the a-bombs museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and ... Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are all jokes. Especially the Albuquerque, NM, USA, one. Paid for by the US government and its tax payers. I can understand why they built such a museum in the NM desert. Only twerps live there and in the Rio Grande gutter and you cannot fly with hot air balloons every day.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good?
And still no evidence. You are such a failure.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So you don't have any evidence you can produce here? That's what I thought. Yet another failure.
The best evidences I have are at the a-bombs museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and ... Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are all jokes. Especially the Albuquerque, NM, USA, one. Paid for by the US government and its tax payers. I can understand why they built such a museum in the NM desert. Only twerps live there and in the Rio Grande gutter and you cannot fly with hot air balloons every day.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good?
And still no evidence. You are such a failure.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good? Visit the Albuquerque a-bomb museum! It is such a joke.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So you don't have any evidence you can produce here? That's what I thought. Yet another failure.
The best evidences I have are at the a-bombs museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and ... Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are all jokes. Especially the Albuquerque, NM, USA, one. Paid for by the US government and its tax payers. I can understand why they built such a museum in the NM desert. Only twerps live there and in the Rio Grande gutter and you cannot fly with hot air balloons every day.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good?
And still no evidence. You are such a failure.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good? Visit the Albuquerque a-bomb museum! It is such a joke.
Why can't you provide any evidence to support your claims? You are such a failure. I have been to the museum in Albuquerque, is suspect you have not.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So you don't have any evidence you can produce here? That's what I thought. Yet another failure.
The best evidences I have are at the a-bombs museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and ... Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are all jokes. Especially the Albuquerque, NM, USA, one. Paid for by the US government and its tax payers. I can understand why they built such a museum in the NM desert. Only twerps live there and in the Rio Grande gutter and you cannot fly with hot air balloons every day.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good?
And still no evidence. You are such a failure.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good? Visit the Albuquerque a-bomb museum! It is such a joke.
Why can't you provide any evidence to support your claims? You are such a failure. I have been to the museum in Albuquerque, is suspect you have not.
Well, I have been to Albuquerque and ... what a dump! I describe it at my web site.
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So you don't have any evidence you can produce here? That's what I thought. Yet another failure.
The best evidences I have are at the a-bombs museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and ... Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are all jokes. Especially the Albuquerque, NM, USA, one. Paid for by the US government and its tax payers. I can understand why they built such a museum in the NM desert. Only twerps live there and in the Rio Grande gutter and you cannot fly with hot air balloons every day.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good?
And still no evidence. You are such a failure.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good? Visit the Albuquerque a-bomb museum! It is such a joke.
Why can't you provide any evidence to support your claims? You are such a failure. I have been to the museum in Albuquerque, is suspect you have not.
Well, I have been to Albuquerque and ... what a dump! I describe it at my web site.
Still no evidence. Another fail. I thought you said you were under a death sentence in the states and couldn't come here?
-
I have to say this claim is almost as crazy as his claim that 911 never actually happened. It was a hologram or something and nobody died.
Hm, you really have to read what I claim. Hiroshima och Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional bombings 1945 as a-bombs do not work 2017. And no structure can collapse from top down 911 style 2001 or 2017 as shown live on TV 911, i.e. that a weak top C crushes a strong bottom A. Only stupid people believe in a-bombs and 911 style collapses and similar Fake News. I describe three other Fake News at my web site http://heiwaco.com and how they came about. Cognitive dissonance! Ever heard about it. Sick people believe sick things.
Yeah I've read your website. It's batshit crazy. You prove nothing you just make wild claims. Show some evidence here for a change.
But you won't you are just a crazy old coward.
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
So you don't have any evidence you can produce here? That's what I thought. Yet another failure.
The best evidences I have are at the a-bombs museums at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and ... Albuquerque, NM, USA. They are all jokes. Especially the Albuquerque, NM, USA, one. Paid for by the US government and its tax payers. I can understand why they built such a museum in the NM desert. Only twerps live there and in the Rio Grande gutter and you cannot fly with hot air balloons every day.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good?
And still no evidence. You are such a failure.
Why do you get so upset about a-bombs being a hoax? Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good? Visit the Albuquerque a-bomb museum! It is such a joke.
Why can't you provide any evidence to support your claims? You are such a failure. I have been to the museum in Albuquerque, is suspect you have not.
Well, I have been to Albuquerque and ... what a dump! I describe it at my web site.
Still no evidence. Another fail. I thought you said you were under a death sentence in the states and couldn't come here?
You really must study my web site and my contact with some stupid SAC at FBI Albuquerque years ago. Only later I was informed about my info being top secret and subject to death penalty. Anyway, FBI was/is sleeping as usual.
Anyway, no more US visits for me. Too many tewwowists there.
-
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I’ve read your website and...where do I begin?
First of all it is not nor has it ever been illegal to say atomic bombs don’t work. You can say it all you want and nobody will care. Least of all the federal government. They wouldn’t even give such claims credence let alone investigate them. Anybody trying to prosecute such a thing would be laughed out of court...heck it would never even make it to court. You'd have a great case for malicious prosecution though.
As to the rest of it? You’ve made conclusions based on dubious and out of context information and formed the opinion that atomic weapons are fake. Never the less, as you state several times, it’s only your opinion. And it’s just that. An opinion not even remotely rising to the level of fact. The fact is you’re wrong. Nuclear power and atomic weapons exist and work exactly as stated in any of the dozens of college text books on the subject. AAMOF, all of MITs courses are available online. Maybe you should take one or two.
And, don't get me started on that green box about ionizing radiation. The only thing that is true is the comment about x-rays. Everything else is completely wrong.
Mike
-
Do you love a-bombs? Do you think they are good? Visit the Albuquerque a-bomb museum! It is such a joke.
Unlike you, I hate shit - but it still happens!
-
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I’ve read your website and...where do I begin?
First of all it is not nor has it ever been illegal to say atomic bombs don’t work. You can say it all you want and nobody will care. Least of all the federal government. They wouldn’t even give such claims credence let alone investigate them. Anybody trying to prosecute such a thing would be laughed out of court...heck it would never even make it to court. You'd have a great case for malicious prosecution though.
As to the rest of it? You’ve made conclusions based on dubious and out of context information and formed the opinion that atomic weapons are fake. Never the less, as you state several times, it’s only your opinion. And it’s just that. An opinion not even remotely rising to the level of fact. The fact is you’re wrong. Nuclear power and atomic weapons exist and work exactly as stated in any of the dozens of college text books on the subject. AAMOF, all of MITs courses are available online. Maybe you should take one or two.
And, don't get me started on that green box about ionizing radiation. The only thing that is true is the comment about x-rays. Everything else is completely wrong.
Mike
Thanks for visiting my web site about fission. Yes, fission works and releases energy as heat in nuclear power plants under moderated conditions using nuclear fuels - uranium oxides. No doubt about it.
But this military FLASH fission releasing plenty heat during some nanoseconds in an a-bomb using solid uranium metal as fuel is pure nonsense. There is no way to start it! Compressing suddenly two bits of metal into a critical mass is ridiculous.
And US laws are clear. Death sentence if you tell the truth.
-
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I’ve read your website and...where do I begin?
First of all it is not nor has it ever been illegal to say atomic bombs don’t work. You can say it all you want and nobody will care. Least of all the federal government. They wouldn’t even give such claims credence let alone investigate them. Anybody trying to prosecute such a thing would be laughed out of court...heck it would never even make it to court. You'd have a great case for malicious prosecution though.
As to the rest of it? You’ve made conclusions based on dubious and out of context information and formed the opinion that atomic weapons are fake. Never the less, as you state several times, it’s only your opinion. And it’s just that. An opinion not even remotely rising to the level of fact. The fact is you’re wrong. Nuclear power and atomic weapons exist and work exactly as stated in any of the dozens of college text books on the subject. AAMOF, all of MITs courses are available online. Maybe you should take one or two.
And, don't get me started on that green box about ionizing radiation. The only thing that is true is the comment about x-rays. Everything else is completely wrong.
Mike
Thanks for visiting my web site about fission. Yes, fission works and releases energy as heat in nuclear power plants under moderated conditions using nuclear fuels - uranium oxides. No doubt about it.
But this military FLASH fission releasing plenty heat during some nanoseconds in an a-bomb using solid uranium metal as fuel is pure nonsense. There is no way to start it! Compressing suddenly two bits of metal into a critical mass is ridiculous.
And US laws are clear. Death sentence if you tell the truth.
The physics that make a reactor work are exactly the same physics that make a nuclear weapon work. It’s all about critical mass and critical geometry. So, you compress the mass way below critical geometry very quickly you get a very, very fast release of the same energy you get from a thermally moderated reactor. That's why the fissile material is hollow; so it will compress down way below critical geometry in milliseconds. So fast that it becomes prompt critical and BOOM!
Nuclear reactor-nuclear bomb, identical mechanisms of operation, nothing additional to understand or learn, and certainly nothing magical.
It really is that simple...in a nuclear physics kinda way. :D
BTW, you really can say it's not real. Atomic Energy Act of 1946 as amended in 1954 only protects the technical details of how weapons and the governments reactors work. Saying they're fake or don't exist isn't even covered. I actually deal with this on a daily basis.
Mike
-
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I’ve read your website and...where do I begin?
First of all it is not nor has it ever been illegal to say atomic bombs don’t work. You can say it all you want and nobody will care. Least of all the federal government. They wouldn’t even give such claims credence let alone investigate them. Anybody trying to prosecute such a thing would be laughed out of court...heck it would never even make it to court. You'd have a great case for malicious prosecution though.
As to the rest of it? You’ve made conclusions based on dubious and out of context information and formed the opinion that atomic weapons are fake. Never the less, as you state several times, it’s only your opinion. And it’s just that. An opinion not even remotely rising to the level of fact. The fact is you’re wrong. Nuclear power and atomic weapons exist and work exactly as stated in any of the dozens of college text books on the subject. AAMOF, all of MITs courses are available online. Maybe you should take one or two.
And, don't get me started on that green box about ionizing radiation. The only thing that is true is the comment about x-rays. Everything else is completely wrong.
Mike
Thanks for visiting my web site about fission. Yes, fission works and releases energy as heat in nuclear power plants under moderated conditions using nuclear fuels - uranium oxides. No doubt about it.
But this military FLASH fission releasing plenty heat during some nanoseconds in an a-bomb using solid uranium metal as fuel is pure nonsense. There is no way to start it! Compressing suddenly two bits of metal into a critical mass is ridiculous.
And US laws are clear. Death sentence if you tell the truth.
There is no place in us law that says what you are doing is illegal. You're a liar.
You have never produced any evidence to support anything you say. Your a failure.
I've been to your shitty website, there is no evidence there. Just you saying you don't understand it so it must be impossible. You're an idiot.
-
The full text of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 from OSTI.
Office of Scientific and Technical Information Link (https://www.osti.gov/atomicenergyact.pdf)
-
The full text of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 from OSTI.
Office of Scientific and Technical Information Link (https://www.osti.gov/atomicenergyact.pdf)
For reference sake here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1864506#msg1864506) is a link to a section further up the thread where we had a go at Heiwa about this claim. It's good to have someone here who can clarify for us. I tried to get a US lawyer to help. He did give a response but it was a litle vague.
Here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1865180#msg1865180)is a specific statement which Heiwa claims includes classified information and spreading it makes us punishable by death.
-
The full text of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 from OSTI.
Office of Scientific and Technical Information Link (https://www.osti.gov/atomicenergyact.pdf)
For reference sake here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1864506#msg1864506) is a link to a section further up the thread where we had a go at Heiwa about this claim. It's good to have someone here who can clarify for us. I tried to get a US lawyer to help. He did give a response but it was a litle vague.
Here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1865180#msg1865180)is a specific statement which Heiwa claims includes classified information and spreading it makes us punishable by death.
I read his reasoning on the website and I understand where he’s going with it. But, to say it’s a stretch would be putting it mildly. While one could make that stretch one could also make outlandish stretches about other laws. That doesn’t mean it’s reasonable.
The government doesn’t care that someone is denying that nukes exist let alone actually prosecute for it is simply ridiculous. Like I posted, there isn’t a court in the land that hear such a case.
It’s an interest take though...very inventive.
Also, it's a long thread and I'm still getting up to speed.
Mike
-
The physics that make a reactor work are exactly the same physics that make a nuclear weapon work. It’s all about critical mass and critical geometry. So, you compress the mass way below critical geometry very quickly you get a very, very fast release of the same energy you get from a thermally moderated reactor. That's why the fissile material is hollow; so it will compress down way below critical geometry in milliseconds. So fast that it becomes prompt critical and BOOM!
Nuclear reactor-nuclear bomb, identical mechanisms of operation, nothing additional to understand or learn, and certainly nothing magical.
It really is that simple...in a nuclear physics kinda way.
No, there is only one type of fission - the moderated one used in nuclear power plants.
The military, nano-seconds FLASH one is just propaganda created 1945. So there are no atomic bombs/weapon that can explode. Prove me wrong and win €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
-
Prove yourself right and win my €1M challenge!
-
The physics that make a reactor work are exactly the same physics that make a nuclear weapon work. It’s all about critical mass and critical geometry. So, you compress the mass way below critical geometry very quickly you get a very, very fast release of the same energy you get from a thermally moderated reactor. That's why the fissile material is hollow; so it will compress down way below critical geometry in milliseconds. So fast that it becomes prompt critical and BOOM!
Nuclear reactor-nuclear bomb, identical mechanisms of operation, nothing additional to understand or learn, and certainly nothing magical.
It really is that simple...in a nuclear physics kinda way.
No, there is only one type of fission - the moderated one used in nuclear power plants.
The military, nano-seconds FLASH one is just propaganda created 1945. So there are no atomic bombs/weapon that can explode. Prove me wrong and win €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
Then show some evidence. All you ever do is fail
-
The physics that make a reactor work are exactly the same physics that make a nuclear weapon work. It’s all about critical mass and critical geometry. So, you compress the mass way below critical geometry very quickly you get a very, very fast release of the same energy you get from a thermally moderated reactor. That's why the fissile material is hollow; so it will compress down way below critical geometry in milliseconds. So fast that it becomes prompt critical and BOOM!
Nuclear reactor-nuclear bomb, identical mechanisms of operation, nothing additional to understand or learn, and certainly nothing magical.
It really is that simple...in a nuclear physics kinda way.
No, there is only one type of fission - the moderated one used in nuclear power plants.
The military, nano-seconds FLASH one is just propaganda created 1945. So there are no atomic bombs/weapon that can explode. Prove me wrong and win €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
That’s incorrect. Fission is the splitting of an atom into smaller parts and there’s more than one way for that to happen. In addition to neutron capture as in a reactor, fission also occurs as part of natural decay. It’s why radioactive elements are...well radioactive. They undergo fission naturally. The fission fragments result in new element isotopes and measurable radiation. Of course some radioisotopes decay to other isotopes of the same element which is not fission. The only difference between fission in a reactor and bomb is the rate at which the reaction happens. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true.
BTW, your €1M is a red herring. I’m guessing the only way you’ll believe it is for someone to set off a nuke in your front yard and that's never gonna happen.
Additionally, you have no proof for your propaganda story. Just innuendo and half-baked opinions. Besides, believing that countries would conspire together on this for 75 years is just absurd.
Mike
-
The military, nano-seconds FLASH one is just propaganda created 1945. So there are no atomic bombs/weapon that can explode. Prove me wrong and win €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
You're wrong. You owe me a million euros.
-
The military, nano-seconds FLASH one is just propaganda created 1945. So there are no atomic bombs/weapon that can explode. Prove me wrong and win €1M - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm .
You're wrong. You owe me a million euros.
Well, according to the experts, LOL, an a-bomb explosion lasts only nano-seconds in a FLASH when a critical mass of about 60 kgs of pure metal is transformed into pure energy (J). No smoke! I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Billions of metal atoms are split in a nano-second at the speed of light.
Your fake video shows something much, much slower and dirtier and is not an a-bomb explosion. An no FLASH! You suffer from cognitive dissonance!
-
I listened to a radio programme yesterday about the international trade in fake vintage wine.
One of the techniques they use is looking for Caesium-137.
If they find it in wine that was supposedly bottled before 1952, then it isn't genuine.
Why do we think that is?
-
Well, according to the experts, LOL, an a-bomb explosion lasts only nano-seconds in a FLASH when a critical mass of about 60 kgs of pure metal is transformed into pure energy (J). No smoke! I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Billions of metal atoms are split in a nano-second at the speed of light.
Your fake video shows something much, much slower and dirtier and is not an a-bomb explosion. An no FLASH! You suffer from cognitive dissonance!
Here’s a video you can’t explain so easily. Operation Bravo Castle. The initial fire ball was over four miles across in less than a second. The mushroom cloud reached a height of 47,000 feet and a diameter of 7 miles in under a minute. It left left a crater over a mile in diameter and 250 feet deep. And, you believe this could not have been a nuclear explosion...talk about cognitive dissonance.
Mike
-
Well, according to the experts, LOL, an a-bomb explosion lasts only nano-seconds in a FLASH when a critical mass of about 60 kgs of pure metal is transformed into pure energy (J). No smoke! I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Billions of metal atoms are split in a nano-second at the speed of light.
Your fake video shows something much, much slower and dirtier and is not an a-bomb explosion. And no FLASH! You suffer from cognitive dissonance!
Here’s a video you can’t explain so easily. Operation Bravo Castle. The initial fire ball was over four miles across in less than a second. The mushroom cloud reached a height of 47,000 feet and a diameter of 7 miles in under a minute. It left left a crater over a mile in diameter and 250 feet deep. And, you believe this could not have been a nuclear explosion...talk about cognitive dissonance.
Mike
Thanks, it is the standard photoshop fakery - no nano-seconds FLASH at the speed of light, plenty smoke and then a fairy tale story of a crater, bla, bla, bla. Only people suffering from cognitive dissonance links to such nonsense. You have to verify your sources.
-
Thanks, it is the standard photoshop fakery - no nano-seconds FLASH at the speed of light, plenty smoke and then a fairy tale story of a crater, bla, bla, bla. Only people suffering from cognitive dissonance links to such nonsense. You have to verify your sources.
Fairy tale? Seriously? Tell that to the inhabitants of the Bikini Atoll.
So let me get this straight. You can’t come up with any convention bomb that can do this kind of damage so to keep from having to admit to the possibility you resort to calling it fake without a single fact to base that on. Only your wish to make the inconvenient facts go away so you don't have to deal with them. And you accuse others of cognitive dissonance...the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. BTW, that video is actually on film and is over 60 years old. Kinda hard for it to be photoshoped.
You could actually go to the Bikini Atoll and see for yourself. If you can offer a €1M award then you certainly can afford to go...right? However, I know you won’t because it would burst your close minded little bubble.
I thought this might be an interesting discussion but I can see that you are completely incapable of being objective and will keep repeating the same baseless nonsense over and over. Some might even call it small minded; or you just like being a troll I’m not really sure which. Either way I think I’ll bow out of this one.
Mike
-
Thanks, it is the standard photoshop fakery - no nano-seconds FLASH at the speed of light, plenty smoke and then a fairy tale story of a crater, bla, bla, bla. Only people suffering from cognitive dissonance links to such nonsense. You have to verify your sources.
Fairy tale? Seriously? Tell that to the inhabitants of the Bikini Atoll.
So let me get this straight. You can’t come up with any convention bomb that can do this kind of damage so to keep from having to admit to the possibility you resort to calling it fake with a single fact to base that on. Only your wish to make the inconvenient facts go away so you don't have to deal with them. And you accuse others of cognitive dissonance...the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. BTW, that video is actually on film and is over 60 years old. Kinda hard for it to be photoshoped.
You could actually go to the Bikini Atoll and see for yourself. If you can offer a €1M award then you certainly can afford to go...right? However, I know you won’t because it would burst your close minded little bubble.
I thought this might be an interesting discussion but I can see that you are completely incapable of being objective and will keep repeating the same baseless nonsense over and over. Some might even call it small minded; or you just like being a troll I’m not really sure which. Either way I think I’ll bow out of this one.
Mike
You are right, I will not visit the Bikini atoll, so by by! But I have been to Nagasaki several times and visited its a-bomb museum every time. It seems a western suburb of Nagasaki was destroyed by firebombs June 1945 and that later it was suggested an a-bomb did it 9 August 1945 in a FLASH. I explain the fakery at my web site since many years.
-
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I’ve read your website and...where do I begin?
First of all it is not nor has it ever been illegal to say atomic bombs don’t work. You can say it all you want and nobody will care. Least of all the federal government. They wouldn’t even give such claims credence let alone investigate them. Anybody trying to prosecute such a thing would be laughed out of court...heck it would never even make it to court. You'd have a great case for malicious prosecution though.
As to the rest of it? You’ve made conclusions based on dubious and out of context information and formed the opinion that atomic weapons are fake. Never the less, as you state several times, it’s only your opinion. And it’s just that. An opinion not even remotely rising to the level of fact. The fact is you’re wrong. Nuclear power and atomic weapons exist and work exactly as stated in any of the dozens of college text books on the subject. AAMOF, all of MITs courses are available online. Maybe you should take one or two.
And, don't get me started on that green box about ionizing radiation. The only thing that is true is the comment about x-rays. Everything else is completely wrong.
Mike
Thanks for visiting my web site about fission. Yes, fission works and releases energy as heat in nuclear power plants under moderated conditions using nuclear fuels - uranium oxides. No doubt about it.
But this military FLASH fission releasing plenty heat during some nanoseconds in an a-bomb using solid uranium metal as fuel is pure nonsense. There is no way to start it! Compressing suddenly two bits of metal into a critical mass is ridiculous.
And US laws are clear. Death sentence if you tell the truth.
Stop lying Heiwa. We've been over this multiple times. The laws CLEARLY state it is illegal to release classified info. You have NOT had access to ANY classified info. It is NOT illegal to express your unsupported opinion and that is ALL you have. EVERYONE knows you keep saying this crap to make yourself look more important.
-
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I’ve read your website and...where do I begin?
First of all it is not nor has it ever been illegal to say atomic bombs don’t work. You can say it all you want and nobody will care. Least of all the federal government. They wouldn’t even give such claims credence let alone investigate them. Anybody trying to prosecute such a thing would be laughed out of court...heck it would never even make it to court. You'd have a great case for malicious prosecution though.
As to the rest of it? You’ve made conclusions based on dubious and out of context information and formed the opinion that atomic weapons are fake. Never the less, as you state several times, it’s only your opinion. And it’s just that. An opinion not even remotely rising to the level of fact. The fact is you’re wrong. Nuclear power and atomic weapons exist and work exactly as stated in any of the dozens of college text books on the subject. AAMOF, all of MITs courses are available online. Maybe you should take one or two.
And, don't get me started on that green box about ionizing radiation. The only thing that is true is the comment about x-rays. Everything else is completely wrong.
Mike
Thanks for visiting my web site about fission. Yes, fission works and releases energy as heat in nuclear power plants under moderated conditions using nuclear fuels - uranium oxides. No doubt about it.
But this military FLASH fission releasing plenty heat during some nanoseconds in an a-bomb using solid uranium metal as fuel is pure nonsense. There is no way to start it! Compressing suddenly two bits of metal into a critical mass is ridiculous.
And US laws are clear. Death sentence if you tell the truth.
Stop lying Heiwa. We've been over this multiple times. The laws CLEARLY state it is illegal to release classified info. You have NOT had access to ANY classified info. It is NOT illegal to express your unsupported opinion and that is ALL you have. EVERYONE knows you keep saying this crap to make yourself look more important.
Hm, the law is quite clear, i.e. everything about a-bombs is classified. Evidently supporters of a-bombs can discuss how fantastic a-bombs are but the real facts are secret. For ever. And if you tell the truth, you are shot in USA, given a lethal injection or fried in a chair. All as per the law. That's why I stay away from USA.
-
Have you visited Hiroshima or Nagasaki and their a-bomb museums? We are told by surviving witnesses that a bomb equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded at 600 m altitude in a big FLASH and that each town was destroyed/flattened in nanoseconds August 6 and 9, 1945 by these bombs killing 100 000 people at once by radiation. Another 100 000 people died later due to delayed radiation. But it is just US war propaganda. The towns were destroyed months earlier by conventional napalm carpet fire bombings. Noone died due to radiation. An early example of Fake News. I assume you believe lies. You are thus a victim of cognitive dissonance. You are not alone. But thanks for studying http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I’ve read your website and...where do I begin?
First of all it is not nor has it ever been illegal to say atomic bombs don’t work. You can say it all you want and nobody will care. Least of all the federal government. They wouldn’t even give such claims credence let alone investigate them. Anybody trying to prosecute such a thing would be laughed out of court...heck it would never even make it to court. You'd have a great case for malicious prosecution though.
As to the rest of it? You’ve made conclusions based on dubious and out of context information and formed the opinion that atomic weapons are fake. Never the less, as you state several times, it’s only your opinion. And it’s just that. An opinion not even remotely rising to the level of fact. The fact is you’re wrong. Nuclear power and atomic weapons exist and work exactly as stated in any of the dozens of college text books on the subject. AAMOF, all of MITs courses are available online. Maybe you should take one or two.
And, don't get me started on that green box about ionizing radiation. The only thing that is true is the comment about x-rays. Everything else is completely wrong.
Mike
Thanks for visiting my web site about fission. Yes, fission works and releases energy as heat in nuclear power plants under moderated conditions using nuclear fuels - uranium oxides. No doubt about it.
But this military FLASH fission releasing plenty heat during some nanoseconds in an a-bomb using solid uranium metal as fuel is pure nonsense. There is no way to start it! Compressing suddenly two bits of metal into a critical mass is ridiculous.
And US laws are clear. Death sentence if you tell the truth.
Stop lying Heiwa. We've been over this multiple times. The laws CLEARLY state it is illegal to release classified info. You have NOT had access to ANY classified info. It is NOT illegal to express your unsupported opinion and that is ALL you have. EVERYONE knows you keep saying this crap to make yourself look more important.
Hm, the law is quite clear, i.e. everything about a-bombs is classified. Evidently supporters of a-bombs can discuss how fantastic a-bombs are but the real facts are secret. For ever. And if you tell the truth, you are shot in USA, given a lethal injection or fried in a chair. All as per the law. That's why I stay away from USA.
heiwa LIES again. You just can't make a single post without at least one LIE, can you? It is very clear you've NOT talked to a lawyer about this. The nurse wiping your ass and agreeing with everything you say to prevent your tantrums doesn't count.
-
Well, according to the experts, LOL, an a-bomb explosion lasts only nano-seconds in a FLASH when a critical mass of about 60 kgs of pure metal is transformed into pure energy (J).
No, that isn't what the experts say. The experts say that a relatively small percentage of the U235 atoms get split into smaller atoms while releasing a great deal of energy. That's why radioactive fallout is such a concern.
No smoke!
Perhaps not from the initial energy release, but smoke is most certainly produced as a byproduct of releasing a tremendous amount of energy into the environment.
Billions of metal atoms are split in a nano-second at the speed of light.
Not the speed of light, but very quickly indeed.
Your fake video shows something much, much slower and dirtier and is not an a-bomb explosion.
So what? Most chemical explosions (TNT, C4, etc.) only take a small fraction of a second, yet the aftermath still takes much longer to fully play out.
An no FLASH! You suffer from cognitive dissonance!
I don't believe that you are qualified to diagnose cognitive dissonance, so please stop.
-
Evidently supporters of a-bombs can discuss how fantastic a-bombs are,
Do you understand the difference between realizing something exists and supporting it?
Also you don't have any classified information. You just assert stuff. That's not illegal.
-
No smoke!
Perhaps not from the initial energy release, but smoke is most certainly produced as a byproduct of releasing a tremendous amount of energy into the environment.
Well the first a-bom explosion was 30 m above a sand desert with nothing to burn. The sand became glass ... and there was plenty smoke.
Another a-bomb explosion was 25 m below water inside an atoll. It seems all the water went up into the sky and became ... smoke ... and not rain.
At my site I link to plenty films of alleged a-bomb explosions in the air above deserts. The FLASHes last a minute heating up the air that becomes ... smoke ... like a mushroom.
But heating air should not produce smoke. Don't you agree? I think you just believe things without checking them. Have you ever been to Nagasaki? The museum there is a joke.
-
No smoke!
Perhaps not from the initial energy release, but smoke is most certainly produced as a byproduct of releasing a tremendous amount of energy into the environment.
Well the first a-bom explosion was 30 m above a sand desert with nothing to burn. The sand became glass ... and there was plenty smoke.
Right, because there were absolutely no flammable materials within the fireball radius. ::)
Another a-bomb explosion was 25 m below water inside an atoll. It seems all the water went up into the sky and became ... smoke ... and not rain.
Are you sure that what you think is smoke isn't really steam?
At my site I link to plenty films of alleged a-bomb explosions in the air above deserts. The FLASHes last a minute heating up the air that becomes ... smoke ... like a mushroom.
No. The flash only lasts a moment. The fireball is what lasts much longer. Besides, even conventional bombs can produce mushroom clouds, just not nearly on the same scale as nuclear explosions.
But heating air should not produce smoke. Don't you agree?
No, I don't agree. Why shouldn't a sudden, tremendous release of energy produce lots of smoke, steam and other byproducts that could form a mushroom cloud?
I think you just believe things without checking them. Have you ever been to Nagasaki? The museum there is a joke.
No, I haven't been to Nagasaki, but my brother has. I doubt that the residents think that the museum is a joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if they think that you are a joke.
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
He's a moron?
-
Moran
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
Well, we are told today that the 2nd a-bomb in history went off at 600 m altitude over Hiroshima, Japan, 6 August 1945 and in a nano-second the equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded in a big FLASH in all directions. In reality it was only 60 kg metal Uranium that fissioned according to the military. It meant it becomes pure, clean energy or heat as radiation.
IMHO it sounds like magic.
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
You sound like a stupid shill just copy/pasting old propaganda rubbish.
-
Prove it here and win 1M €!
-
Prove it here and win 1M €!
Just tell me who you are!
-
Prove it here and win 1M €!
Just tell me who you are!
Sorry. This does not qualify as a winning entry. Once you have proven your claims I will reveal myself and pay you 1M €. But so far, you have utterly failed to do so. The reason is that your claims are not true.
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
Well, we are told today that the 2nd a-bomb in history went off at 600 m altitude over Hiroshima, Japan, 6 August 1945 and in a nano-second the equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded in a big FLASH in all directions. In reality it was only 60 kg metal Uranium that fissioned according to the military. It meant it becomes pure, clean energy or heat as radiation.
IMHO it sounds like magic.
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
You sound like a stupid shill just copy/pasting old propaganda rubbish.
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
-
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
The perfect summary! I am going to rep-post it in big bold letters:
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are, so you think if you can't understand it, it must be false.
-
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
The perfect summary! I am going to rep-post it in big bold letters:
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are, so you think if you can't understand it, it must be false.
Why thank you kind stranger
-
Prove it here and win 1M €!
Just tell me who you are!
Sorry. This does not qualify as a winning entry. Once you have proven your claims I will reveal myself and pay you 1M €. But so far, you have utterly failed to do so. The reason is that your claims are not true.
But who are you? You have a mother?
-
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
The perfect summary! I am going to rep-post it in big bold letters:
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are, so you think if you can't understand it, it must be false.
Why thank you kind stranger
You're welcome, friend!
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
Well, we are told today that the 2nd a-bomb in history went off at 600 m altitude over Hiroshima, Japan, 6 August 1945 and in a nano-second the equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded in a big FLASH in all directions. In reality it was only 60 kg metal Uranium that fissioned according to the military. It meant it becomes pure, clean energy or heat as radiation.
IMHO it sounds like magic.
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
You sound like a stupid shill just copy/pasting old propaganda rubbish.
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
Yes, plenty twirps tell me I am stupid but my web site http://heiwaco.com is still very popular with 100's of new visitors every day. They cannot be stupid.
-
Prove it here and win 1M €!
Just tell me who you are!
Sorry. This does not qualify as a winning entry. Once you have proven your claims I will reveal myself and pay you 1M €. But so far, you have utterly failed to do so. The reason is that your claims are not true.
But who are you? You have a mother?
I know you have comprehension problems so just for you I'll re-post this:
(Pay attention to the bold parts)
Sorry. This does not qualify as a winning entry. Once you have proven your claims I will reveal myself and pay you 1M €. But so far, you have utterly failed to do so. The reason is that your claims are not true.
-
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
And you have the nerve to call others stupid? ::)
-
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
And you have the nerve to call others stupid? ::)
Yes, a spade is a spade. And you are plain stupid.
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
Well, we are told today that the 2nd a-bomb in history went off at 600 m altitude over Hiroshima, Japan, 6 August 1945 and in a nano-second the equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded in a big FLASH in all directions. In reality it was only 60 kg metal Uranium that fissioned according to the military. It meant it becomes pure, clean energy or heat as radiation.
IMHO it sounds like magic.
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
You sound like a stupid shill just copy/pasting old propaganda rubbish.
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
Yes, plenty twirps tell me I am stupid but my web site http://heiwaco.com is still very popular with 100's of new visitors every day. They cannot be stupid.
Very likely few, or any of them are as stupid as you are. For example, most of them would know that owning a website which receives a hundred clicks a day, is not an indication that the website owner isn't stupid.
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
Well, we are told today that the 2nd a-bomb in history went off at 600 m altitude over Hiroshima, Japan, 6 August 1945 and in a nano-second the equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded in a big FLASH in all directions. In reality it was only 60 kg metal Uranium that fissioned according to the military. It meant it becomes pure, clean energy or heat as radiation.
IMHO it sounds like magic.
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
You sound like a stupid shill just copy/pasting old propaganda rubbish.
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
Yes, plenty twirps tell me I am stupid but my web site http://heiwaco.com is still very popular with 100's of new visitors every day. They cannot be stupid.
And still no evidence. More failure. People come you your website to laugh at your stupidity.
But you shouldn't backpedal. You made an honest post for once. You admitted you don't understand. That's all there is to it.
You don't understand and because of that you have to make up all this bullshit to soothe your fragile ego.
-
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
And you have the nerve to call others stupid? ::)
Yes, a spade is a spade. And you are plain stupid.
At least I can understand how mushroom clouds are formed. What does that say about you?
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
Well, we are told today that the 2nd a-bomb in history went off at 600 m altitude over Hiroshima, Japan, 6 August 1945 and in a nano-second the equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded in a big FLASH in all directions. In reality it was only 60 kg metal Uranium that fissioned according to the military. It meant it becomes pure, clean energy or heat as radiation.
IMHO it sounds like magic.
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
You sound like a stupid shill just copy/pasting old propaganda rubbish.
1) Stop posting "flash" in big bold all caps.
2) Heated up gasses and vapor in the atmosphere.
3) You sound like a senile curmudgeon.
-
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
And you have the nerve to call others stupid? ::)
Yes, a spade is a spade. And you are plain stupid.
At least I can understand how mushroom clouds are formed. What does that say about you?
Releasing pure energy equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT in an explosion lasting a nano-second producing a FLASH in the skyd does not produce a mushroom cloud. Only idiots believe so.
-
Releasing pure energy equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT in an explosion lasting a nano-second producing a FLASH in the skyd does not produce a mushroom cloud. Only idiots believe so.
This one I can’t let go. You have no clue what you're talking about and then you get personal calling me and others idiots merely because we disagree with you.
I spent 10 years in the Navy.
--I’m a graduate of Naval Nuclear Power School
--Graduate of Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit
--Graduate of Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT) School.
I served on the USS Andrew Jackson, SSBN 619 Gold Crew for four and half years as a nuclear propulsion plant operator. As and ELT I was cognizant radiation & contamination monitoring and exposure control.
That was followed by three and half years at the Naval Submarine Support Facility Groton, CT where I was a qualified Nuclear Repair Coordinator, Radiological Controls Monitor, and Radiological Shift Supervisor.
After I got out of the Navy is worked in commercial nuc power as an ANSI 3.1 qualified Senior Radiation Health Physics Technician. I was qualified to operate HP multi-channel analyzers for do isotopic determinations.
I graduated from UCONN with a BS in Mechanical Engineering and I currently work for a defense contractor where we design and build submarines for the Navy. My area is reactor plant systems.
It is clear from your ignorant comments that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. With over 35 years of training and experience I’ve forgotten more about nuclear power then you have known in your entire life. You have no clue how the physics works. You make unfounded conclusions based of what you read on the internet. You claim conspiracies on a scope that isn’t even logical to believe could exist. You can’t even make a cogent argument for the basis of your conclusions. Your innuendo and half-baked conclusions are some of the worst examples of junk science. You sir are a tin foil hat wearing, arrogant wind bag with zero credibility.
-
Releasing pure energy equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT in an explosion lasting a nano-second producing a FLASH in the skyd does not produce a mushroom cloud. Only idiots believe so.
This one I can’t let go. You have no clue what you're talking about and then you get personal calling me and others idiots merely because we disagree with you.
I spent 10 years in the Navy.
--I’m a graduate of Naval Nuclear Power School
--Graduate of Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit
--Graduate of Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT) School.
I served on the USS Andrew Jackson, SSBN 619 Gold Crew for four and half years as a nuclear propulsion plant operator. As and ELT I was cognizant radiation & contamination monitoring and exposure control.
That was followed by three and half years at the Naval Submarine Support Facility Groton, CT where I was a qualified Nuclear Repair Coordinator, Radiological Controls Monitor, and Radiological Shift Supervisor.
After I got out of the Navy is worked in commercial nuc power as an ANSI 3.1 qualified Senior Radiation Health Physics Technician. I was qualified to operate HP multi-channel analyzers for do isotopic determinations.
I graduated from UCONN with a BS in Mechanical Engineering and I currently work for a defense contractor where we design and build submarines for the Navy. My area is reactor plant systems.
It is clear from your ignorant comments that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. With over 35 years of training and experience I’ve forgotten more about nuclear power then you have known in your entire life. You have no clue how the physics works. You make unfounded conclusions based of what you read on the internet. You claim conspiracies on a scope that isn’t even logical to believe could exist. You can’t even make a cogent argument for the basis of your conclusions. Your innuendo and half-baked conclusions are some of the worst examples of junk science. You sir are a tin foil hat wearing, arrogant wind bag with zero credibility.
Thanks for presentation. I spent less time in the Navy than you and most of my life in building and operating merchant ships for various principals say total 45 years. You find my CV at my web site. It seems you have spent (too?) much time with nuclear powered US war ships, i.e. ships with a little nuclear powered steam generator driving turbines drivings generators and propellers. The Russians have done it too with their ice breakers, etc. I know Russian marine engineers having served on the ice breaker Lenin (now a museum) operating its nuclear powered steam generator. It was not difficult. I like steam ships. Quiet. No noise. No vibrations. All our cruise vessels were steam driven in 1970/90's.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons that wipe out innocent civilians in a FLASH.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where I describe my findings. Conspiracy? Roosevelt and Stalin agreeing to scare the shit out of the Japanese 1945. Why not? But do not tell me it works 2017.
Why do you have to be so arrogant and obnoxious in your post? Does it make you happy? I have never been into this conspiracy business. I just do honest, good work and have been rather well paid. So I am a happy, nice guy. That's why I put my photo at the tops of all my web pages and forum posts. Plenty idiots hate me for it.
-
Why do you have to be so arrogant and obnoxious in your post? Does it make you happy?
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Pure gold! We haven't seen the last of that quote! I'm gonna see to that!
-
Releasing pure energy equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT in an explosion lasting a nano-second producing a FLASH in the skyd does not produce a mushroom cloud. Only idiots believe so.
This one I can’t let go. You have no clue what you're talking about and then you get personal calling me and others idiots merely because we disagree with you.
I spent 10 years in the Navy.
--I’m a graduate of Naval Nuclear Power School
--Graduate of Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit
--Graduate of Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT) School.
I served on the USS Andrew Jackson, SSBN 619 Gold Crew for four and half years as a nuclear propulsion plant operator. As and ELT I was cognizant radiation & contamination monitoring and exposure control.
That was followed by three and half years at the Naval Submarine Support Facility Groton, CT where I was a qualified Nuclear Repair Coordinator, Radiological Controls Monitor, and Radiological Shift Supervisor.
After I got out of the Navy is worked in commercial nuc power as an ANSI 3.1 qualified Senior Radiation Health Physics Technician. I was qualified to operate HP multi-channel analyzers for do isotopic determinations.
I graduated from UCONN with a BS in Mechanical Engineering and I currently work for a defense contractor where we design and build submarines for the Navy. My area is reactor plant systems.
It is clear from your ignorant comments that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. With over 35 years of training and experience I’ve forgotten more about nuclear power then you have known in your entire life. You have no clue how the physics works. You make unfounded conclusions based of what you read on the internet. You claim conspiracies on a scope that isn’t even logical to believe could exist. You can’t even make a cogent argument for the basis of your conclusions. Your innuendo and half-baked conclusions are some of the worst examples of junk science. You sir are a tin foil hat wearing, arrogant wind bag with zero credibility.
Read the signature at the bottom his posts. This is what his government officials said about his findings.
-
Releasing pure energy equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT in an explosion lasting a nano-second producing a FLASH in the skyd does not produce a mushroom cloud. Only idiots believe so.
This one I can’t let go. You have no clue what you're talking about and then you get personal calling me and others idiots merely because we disagree with you.
I spent 10 years in the Navy.
--I’m a graduate of Naval Nuclear Power School
--Graduate of Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit
--Graduate of Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT) School.
I served on the USS Andrew Jackson, SSBN 619 Gold Crew for four and half years as a nuclear propulsion plant operator. As and ELT I was cognizant radiation & contamination monitoring and exposure control.
That was followed by three and half years at the Naval Submarine Support Facility Groton, CT where I was a qualified Nuclear Repair Coordinator, Radiological Controls Monitor, and Radiological Shift Supervisor.
After I got out of the Navy is worked in commercial nuc power as an ANSI 3.1 qualified Senior Radiation Health Physics Technician. I was qualified to operate HP multi-channel analyzers for do isotopic determinations.
I graduated from UCONN with a BS in Mechanical Engineering and I currently work for a defense contractor where we design and build submarines for the Navy. My area is reactor plant systems.
It is clear from your ignorant comments that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. With over 35 years of training and experience I’ve forgotten more about nuclear power then you have known in your entire life. You have no clue how the physics works. You make unfounded conclusions based of what you read on the internet. You claim conspiracies on a scope that isn’t even logical to believe could exist. You can’t even make a cogent argument for the basis of your conclusions. Your innuendo and half-baked conclusions are some of the worst examples of junk science. You sir are a tin foil hat wearing, arrogant wind bag with zero credibility.
Thanks for presentation. I spent less time in the Navy than you and most of my life in building and operating merchant ships for various principals say total 45 years. You find my CV at my web site. It seems you have spent (too?) much time with nuclear powered US war ships, i.e. ships with a little nuclear powered steam generator driving turbines drivings generators and propellers. The Russians have done it too with their ice breakers, etc. I know Russian marine engineers having served on the ice breaker Lenin (now a museum) operating its nuclear powered steam generator. It was not difficult. I like steam ships. Quiet. No noise. No vibrations. All our cruise vessels were steam driven in 1970/90's.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons that wipe out innocent civilians in a FLASH.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where I describe my findings. Conspiracy? Roosevelt and Stalin agreeing to scare the shit out of the Japanese 1945. Why not? But do not tell me it works 2017.
Why do you have to be so arrogant and obnoxious in your post? Does it make you happy? I have never been into this conspiracy business. I just do honest, good work and have been rather well paid. So I am a happy, nice guy. That's why I put my photo at the tops of all my web pages and forum posts. Plenty idiots hate me for it.
I guess you didn’t read the first two lines of my post. Because I got tired of you calling those of us who believe stupid and idiots. Maybe you should stop calling people idiots just because they don’t believe what you believe.
BTW, those “little nuclear powered” submarines could power a town of about 10,000 homes.
And, I don’t have to read squat. I read through your website and there isn’t any useful information. Nothing but your propaganda pushing your unfounded claims with exactly zero technical basis.
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
-
Releasing pure energy equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT in an explosion lasting a nano-second producing a FLASH in the skyd does not produce a mushroom cloud. Only idiots believe so.
This one I can’t let go. You have no clue what you're talking about and then you get personal calling me and others idiots merely because we disagree with you.
I spent 10 years in the Navy.
--I’m a graduate of Naval Nuclear Power School
--Graduate of Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit
--Graduate of Engineering Laboratory Technician (ELT) School.
I served on the USS Andrew Jackson, SSBN 619 Gold Crew for four and half years as a nuclear propulsion plant operator. As and ELT I was cognizant radiation & contamination monitoring and exposure control.
That was followed by three and half years at the Naval Submarine Support Facility Groton, CT where I was a qualified Nuclear Repair Coordinator, Radiological Controls Monitor, and Radiological Shift Supervisor.
After I got out of the Navy is worked in commercial nuc power as an ANSI 3.1 qualified Senior Radiation Health Physics Technician. I was qualified to operate HP multi-channel analyzers for do isotopic determinations.
I graduated from UCONN with a BS in Mechanical Engineering and I currently work for a defense contractor where we design and build submarines for the Navy. My area is reactor plant systems.
It is clear from your ignorant comments that you have no earthly idea what you’re talking about. With over 35 years of training and experience I’ve forgotten more about nuclear power then you have known in your entire life. You have no clue how the physics works. You make unfounded conclusions based of what you read on the internet. You claim conspiracies on a scope that isn’t even logical to believe could exist. You can’t even make a cogent argument for the basis of your conclusions. Your innuendo and half-baked conclusions are some of the worst examples of junk science. You sir are a tin foil hat wearing, arrogant wind bag with zero credibility.
Thanks for presentation. I spent less time in the Navy than you and most of my life in building and operating merchant ships for various principals say total 45 years. You find my CV at my web site. It seems you have spent (too?) much time with nuclear powered US war ships, i.e. ships with a little nuclear powered steam generator driving turbines drivings generators and propellers. The Russians have done it too with their ice breakers, etc. I know Russian marine engineers having served on the ice breaker Lenin (now a museum) operating its nuclear powered steam generator. It was not difficult. I like steam ships. Quiet. No noise. No vibrations. All our cruise vessels were steam driven in 1970/90's.
Anyway, it has nothing to do with nuclear weapons that wipe out innocent civilians in a FLASH.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where I describe my findings. Conspiracy? Roosevelt and Stalin agreeing to scare the shit out of the Japanese 1945. Why not? But do not tell me it works 2017.
Why do you have to be so arrogant and obnoxious in your post? Does it make you happy? I have never been into this conspiracy business. I just do honest, good work and have been rather well paid. So I am a happy, nice guy. That's why I put my photo at the tops of all my web pages and forum posts. Plenty idiots hate me for it.
I guess you didn’t read the first two lines of my post. Because I got tired of you calling those of us who believe stupid and idiots. Maybe you should stop calling people idiots just because they don’t believe what you believe.
BTW, those “little nuclear powered” submarines could power a town of about 10,000 homes.
And, I don’t have to read squat. I read through your website and there isn’t any useful information. Nothing but your propaganda pushing your unfounded claims with exactly zero technical basis.
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Pace yourself. I want you to stick around in this thread. We can't have you flaming out after one round with Heiwa. Please be advised that he will ignore your points and probably claim you have cognitive dissonance or something. Don't worry, he just thinks that it sounds smart to accuse people of that.
-
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
What is wrong with my explanation of ionizing radiation? Is radiation >1 µSv/hour dangerous.
It seems you are not aware of the fact that >100 000 Japanese persons were forced to move away from Fukushima 2011 because of radiation. Other people were told that radiated people were sick and had to be avoided, bla, bla, bla. And now they are all told to go back to Fukushima again because it is OK and that they should forget the whole matter.
It is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945, where people were told the places would be uninhabitable for 500 years due to ionizing radiation and that if you were not already dead due it, you would soon die having been exposed to the FLASHes. And it seems there were no radiation at all. No a-bombs! Just propaganda. The towns were destroyed like Dresden in Saxony February 1945 by conventional fire bombs killing mostly civilians.
Like the Stalin a-bombs built with uranium produced by Wismut AG of Saxony to help the world proletariate conquer the world. Poor people were forced to work like slaves, while their communist bosses lived in opulence.
-
Claims that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional weapons are a lie.
-
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
What is wrong with my explanation of ionizing radiation? Is radiation >1 µSv/hour dangerous.
It seems you are not aware of the fact that >100 000 Japanese persons were forced to move away from Fukushima 2011 because of radiation. Other people were told that radiated people were sick and had to be avoided, bla, bla, bla. And now they are all told to go back to Fukushima again because it is OK and that they should forget the whole matter.
It is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945, where people were told the places would be uninhabitable for 500 years due to ionizing radiation and that if you were not already dead due it, you would soon die having been exposed to the FLASHes. And it seems there were no radiation at all. No a-bombs! Just propaganda. The towns were destroyed like Dresden in Saxony February 1945 by conventional fire bombs killing mostly civilians.
Like the Stalin a-bombs built with uranium produced by Wismut AG of Saxony to help the world proletariate conquer the world. Poor people were forced to work like slaves, while their communist bosses lived in opulence.
Your explanation of every type of radiation is incorrect. Forget nukes for a second, the effects of ionizing radiation are well known, well understood, and very well documented. All types of ionizing radiation are harmful.
Alpha (α+) - two protons, two neutrons. Very heavy compared to neutron, beta, and gamma. Will only travel a few centimeters in air and cannot outer layer of skin. However, it’s positively charge and very massive...in an atomic structure kinda way. Very damaging when taken internally and to the eyes. It has a very dense ionization track. Meaning it causes a lot of damage in its short path through tissue. It causes many secondary ionizations. Through direct collision and electrical interactions (it has a +2 charge) it strips electrons, neutrons, protons, and produces photons (gamma) all of which themselves cause ionization. It does a lot of damage is a very short path through tissue.
Beta (ß-) - Basically an electron. It’ll travel a couple of meters through air and can penetrate thin clothing. Like an α+ it is an issue to the eyes or if taken internally. While it has a less dense ionization track than α+ it travels farther through tissue.
Neutron (η) - It's...well...a neutron. Travels very far and is both an internal and external hazard. Causes secondary ionizations by direct collision...and a lot of them causing secondary ionization over a very long path; which is why it’s so damaging.
Gamma (γ) - Very high energy photon. Travels very, very far with a very dense ionization track and is also an internal and external hazard.
Food is sometimes irradiated to make it safer and last longer. Why? Because it kills off all the micro-organisms.
Your comment on your webpage, “Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.” is so wrong on so many levels. All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and dangerous.
THAT is what’s wrong with your explanation of radiation.
Mike
-
Claims that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional weapons are a lie.
Well, I claim Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings June 1945 as atomic bombs are just propaganda. I even pay €1M to anyone showing I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Have a try!
-
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
What is wrong with my explanation of ionizing radiation? Is radiation >1 µSv/hour dangerous.
It seems you are not aware of the fact that >100 000 Japanese persons were forced to move away from Fukushima 2011 because of radiation. Other people were told that radiated people were sick and had to be avoided, bla, bla, bla. And now they are all told to go back to Fukushima again because it is OK and that they should forget the whole matter.
It is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945, where people were told the places would be uninhabitable for 500 years due to ionizing radiation and that if you were not already dead due it, you would soon die having been exposed to the FLASHes. And it seems there were no radiation at all. No a-bombs! Just propaganda. The towns were destroyed like Dresden in Saxony February 1945 by conventional fire bombs killing mostly civilians.
Like the Stalin a-bombs built with uranium produced by Wismut AG of Saxony to help the world proletariate conquer the world. Poor people were forced to work like slaves, while their communist bosses lived in opulence.
Your explanation of every type of radiation is incorrect. Forget nukes for a second, the effects of ionizing radiation are well known, well understood, and very well documented. All types of ionizing radiation are harmful.
Alpha (α+) - two protons, two neutrons. Very heavy compared to neutron, beta, and gamma. Will only travel a few centimeters in air and cannot outer layer of skin. However, it’s positively charge and very massive...in an atomic structure kinda way. Very damaging when taken internally and to the eyes. It has a very dense ionization track. Meaning it causes a lot of damage in its short path through tissue. It causes many secondary ionizations. Through direct collision and electrical interactions (it has a +2 charge) it strips electrons, neutrons, protons, and produces photons (gamma) all of which themselves cause ionization. It does a lot of damage is a very short path through tissue.
Beta (ß-) - Basically an electron. It’ll travel a couple of meters through air and can penetrate thin clothing. Like an α+ it is an issue to the eyes or if taken internally. While it has a less dense ionization track than α+ it travels farther through tissue.
Neutron (η) - It's...well...a neutron. Travels very far and is both an internal and external hazard. Causes secondary ionizations by direct collision...and a lot of them causing secondary ionization over a very long path; which is why it’s so damaging.
Gamma (γ) - Very high energy photon. Travels very, very far with a very dense ionization track and is also an internal and external hazard.
Food is sometimes irradiated to make it safer and last longer. Why? Because it kills off all the micro-organisms.
Your comment on your webpage, “Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.” is so wrong on so many levels. All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and dangerous.
THAT is what’s wrong with your explanation of radiation.
Mike
Hm, I do no deny that radiation exists but why should it be damaging. There is radiation everywhere and, when it is <1 µSv/hour, it is harmless. And this is the radiation at Fukushima today. Don't you agree?
-
I am a nice guy.
Then follows it with insults in every post. Comedy gold.
-
Claims that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by conventional weapons are a lie.
Well, I claim Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings June 1945 as atomic bombs are just propaganda. I even pay €1M to anyone showing I am wrong -. Have a try!
I pay €1M to anyone showing you are right! Have a try!
I bet you can't do it!
-
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
What is wrong with my explanation of ionizing radiation? Is radiation >1 µSv/hour dangerous.
It seems you are not aware of the fact that >100 000 Japanese persons were forced to move away from Fukushima 2011 because of radiation. Other people were told that radiated people were sick and had to be avoided, bla, bla, bla. And now they are all told to go back to Fukushima again because it is OK and that they should forget the whole matter.
It is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945, where people were told the places would be uninhabitable for 500 years due to ionizing radiation and that if you were not already dead due it, you would soon die having been exposed to the FLASHes. And it seems there were no radiation at all. No a-bombs! Just propaganda. The towns were destroyed like Dresden in Saxony February 1945 by conventional fire bombs killing mostly civilians.
Like the Stalin a-bombs built with uranium produced by Wismut AG of Saxony to help the world proletariate conquer the world. Poor people were forced to work like slaves, while their communist bosses lived in opulence.
Your explanation of every type of radiation is incorrect. Forget nukes for a second, the effects of ionizing radiation are well known, well understood, and very well documented. All types of ionizing radiation are harmful.
Alpha (α+) - two protons, two neutrons. Very heavy compared to neutron, beta, and gamma. Will only travel a few centimeters in air and cannot outer layer of skin. However, it’s positively charge and very massive...in an atomic structure kinda way. Very damaging when taken internally and to the eyes. It has a very dense ionization track. Meaning it causes a lot of damage in its short path through tissue. It causes many secondary ionizations. Through direct collision and electrical interactions (it has a +2 charge) it strips electrons, neutrons, protons, and produces photons (gamma) all of which themselves cause ionization. It does a lot of damage is a very short path through tissue.
Beta (ß-) - Basically an electron. It’ll travel a couple of meters through air and can penetrate thin clothing. Like an α+ it is an issue to the eyes or if taken internally. While it has a less dense ionization track than α+ it travels farther through tissue.
Neutron (η) - It's...well...a neutron. Travels very far and is both an internal and external hazard. Causes secondary ionizations by direct collision...and a lot of them causing secondary ionization over a very long path; which is why it’s so damaging.
Gamma (γ) - Very high energy photon. Travels very, very far with a very dense ionization track and is also an internal and external hazard.
Food is sometimes irradiated to make it safer and last longer. Why? Because it kills off all the micro-organisms.
Your comment on your webpage, “Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.” is so wrong on so many levels. All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and dangerous.
THAT is what’s wrong with your explanation of radiation.
Mike
Hm, I do no deny that radiation exists but why should it be damaging. There is radiation everywhere and, when it is <1 µSv/hour, it is harmless. And this is the radiation at Fukushima today. Don't you agree?
Yes, <1 µSv/hr would be relatively harmless but that’s all I agree with. Your explanation of radiation and it’s health effects on your website are still wrong.
The latest surveys at Fukushima show levels in the plants of over 500 Sv which would kill you in minutes. The annual dose in the evacuation zone is ≈20 mSv/yr which is much higher than the average background levels of 2-3 mSv/yr. 20 mSv/yr is about ≈2.3 µSv/hr. The population in the evacuation zone would be exposed to 2.3 µSv/hr.
I only worked in commercial nuke power for two years but one of the plants I worked at was the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station in NJ. It happens to be the same plant design as Fukushima so I have a basic knowledge of the layout and conditions. The numbers that have been reported recently are on par with what I would expect so I have to wonder where you’re getting your <1 µSv/hr value. A google search will give you dozens of sites reporting the latest levels.
Mike
-
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
What is wrong with my explanation of ionizing radiation? Is radiation >1 µSv/hour dangerous.
It seems you are not aware of the fact that >100 000 Japanese persons were forced to move away from Fukushima 2011 because of radiation. Other people were told that radiated people were sick and had to be avoided, bla, bla, bla. And now they are all told to go back to Fukushima again because it is OK and that they should forget the whole matter.
It is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945, where people were told the places would be uninhabitable for 500 years due to ionizing radiation and that if you were not already dead due it, you would soon die having been exposed to the FLASHes. And it seems there were no radiation at all. No a-bombs! Just propaganda. The towns were destroyed like Dresden in Saxony February 1945 by conventional fire bombs killing mostly civilians.
Like the Stalin a-bombs built with uranium produced by Wismut AG of Saxony to help the world proletariate conquer the world. Poor people were forced to work like slaves, while their communist bosses lived in opulence.
Your explanation of every type of radiation is incorrect. Forget nukes for a second, the effects of ionizing radiation are well known, well understood, and very well documented. All types of ionizing radiation are harmful.
Alpha (α+) - two protons, two neutrons. Very heavy compared to neutron, beta, and gamma. Will only travel a few centimeters in air and cannot outer layer of skin. However, it’s positively charge and very massive...in an atomic structure kinda way. Very damaging when taken internally and to the eyes. It has a very dense ionization track. Meaning it causes a lot of damage in its short path through tissue. It causes many secondary ionizations. Through direct collision and electrical interactions (it has a +2 charge) it strips electrons, neutrons, protons, and produces photons (gamma) all of which themselves cause ionization. It does a lot of damage is a very short path through tissue.
Beta (ß-) - Basically an electron. It’ll travel a couple of meters through air and can penetrate thin clothing. Like an α+ it is an issue to the eyes or if taken internally. While it has a less dense ionization track than α+ it travels farther through tissue.
Neutron (η) - It's...well...a neutron. Travels very far and is both an internal and external hazard. Causes secondary ionizations by direct collision...and a lot of them causing secondary ionization over a very long path; which is why it’s so damaging.
Gamma (γ) - Very high energy photon. Travels very, very far with a very dense ionization track and is also an internal and external hazard.
Food is sometimes irradiated to make it safer and last longer. Why? Because it kills off all the micro-organisms.
Your comment on your webpage, “Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.” is so wrong on so many levels. All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and dangerous.
THAT is what’s wrong with your explanation of radiation.
Mike
Hm, I do no deny that radiation exists but why should it be damaging. There is radiation everywhere and, when it is <1 µSv/hour, it is harmless. And this is the radiation at Fukushima today. Don't you agree?
Yes, <1 µSv/hr would be relatively harmless but that’s all I agree with. Your explanation of radiation and it’s health effects on your website are still wrong.
The latest surveys at Fukushima show levels in the plants of over 500 Sv which would kill you in minutes. The annual dose in the evacuation zone is ≈20 mSv/yr which is much higher than the average background levels of 2-3 mSv/yr. 20 mSv/yr is about ≈2.3 µSv/hr. The population in the evacuation zone would be exposed to 2.3 µSv/hr.
I only worked in commercial nuke power for two years but one of the plants I worked at was the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station in NJ. It happens to be the same plant design as Fukushima so I have a basic knowledge of the layout and conditions. The numbers that have been reported recently are on par with what I would expect so I have to wonder where you’re getting your <1 µSv/hr value. A google search will give you dozens of sites reporting the latest levels.
Mike
I agree that 500 Sv will kill you, but that is the radiation of fission inside an active nuclear power plant. Media reports it as news! It is like saying the temperature and pressure is high between the cylinder and piston inside of a diesel engine or that temperature is high inside a boiler.
I get my radiation values at Fukushima from Tepco, the company that owns the plant. I link to them at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Today they are about 1 µSv/hr, which is completely harmless. I doubt they were much higher earlier. It seems media mixed up mikro with milli and hours with years in the past to scare the shit out of the Japanese.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really believe US nuclear weapons exploded there August 1945 releasing radiation in big FLASHes immediately killing 100 000 yellow monkies and another 100 000 yellow monkies later due to delayed radiation action?
-
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
What is wrong with my explanation of ionizing radiation? Is radiation >1 µSv/hour dangerous.
It seems you are not aware of the fact that >100 000 Japanese persons were forced to move away from Fukushima 2011 because of radiation. Other people were told that radiated people were sick and had to be avoided, bla, bla, bla. And now they are all told to go back to Fukushima again because it is OK and that they should forget the whole matter.
It is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945, where people were told the places would be uninhabitable for 500 years due to ionizing radiation and that if you were not already dead due it, you would soon die having been exposed to the FLASHes. And it seems there were no radiation at all. No a-bombs! Just propaganda. The towns were destroyed like Dresden in Saxony February 1945 by conventional fire bombs killing mostly civilians.
Like the Stalin a-bombs built with uranium produced by Wismut AG of Saxony to help the world proletariate conquer the world. Poor people were forced to work like slaves, while their communist bosses lived in opulence.
Your explanation of every type of radiation is incorrect. Forget nukes for a second, the effects of ionizing radiation are well known, well understood, and very well documented. All types of ionizing radiation are harmful.
Alpha (α+) - two protons, two neutrons. Very heavy compared to neutron, beta, and gamma. Will only travel a few centimeters in air and cannot outer layer of skin. However, it’s positively charge and very massive...in an atomic structure kinda way. Very damaging when taken internally and to the eyes. It has a very dense ionization track. Meaning it causes a lot of damage in its short path through tissue. It causes many secondary ionizations. Through direct collision and electrical interactions (it has a +2 charge) it strips electrons, neutrons, protons, and produces photons (gamma) all of which themselves cause ionization. It does a lot of damage is a very short path through tissue.
Beta (ß-) - Basically an electron. It’ll travel a couple of meters through air and can penetrate thin clothing. Like an α+ it is an issue to the eyes or if taken internally. While it has a less dense ionization track than α+ it travels farther through tissue.
Neutron (η) - It's...well...a neutron. Travels very far and is both an internal and external hazard. Causes secondary ionizations by direct collision...and a lot of them causing secondary ionization over a very long path; which is why it’s so damaging.
Gamma (γ) - Very high energy photon. Travels very, very far with a very dense ionization track and is also an internal and external hazard.
Food is sometimes irradiated to make it safer and last longer. Why? Because it kills off all the micro-organisms.
Your comment on your webpage, “Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.” is so wrong on so many levels. All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and dangerous.
THAT is what’s wrong with your explanation of radiation.
Mike
Hm, I do no deny that radiation exists but why should it be damaging. There is radiation everywhere and, when it is <1 µSv/hour, it is harmless. And this is the radiation at Fukushima today. Don't you agree?
Yes, <1 µSv/hr would be relatively harmless but that’s all I agree with. Your explanation of radiation and it’s health effects on your website are still wrong.
The latest surveys at Fukushima show levels in the plants of over 500 Sv which would kill you in minutes. The annual dose in the evacuation zone is ≈20 mSv/yr which is much higher than the average background levels of 2-3 mSv/yr. 20 mSv/yr is about ≈2.3 µSv/hr. The population in the evacuation zone would be exposed to 2.3 µSv/hr.
I only worked in commercial nuke power for two years but one of the plants I worked at was the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station in NJ. It happens to be the same plant design as Fukushima so I have a basic knowledge of the layout and conditions. The numbers that have been reported recently are on par with what I would expect so I have to wonder where you’re getting your <1 µSv/hr value. A google search will give you dozens of sites reporting the latest levels.
Mike
I agree that 500 Sv will kill you, but that is the radiation of fission inside an active nuclear power plant. Media reports it as news! It is like saying the temperature and pressure is high between the cylinder and piston inside of a diesel engine or that temperature is high inside a boiler.
I get my radiation values at Fukushima from Tepco, the company that owns the plant. I link to them at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Today they are about 1 µSv/hr, which is completely harmless. I doubt they were much higher earlier. It seems media mixed up mikro with milli and hours with years in the past to scare the shit out of the Japanese.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really believe US nuclear weapons exploded there August 1945 releasing radiation in big FLASHes immediately killing 100 000 yellow monkies and another 100 000 yellow monkies later due to delayed radiation action?
Nobody mixed up their micros and millis. Since you don’t seem to want to do the research below is the link to the latest TEPCO dated May of 2017. My numbers come from the links below. To repeat what I posted the latest surveys at Fukushima show annual dose in the evacuation zone is ≈20 mSv which equates to a per hour rate of 2.3 µSv/hr (page 17 of TEPCO’s report linked below). Below is another link reporting the latest levels reported by TEPCO taken by newly designed robots reporting levels as high as 530 Sv/hr. Feel free to dispute my links but the info comes from reports issued by TEPCO and the Japanese gov’t.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/events_and_highlights_may_2017.pdf
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/22/after-alarmingly-high-radiation-levels-detected-what-are-the-facts-in-fukushima/
Interesting how you are avoiding the original discussion about how wrong your explanation of radiation is.
Mike
-
Not to mention your explanation of ionizing radiation is not only 100% wrong it’s actually dangerous. Do you know you can buy radioactive test sources on the internet? Someone reading your page might actually believe radiation can’t hurt them and get very sick...or worse if it’s left around for a small child because someone saw your site and thought it wasn’t a problem. It’s incredibly irresponsible. You have no business posting something like that when you have no idea what you’re talking about.
What is wrong with my explanation of ionizing radiation? Is radiation >1 µSv/hour dangerous.
It seems you are not aware of the fact that >100 000 Japanese persons were forced to move away from Fukushima 2011 because of radiation. Other people were told that radiated people were sick and had to be avoided, bla, bla, bla. And now they are all told to go back to Fukushima again because it is OK and that they should forget the whole matter.
It is like Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945, where people were told the places would be uninhabitable for 500 years due to ionizing radiation and that if you were not already dead due it, you would soon die having been exposed to the FLASHes. And it seems there were no radiation at all. No a-bombs! Just propaganda. The towns were destroyed like Dresden in Saxony February 1945 by conventional fire bombs killing mostly civilians.
Like the Stalin a-bombs built with uranium produced by Wismut AG of Saxony to help the world proletariate conquer the world. Poor people were forced to work like slaves, while their communist bosses lived in opulence.
Your explanation of every type of radiation is incorrect. Forget nukes for a second, the effects of ionizing radiation are well known, well understood, and very well documented. All types of ionizing radiation are harmful.
Alpha (α+) - two protons, two neutrons. Very heavy compared to neutron, beta, and gamma. Will only travel a few centimeters in air and cannot outer layer of skin. However, it’s positively charge and very massive...in an atomic structure kinda way. Very damaging when taken internally and to the eyes. It has a very dense ionization track. Meaning it causes a lot of damage in its short path through tissue. It causes many secondary ionizations. Through direct collision and electrical interactions (it has a +2 charge) it strips electrons, neutrons, protons, and produces photons (gamma) all of which themselves cause ionization. It does a lot of damage is a very short path through tissue.
Beta (ß-) - Basically an electron. It’ll travel a couple of meters through air and can penetrate thin clothing. Like an α+ it is an issue to the eyes or if taken internally. While it has a less dense ionization track than α+ it travels farther through tissue.
Neutron (η) - It's...well...a neutron. Travels very far and is both an internal and external hazard. Causes secondary ionizations by direct collision...and a lot of them causing secondary ionization over a very long path; which is why it’s so damaging.
Gamma (γ) - Very high energy photon. Travels very, very far with a very dense ionization track and is also an internal and external hazard.
Food is sometimes irradiated to make it safer and last longer. Why? Because it kills off all the micro-organisms.
Your comment on your webpage, “Thus it seems most radiation is harmless and that the only risk is from radioactive fuel rests (ash) that is spread in the environment due to accidents, e.g. at nuclear power plants.” is so wrong on so many levels. All forms of ionizing radiation are harmful and dangerous.
THAT is what’s wrong with your explanation of radiation.
Mike
Hm, I do no deny that radiation exists but why should it be damaging. There is radiation everywhere and, when it is <1 µSv/hour, it is harmless. And this is the radiation at Fukushima today. Don't you agree?
Yes, <1 µSv/hr would be relatively harmless but that’s all I agree with. Your explanation of radiation and it’s health effects on your website are still wrong.
The latest surveys at Fukushima show levels in the plants of over 500 Sv which would kill you in minutes. The annual dose in the evacuation zone is ≈20 mSv/yr which is much higher than the average background levels of 2-3 mSv/yr. 20 mSv/yr is about ≈2.3 µSv/hr. The population in the evacuation zone would be exposed to 2.3 µSv/hr.
I only worked in commercial nuke power for two years but one of the plants I worked at was the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station in NJ. It happens to be the same plant design as Fukushima so I have a basic knowledge of the layout and conditions. The numbers that have been reported recently are on par with what I would expect so I have to wonder where you’re getting your <1 µSv/hr value. A google search will give you dozens of sites reporting the latest levels.
Mike
I agree that 500 Sv will kill you, but that is the radiation of fission inside an active nuclear power plant. Media reports it as news! It is like saying the temperature and pressure is high between the cylinder and piston inside of a diesel engine or that temperature is high inside a boiler.
I get my radiation values at Fukushima from Tepco, the company that owns the plant. I link to them at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Today they are about 1 µSv/hr, which is completely harmless. I doubt they were much higher earlier. It seems media mixed up mikro with milli and hours with years in the past to scare the shit out of the Japanese.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really believe US nuclear weapons exploded there August 1945 releasing radiation in big FLASHes immediately killing 100 000 yellow monkies and another 100 000 yellow monkies later due to delayed radiation action?
Nobody mixed up their micros and millis. Since you don’t seem to want to do the research below is the link to the latest TEPCO dated May of 2017. My numbers come from the links below. To repeat what I posted the latest surveys at Fukushima show annual dose in the evacuation zone is ≈20 mSv which equates to a per hour rate of 2.3 µSv/hr (page 17 of TEPCO’s report linked below). Below is another link reporting the latest levels reported by TEPCO taken by newly designed robots reporting levels as high as 530 Sv/hr. Feel free to dispute my links but the info comes from reports issued by TEPCO and the Japanese gov’t.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/events_and_highlights_may_2017.pdf
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/22/after-alarmingly-high-radiation-levels-detected-what-are-the-facts-in-fukushima/
Interesting how you are avoiding the original discussion about how wrong your explanation of radiation is.
Mike
Hm, the local radiation inside a nuclear power plant where fission takes place is normally 530 Sv/hr, but it is nothing to worry about as nobody lives there. I wonder why media makes so much noise about that. The figure outside is much, much less. When the inside radiation is transformed into heat, it has disappeared completely. You sound like an idiot saying that every street is dangerous, because cars are moving there and a person running into it will be killed.
My figures are Tepco's figures and today around the power plant the radiation is about 1 mikroSv/hr, which is completely harmless and easy to measure. I link to them at my web page. Estimates of annual doses are easy to manipulate, so I keep to hourly rates easy to check.
100 000 Japanese are today ordered to return to their homes at Fukushima but plenty of them suffer from stress syndromes of all kind. They have been told that they have been radiated, they can contaminate other people and all will die due to radiation! Terrible stuff.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really believe US nuclear weapons exploded there August 1945 releasing radiation in big FLASHes at the speed of light immediately killing 100 000 yellow monkies and another 100 000 yellow monkies later due to delayed radiation effects? And that the places would be uninhabitable in 500 years.
-
Yes, <1 µSv/hr would be relatively harmless but that’s all I agree with. Your explanation of radiation and it’s health effects on your website are still wrong.
The latest surveys at Fukushima show levels in the plants of over 500 Sv which would kill you in minutes. The annual dose in the evacuation zone is ≈20 mSv/yr which is much higher than the average background levels of 2-3 mSv/yr. 20 mSv/yr is about ≈2.3 µSv/hr. The population in the evacuation zone would be exposed to 2.3 µSv/hr.
I only worked in commercial nuke power for two years but one of the plants I worked at was the Forked River Nuclear Generating Station in NJ. It happens to be the same plant design as Fukushima so I have a basic knowledge of the layout and conditions. The numbers that have been reported recently are on par with what I would expect so I have to wonder where you’re getting your <1 µSv/hr value. A google search will give you dozens of sites reporting the latest levels.
Mike
I agree that 500 Sv will kill you, but that is the radiation of fission inside an active nuclear power plant. Media reports it as news! It is like saying the temperature and pressure is high between the cylinder and piston inside of a diesel engine or that temperature is high inside a boiler.
I get my radiation values at Fukushima from Tepco, the company that owns the plant. I link to them at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Today they are about 1 µSv/hr, which is completely harmless. I doubt they were much higher earlier. It seems media mixed up mikro with milli and hours with years in the past to scare the shit out of the Japanese.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really believe US nuclear weapons exploded there August 1945 releasing radiation in big FLASHes immediately killing 100 000 yellow monkies and another 100 000 yellow monkies later due to delayed radiation action?
Nobody mixed up their micros and millis. Since you don’t seem to want to do the research below is the link to the latest TEPCO dated May of 2017. My numbers come from the links below. To repeat what I posted the latest surveys at Fukushima show annual dose in the evacuation zone is ≈20 mSv which equates to a per hour rate of 2.3 µSv/hr (page 17 of TEPCO’s report linked below). Below is another link reporting the latest levels reported by TEPCO taken by newly designed robots reporting levels as high as 530 Sv/hr. Feel free to dispute my links but the info comes from reports issued by TEPCO and the Japanese gov’t.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/events_and_highlights_may_2017.pdf
http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2017/02/22/after-alarmingly-high-radiation-levels-detected-what-are-the-facts-in-fukushima/
Interesting how you are avoiding the original discussion about how wrong your explanation of radiation is.
Mike
Hm, the local radiation inside a nuclear power plant where fission takes place is normally 530 Sv/hr but it is nothing to worry about as nobody lives there. I wonder why media makes so much noise about that. The figure outside is much, much less.
My figures are Tepco's figures and today around the power plant the radiation is about 1 mikroSv/hr, which is completely harmless and easy to measure. I link to them at my web page. Estimates of annual doses are easy to manipulate, so I keep to hourly rates easy to check.
100 000 Japanese are today ordered to return to their homes at Fukushima but plenty of them suffer from stress syndromes of all kind. They have been told that they have been radiated, they can contaminate other people and all will die due to radiation! Terrible stuff.
What about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Do you really believe US nuclear weapons exploded there August 1945 releasing radiation in big FLASHes at the speed of light immediately killing 100 000 yellow monkies and another 100 000 yellow monkies later due to delayed radiation effects? And that the places would be uninhabitable in 500 years.
I don’t just believe we dropped an atomic bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I know it to be true. Just as I know nuclear weapons are real and work as advertised.
The reason the 530 Sv/hr readings are significant is because TEPCO wasn’t expecting anything that high. They designed the robots for 100 Sv/hr and they have had equipment destroyed because it’s so high. BTW, during reactor operation the levels in the reactor vessel would be orders of magnitude higher than that. Just sayin’.
I hope that’s not your description of the Japanese in the last paragraph of your post because that would be just plain wrong.
Again 1 µSv/hr is low and relatively harmless but NOT completely harmless. You’re trying to misrepresent the effects of radiation...something you brought up, I responded to, any you are now ignoring. Trying to hide from subject are we?
BTW, the only part of a nuclear explosion that travels at the speed of light is...wait for it...the LIGHT (including gamma, infrared, and everything else in the electromagnetic spectrum)! :D
The rest of the ensuing fire ball and mushroom cloud expand at high but easily measure velocities. Your characterization of the explosion expanding at the speed of light is just plain wrong and completely misleading to suit your agenda.
Mike
-
The claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were carpet bombed with napalm is a lie.
Doesn't matter how many times you repeat it, it's still a lie.
-
Yellow monkeys?
Seriously?
What kind of racist shit is this?
-
Yellow monkeys?
Seriously?
What kind of racist shit is this?
That is typical Heiwa who by his own word is a "nice guy".
::)
-
I don’t just believe we dropped an atomic bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I know it to be true. Just as I know nuclear weapons are real and work as advertised.
Mike
You sound like Jesus.
You were there when US vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki in FLASHES? And you know how the bombs worked at the speed of light.
How do you trigger them so they go off and produce FLASHES?
-
I don’t just believe we dropped an atomic bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I know it to be true. Just as I know nuclear weapons are real and work as advertised.
Mike
You sound like Jesus.
You were there when US vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki in FLASHES? And you know how the bombs worked at the speed of light.
How do you trigger them so they go off and produce FLASHES?
You sound like Jesus10!
-
How do you trigger them so they go off and produce FLASHES?
That is the TOP SECRET part.
-
I don’t just believe we dropped an atomic bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I know it to be true. Just as I know nuclear weapons are real and work as advertised.
Mike
You sound like Jesus.
You were there when US vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki in FLASHES? And you know how the bombs worked at the speed of light.
How do you trigger them so they go off and produce FLASHES?
Of course I wasn’t there so there’s no need to be snarky about...poor attempt at misdirection. You apparently want to ignore the rest of my post where I explained how it works. I know that the electromagnetic radiation radiates out at the speed of light because I know basic physics. I know because I know how a nuclear weapon works. Depending on far away you are, you will see the flash of light and feel the heat and even burst into flames long before you hear the explosion and feel the shockwave. The flash of light has zero to do with the fireball and mushroom cloud. Which brings to something I was hoping wasn’t true. When I read your site I was kinda hoping I misunderstood. I thought to myself “he can’t really mean that”.
Tell me that you don’t actually believe the fireball starts out at the speed of light then somehow magically slows down to terrestrial speeds. Please tell me that’s not part of your argument against the reality of nuclear weapons.
Mike
-
I don’t just believe we dropped an atomic bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I know it to be true. Just as I know nuclear weapons are real and work as advertised.
Mike
You sound like Jesus.
You were there when US vaporized Hiroshima and Nagasaki in FLASHES? And you know how the bombs worked at the speed of light.
How do you trigger them so they go off and produce FLASHES?
Of course I wasn’t there so there’s no need to be snarky about...poor attempt at misdirection. You apparently want to ignore the rest of my post where I explained how it works. I know that the electromagnetic radiation radiates out at the speed of light because I know basic physics. I know because I know how a nuclear weapon works. Depending on far away you are, you will see the flash of light and feel the heat and even burst into flames long before you hear the explosion and feel the shockwave. The flash of light has zero to do with the fireball and mushroom cloud. Which brings to something I was hoping wasn’t true. When I read your site I was kinda hoping I misunderstood. I thought to myself “he can’t really mean that”.
Tell me that you don’t actually believe the fireball starts out at the speed of light then somehow magically slows down to terrestrial speeds. Please tell me that’s not part of your argument against the reality of nuclear weapons.
Mike
Good, you admit you have not been to Hiroshima/Nagasaki to witness the a-bomb FLASHES. So you just believe what others tell you.
You should really study my web and not make up stories.
My main reason why nuclear weapons do not work is that there is only one type of fission - the slow, moderated one.
The fast, military, Stalin-type, FLASH fission is just an invention - propaganda. It seems you also believe that Stalin managed to build (copy!) an a-bomb using uranium from Wismut AG, Annaberg/Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, Russian Ocupation Zone, 1945/9. It was much cheaper and easier just to invent the whole thing. Truman and Stalin (Beria) were working hand in hand to fool you.
-
Good, you admit you have not been to Hiroshima/Nagasaki to witness the a-bomb FLASHES. So you just believe what others tell you.
Not so. I don't think that be believes a word that you tell him.
-
Good, you admit you have not been to Hiroshima/Nagasaki to witness the a-bomb FLASHES. So you just believe what others tell you.
Not so. I don't think that be believes a word that you tell him.
So you also believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by a-bombs August 1945? Anyway, >60 other Japanese towns were napalm carpet bombed spring/summer 1945 killing plenty civilians and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were saved for the big a-show! Why not? And Stalin was a great man building his a-bomb 1945/9 with uranium from Wismut AG, Soviet Occupation Zone, Germany? Lächerlich! I really feel sorry for you.
-
Good, you admit you have not been to Hiroshima/Nagasaki to witness the a-bomb FLASHES. So you just believe what others tell you.
Wow. I’ve read your bomb web page from top to bottom a there is ZERO proof there to support your claims. Only your opinion based completely illogical assumptions. None of it holds water. I, unlike you, do not stuff make up to support some made up idea. Nor do I “just believe what others tell you.” I know based in part on firsthand experience. Look up what kind of submarine the USS Andrew Jackson (SSBN-619) was.
You should really study my web and not make up stories.
My main reason why nuclear weapons do not work is that there is only one type of fission - the slow, moderated one.
This is a lie but you keep ignoring the truth because it shoots a huge hole in your story. I’LL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN. YOU ARE WRONG! THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF FISSION THAT DON’T RELY ON A THERMALLY MODERATED REACTION!
I’ve read your web page and I love how you’ve left out all the information that contradicts your claims. First of all, thermally moderated fission is NOT the only kind of fission. There is fission by natural decay. There is fast fission. There is a class of reactor called the liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR). As the name implies they’re used as breeder reactors. Where do you think all the plutonium comes from. Also as the says it works on fast, unmoderated neutrons. Yes ladies and gentleman, LMFBR is a reactor that uses fast neutrons to sustain the chain reaction so this is proof that YOU ARE WRONG. There are currently six operating fast reactors, one under construction and another half dozen or so in the design phase. Of course, you’ll make up some unsupportable story about some impossible conspiracy theory or some such crap...and that’s all it will be CRAP.
This is something I’ve brought up before and you ignored. So, is it that you don’t do research and just make shit up or are you afraid to include other forms of fission because it contradicts your "main reason why nuclear weapons do not work"? Why won't you tell the truth?
The fast, military, Stalin-type, FLASH fission is just an invention - propaganda. It seems you also believe that Stalin managed to build (copy!) an a-bomb using uranium from Wismut AG, Annaberg/Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, Russian Ocupation Zone, 1945/9. It was much cheaper and easier just to invent the whole thing. Truman and Stalin (Beria) were working hand in hand to fool you.
This conspiracy theory crap is just crazy and completely unsupportable. How much crap are you willing to make up and what's your real agenda?
-
Good, you admit you have not been to Hiroshima/Nagasaki to witness the a-bomb FLASHES. So you just believe what others tell you.
Wow. I’ve read your bomb web page from top to bottom a there is ZERO proof there to support your claims. Only your opinion based completely illogical assumptions. None of it holds water. I, unlike you, do not stuff make up to support some made up idea. Nor do I “just believe what others tell you.” I know based in part on firsthand experience. Look up what kind of submarine the USS Andrew Jackson (SSBN-619) was.
You should really study my web and not make up stories.
My main reason why nuclear weapons do not work is that there is only one type of fission - the slow, moderated one.
This is a lie but you keep ignoring the truth because it shoots a huge hole in your story. I’LL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN. YOU ARE WRONG! THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF FISSION THAT DON’T RELY ON A THERMALLY MODERATED REACTION!
I’ve read your web page and I love how you’ve left out all the information that contradicts your claims. First of all, thermally moderated fission is NOT the only kind of fission. There is fission by natural decay. There is fast fission. There is a class of reactor called the liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR). As the name implies they’re used as breeder reactors. Where do you think all the plutonium comes from. Also as the says it works on fast, unmoderated neutrons. Yes ladies and gentleman, LMFBR is a reactor that uses fast neutrons to sustain the chain reaction so this is proof that YOU ARE WRONG. There are currently six operating fast reactors, one under construction and another half dozen or so in the design phase. Of course, you’ll make up some unsupportable story about some impossible conspiracy theory or some such crap...and that’s all it will be CRAP.
This is something I’ve brought up before and you ignored. So, is it that you don’t do research and just make shit up or are you afraid to include other forms of fission because it contradicts your "main reason why nuclear weapons do not work"? Why won't you tell the truth?
The fast, military, Stalin-type, FLASH fission is just an invention - propaganda. It seems you also believe that Stalin managed to build (copy!) an a-bomb using uranium from Wismut AG, Annaberg/Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, Russian Ocupation Zone, 1945/9. It was much cheaper and easier just to invent the whole thing. Truman and Stalin (Beria) were working hand in hand to fool you.
This conspiracy theory crap is just crazy and completely unsupportable. How much crap are you willing to make up and what's your real agenda?
Thanks for studying my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Have you ever visited Annaberg? Nice little Saxon town with an opera house, etc. That's where Wismut AG was legally formed 1945 to help Stalin build his a-bomb in record time. Wismut AG was supposed to mine uranium so that Stalin could copy/paste USA and create an a-bomb.
Of course there was no uranium at Annaberg, its surroundings and Saxony but the show worked perfectly anyway, so that Stalin 1949 could explode his a-bomb. Stalin didn't need any uranium. He just copied Roosevelt & Co. Stalin faked everything. I explain it at my website. No uranium, no miltary fission, no a-bomb. Just propaganda!
You really should study it.
And, pls do not suggest there are many forms of fission, incl. the top secret military, Stalin one transforming 60 kg of metal into 20 000 000 kg TNT equivalent energy in an explosion lasting nanoseconds vaporizing the onlookers. Only idiots believe such nonsense.
OK, I believed it until I met WM who had worked for Wismut AG until 1958, when he was arrested, tortured and expelled from East Germany having played a little part of the Stalin/Wismut AG show.
If you still think I am wrong, just visit http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm where you can collect €1M, if you show I am wrong. I look forward to your attempt.
-
Good, you admit you have not been to Hiroshima/Nagasaki to witness the a-bomb FLASHES. So you just believe what others tell you.
Wow. I’ve read your bomb web page from top to bottom a there is ZERO proof there to support your claims. Only your opinion based completely illogical assumptions. None of it holds water. I, unlike you, do not stuff make up to support some made up idea. Nor do I “just believe what others tell you.” I know based in part on firsthand experience. Look up what kind of submarine the USS Andrew Jackson (SSBN-619) was.
You should really study my web and not make up stories.
My main reason why nuclear weapons do not work is that there is only one type of fission - the slow, moderated one.
This is a lie but you keep ignoring the truth because it shoots a huge hole in your story. I’LL SAY IT ONCE AGAIN. YOU ARE WRONG! THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF FISSION THAT DON’T RELY ON A THERMALLY MODERATED REACTION!
I’ve read your web page and I love how you’ve left out all the information that contradicts your claims. First of all, thermally moderated fission is NOT the only kind of fission. There is fission by natural decay. There is fast fission. There is a class of reactor called the liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR). As the name implies they’re used as breeder reactors. Where do you think all the plutonium comes from. Also as the says it works on fast, unmoderated neutrons. Yes ladies and gentleman, LMFBR is a reactor that uses fast neutrons to sustain the chain reaction so this is proof that YOU ARE WRONG. There are currently six operating fast reactors, one under construction and another half dozen or so in the design phase. Of course, you’ll make up some unsupportable story about some impossible conspiracy theory or some such crap...and that’s all it will be CRAP.
This is something I’ve brought up before and you ignored. So, is it that you don’t do research and just make shit up or are you afraid to include other forms of fission because it contradicts your "main reason why nuclear weapons do not work"? Why won't you tell the truth?
The fast, military, Stalin-type, FLASH fission is just an invention - propaganda. It seems you also believe that Stalin managed to build (copy!) an a-bomb using uranium from Wismut AG, Annaberg/Karl Marxstadt, Saxony, Russian Ocupation Zone, 1945/9. It was much cheaper and easier just to invent the whole thing. Truman and Stalin (Beria) were working hand in hand to fool you.
This conspiracy theory crap is just crazy and completely unsupportable. How much crap are you willing to make up and what's your real agenda?
Thanks for studying my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Have you ever visited Annaberg? Nice little Saxon town with an opera house, etc. That's where Wismut AG was legally formed 1945 to help Stalin build his a-bomb in record time. Wismut AG was supposed to mine uranium so that Stalin could copy/paste USA and create an a-bomb.
Of course there was no uranium at Annaberg, its surroundings and Saxony but the show worked perfectly anyway, so that Stalin 1949 could explode his a-bomb. Stalin didn't need any uranium. He just copied Roosevelt & Co. Stalin faked everything. I explain it at my website. No uranium, no miltary fission, no a-bomb. Just propaganda!
You really should study it.
And, pls do not suggest there are many forms of fission, incl. the top secret military, Stalin one transforming 60 kg of metal into 20 000 000 kg TNT equivalent energy in an explosion lasting nanoseconds vaporizing the onlookers. Only idiots believe such nonsense.
OK, I believed it until I met WM who had worked for Wismut AG until 1958, when he was arrested, tortured and expelled from East Germany having played a little part of the Stalin/Wismut AG show.
If you still think I am wrong, just visit http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm where you can collect €1M, if you show I am wrong. I look forward to your attempt.
I’m not suggesting anything. I’m flat out saying there are other types of fission. I’m flat out saying you are wrong. There’s fission by natural decay and fast fission as I’ve already explained.
And there you go calling me an idiot again.
Ok, let’s take another tack. One thing you’ve never proved is your claim about fission. Your website doesn’t address this. Why not? What is the basis for this claim?
Why doesn’t fission by natural decay exist? Have you ever seen a chart of the nuclides?
Why doesn’t fast fission exist?
Or, don’t you have an answer for this.
And don’t tell me to “study it” again because I already have. I researched many of your conspiracy claims and everything is baseless. You just blindly believe them without a shred of evidence.
Either answer my questions about fission or admit you’re wrong. I’ll bet you won’t do either and will just repeat the same baseless crap over and over again. I know you will not even try to disprove fast fission reactors because you don’t have the balls to admit you are wrong.
Mike
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
Well, we are told today that the 2nd a-bomb in history went off at 600 m altitude over Hiroshima, Japan, 6 August 1945 and in a nano-second the equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded in a big FLASH in all directions. In reality it was only 60 kg metal Uranium that fissioned according to the military. It meant it becomes pure, clean energy or heat as radiation.
IMHO it sounds like magic.
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
You sound like a stupid shill just copy/pasting old propaganda rubbish.
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
Yes, plenty twirps tell me I am stupid but my web site http://heiwaco.com is still very popular with 100's of new visitors every day. They cannot be stupid.
Very likely few, or any of them are as stupid as you are. For example, most of them would know that owning a website which receives a hundred clicks a day, is not an indication that the website owner isn't stupid.
Hundreds of clicks a day is peanuts. I'm a moderator for another forum site and we get tens of thousands of page views a day and even that is not much compared to other sites metrics. Not to mention most probably come from people here. :D
Mike
-
Why doesn’t fast fission exist?
Beacuse you cannot start it.
-
Why doesn’t fast fission exist?
Beacuse you cannot start it.
You've already said that. Why can't you start it?
What about natural decay?
Mike
-
Mushroom clouds consist mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam, and some smoke. What is Heiwa's issue with that?
Well, we are told today that the 2nd a-bomb in history went off at 600 m altitude over Hiroshima, Japan, 6 August 1945 and in a nano-second the equivalent of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploded in a big FLASH in all directions. In reality it was only 60 kg metal Uranium that fissioned according to the military. It meant it becomes pure, clean energy or heat as radiation.
IMHO it sounds like magic.
Why such an enormous, sudden explosion would produce a little mushroom cloud mainly of debris, condensed water vapor, steam and some smoke is beyond my understanding.
You sound like a stupid shill just copy/pasting old propaganda rubbish.
I think this may be your most honest post. It is beyond your understanding. The problem is you don't realize how stupid you are so you think if you can't understand it it must be false.
Yes, plenty twirps tell me I am stupid but my web site http://heiwaco.com is still very popular with 100's of new visitors every day. They cannot be stupid.
Very likely few, or any of them are as stupid as you are. For example, most of them would know that owning a website which receives a hundred clicks a day, is not an indication that the website owner isn't stupid.
Hundreds of clicks a day is peanuts. I'm a moderator for another forum site and we get tens of thousands of page views a day and even that is not much compared to other sites metrics. Not to mention most probably come from people here. :D
Mike
I'm sure deep down he knows most come from here with a large portion coming from search bots. That's why he keeps posting the link. Every time the link is posted then more search bots visit the page. He won't admit it though.
-
Why doesn’t fast fission exist?
Beacuse you cannot start it.
You've already said that. Why can't you start it?
What about natural decay?
Mike
Let me save you the trouble of replying to my previous post.
The truth is even a thermally moderated reactor can go critical with fast neutrons. It’s called prompt criticality.
The first link below is the story of the SL-1 test reactor. While doing maintenance, a control rod was inadvertently pulled too quickly causing the reactor to go prompt critical. The massive power excursion caused damage to the reactor and killed two people. And I hope you’re not going to imply that government killed these two men and put their families through hell to perpetuate your propaganda conspiracy theory?
The second link describes and provides the equation for the growth rate reaction. It’s just to illustrate the point that fast criticality exists. I can provide the analytical proof beyond that wiki page. The SL-1 accident it one the main reasons thermally moderated reactors have safeguards to prevent prompt criticality.
I’ve provided you with proof of fission due to fast neutrons. I can provide much more with the explanations and calculations if you want more information.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
This is concrete proof that your claim that “there is only one type of fission - the slow, moderated one” is false. I’ve provided with proof there are at least two other ways for fission to occur. Therefore, your “main reason why nuclear weapons do not work” is invalid.
When will I receive the 1M €?
Mike
-
Good, you admit you have not been to Hiroshima/Nagasaki to witness the a-bomb FLASHES. So you just believe what others tell you.
Not so. I don't think that be believes a word that you tell him.
So you also believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by a-bombs August 1945?
Yes, because there is plenty of evidence to support that belief.
Anyway, >60 other Japanese towns were napalm carpet bombed spring/summer 1945 killing plenty civilians and Hiroshima/Nagasaki were saved for the big a-show!
Carpet bombing involves hundreds of bombers while the atomic bomb drops only involved about a half dozen planes. I would think that it would be pretty easy for witnesses to tell the difference.
-
When will I receive the 1M €?
When you build a small atomic bomb and explode it on his front lawn. And even then he probably still won't believe you.
-
You can't believe someone if you're dead.
-
When will I receive the 1M €?
When you build a small atomic bomb and explode it on his front lawn. And even then he probably still won't believe you.
I know. He is incapable of being objective.
-
Why doesn’t fast fission exist?
Beacuse you cannot start it.
You've already said that. Why can't you start it?
What about natural decay?
Mike
Fission - certain atoms splitting relasing radiation/energy - is a fairly well understood natural phenomenom, even if Niels Bohr had great difficlties to explain it late 1930's. Niels had won the Nobel prize physics almost twenty years earlier with his research about atoms. 1942 USA and president FDR appparently needed Niels' assistance to build the first a-bombs. Niels was then at home in Nazi-occupied Denmark, but it was fairly easy to simple to sneak away to Sweden across the Sound, which Niels did 1942. He then stayed at my grandparent's house there awating a flight across the Atlantic to learn skiing at Los Alamos, NM, USA, and to build a-bombs. My grandfather was a good friend of Niels since the 1910's. It seems my grandfather helped Niels with the mathematics and statistics back then. Niels slept in my mother's bed 1942, as she was away somewhere else (actually with my father), and one day Niels was gone. When Niels returned from USA 1945, he was not really popular having killed 100 000's of Japanese with his bomb. Niels could also not really explain how the speed-of-light fast military fission of an a-bomb worked and how it got triggered/started (and why he had lent himself to this stupid job).
Niels explained that it was very easy to start a military, speed-of-light, FLASH, fission. You just split the uranium in two subcritical parts and ... by suddenly compressing the two parts together with a free neutron in between ... the uranium atoms split and became a FLASH killing innocent people.
We all had a good laugh at that and considered Niels gaga ... and soon after he died.
My grandfather had another friend, Manne Siegbahn, who had also won the Nobel prize physics in the 1920's, and lived in the neighbourhood. They both studied together at Lund as young men. Bohr studied at Copenhagen but it was not far away. Manne was 1945 asked by the Swedish government to build a Swedish a-bomb and Manne agreed subject to all data being peer reviewed and published and explained publicly ... how it didn't work. Manne thought physics and physical research should be available to the common man. The Swedish government disagreed and Manne never built a Swedish a-bomb. When I later around 1961/4 got to know Manne better, I asked him about a career in physics. Manne suggested I better study mechanical sciences. I explain more at my web site. Only idiots with IQ >150 go into nuclear weapons design and rocket design and human space exploration and other nonsense.They are easy to manipulate.
Anyway, nuclear weapons do not work as you cannot trigger them. If you try, they blow up in your face.
-
Why doesn’t fast fission exist?
Beacuse you cannot start it.
You've already said that. Why can't you start it?
What about natural decay?
Mike
Fission - certain atoms splitting relasing radiation/energy - is a fairly well understood natural phenomenom, even if Niels Bohr had great difficlties to explain it late 1930's. Niels had won the Nobel prize physics almost twenty years earlier with his research about atoms. 1942 USA and president FDR appparently needed Niels' assistance to build the first a-bombs. Niels was then at home in Nazi-occupied Denmark, but it was fairly easy to simple to sneak away to Sweden across the Sound, which Niels did 1942. He then stayed at my grandparent's house there awating a flight across the Atlantic to learn skiing at Los Alamos, NM, USA, and to build a-bombs. My grandfather was a good friend of Niels since the 1910's. It seems my grandfather helped Niels with the mathematics and statistics back then. Niels slept in my mother's bed 1942, as she was away somewhere else (actually with my father), and one day Niels was gone. When Niels returned from USA 1945, he was not really popular having killed 100 000's of Japanese with his bomb. Niels could also not really explain how the speed-of-light fast military fission of an a-bomb worked and how it got triggered/started (and why he had lent himself to this stupid job).
Niels explained that it was very easy to start a military, speed-of-light, FLASH, fission. You just split the uranium in two subcritical parts and ... by suddenly compressing the two parts together with a free neutron in between ... the uranium atoms split and became a FLASH killing innocent people.
We all had a good laugh at that and considered Niels gaga ... and soon after he died.
My grandfather had another friend, Manne Siegbahn, who had also won the Nobel prize physics in the 1920's, and lived in the neighbourhood. They both studied together at Lund as young men. Bohr studied at Copenhagen but it was not far away. Manne was 1945 asked by the Swedish government to build a Swedish a-bomb and Manne agreed subject to all data being peer reviewed and published and explained publicly ... how it didn't work. Manne thought physics and physical research should be available to the common man. The Swedish government disagreed and Manne never built a Swedish a-bomb. When I later around 1961/4 got to know Manne better, I asked him about a career in physics. Manne suggested I better study mechanical sciences. I explain more at my web site. Only idiots with IQ >150 go into nuclear weapons design and rocket design and human space exploration and other nonsense.They are easy to manipulate.
Anyway, nuclear weapons do not work as you cannot trigger them. If you try, they blow up in your face.
So you're going to completely ignore my follow on post where I PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU ARE WRONG?
Mike
-
Nuclear weapons do not work because if you try and explode them they explode.
Right.
Idiot.
-
Why doesn’t fast fission exist?
Beacuse you cannot start it.
You've already said that. Why can't you start it?
What about natural decay?
Mike
Fission - certain atoms splitting relasing radiation/energy - is a fairly well understood natural phenomenom, even if Niels Bohr had great difficlties to explain it late 1930's. Niels had won the Nobel prize physics almost twenty years earlier with his research about atoms. 1942 USA and president FDR appparently needed Niels' assistance to build the first a-bombs. Niels was then at home in Nazi-occupied Denmark, but it was fairly easy to simple to sneak away to Sweden across the Sound, which Niels did 1942. He then stayed at my grandparent's house there awating a flight across the Atlantic to learn skiing at Los Alamos, NM, USA, and to build a-bombs. My grandfather was a good friend of Niels since the 1910's. It seems my grandfather helped Niels with the mathematics and statistics back then. Niels slept in my mother's bed 1942, as she was away somewhere else (actually with my father), and one day Niels was gone. When Niels returned from USA 1945, he was not really popular having killed 100 000's of Japanese with his bomb. Niels could also not really explain how the speed-of-light fast military fission of an a-bomb worked and how it got triggered/started (and why he had lent himself to this stupid job).
Niels explained that it was very easy to start a military, speed-of-light, FLASH, fission. You just split the uranium in two subcritical parts and ... by suddenly compressing the two parts together with a free neutron in between ... the uranium atoms split and became a FLASH killing innocent people.
We all had a good laugh at that and considered Niels gaga ... and soon after he died.
My grandfather had another friend, Manne Siegbahn, who had also won the Nobel prize physics in the 1920's, and lived in the neighbourhood. They both studied together at Lund as young men. Bohr studied at Copenhagen but it was not far away. Manne was 1945 asked by the Swedish government to build a Swedish a-bomb and Manne agreed subject to all data being peer reviewed and published and explained publicly ... how it didn't work. Manne thought physics and physical research should be available to the common man. The Swedish government disagreed and Manne never built a Swedish a-bomb. When I later around 1961/4 got to know Manne better, I asked him about a career in physics. Manne suggested I better study mechanical sciences. I explain more at my web site. Only idiots with IQ >150 go into nuclear weapons design and rocket design and human space exploration and other nonsense.They are easy to manipulate.
Anyway, nuclear weapons do not work as you cannot trigger them. If you try, they blow up in your face.
So you're going to completely ignore my follow on post where I PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU ARE WRONG?
Mike
Yes. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense.
-
So you're going to completely ignore my follow on post where I PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU ARE WRONG?
Mike
Yes. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense.
Those links and the couple of dozen others I could provide are concrete proof, not propaganda. In order to show they’re fake you must show why the equations are wrong. You have to show that the accident never happened and those men never died. You CANNOT just say they prove nothing because that statement itself proves nothing or don’t you understand that?
I provided proof to you and you can’t even be bothered attempt to show what is wrong with the information provided. The truth is if you actually believed what you are saying you would show how my proof is wrong. Instead you avoid having to talk about it. Have some backbone and actually dispute the following.
The first link below is the story of the SL-1 test reactor. While doing maintenance, a control rod was inadvertently pulled too quickly causing the reactor to go prompt critical. The massive power excursion caused damage to the reactor and killed two people. And I hope you’re not going to imply that government killed these two men and put their families through hell to perpetuate your propaganda conspiracy theory?
The second link describes and provides the equation for the growth rate reaction. It’s just to illustrate the point that fast criticality exists. I can provide the analytical proof beyond that wiki page. The SL-1 accident it one the main reasons thermally moderated reactors have safeguards to prevent prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
If you’re right it should be easy to disprove this information. If you just blow it off again then I have no choice but to assume you just some hack troll who really doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
Mike
-
So you're going to completely ignore my follow on post where I PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU ARE WRONG?
Mike
Yes. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense.
Those links and the couple of dozen others I could provide are concrete proof, not propaganda. In order to show they’re fake you must show why the equations are wrong. You have to show that the accident never happened and those men never died. You CANNOT just say they prove nothing because that statement itself proves nothing or don’t you understand that?
I provided proof to you and you can’t even be bothered attempt to show what is wrong with the information provided. The truth is if you actually believed what you are saying you would show how my proof is wrong. Instead you avoid having to talk about it. Have some backbone and actually dispute the following.
The first link below is the story of the SL-1 test reactor. While doing maintenance, a control rod was inadvertently pulled too quickly causing the reactor to go prompt critical. The massive power excursion caused damage to the reactor and killed two people. And I hope you’re not going to imply that government killed these two men and put their families through hell to perpetuate your propaganda conspiracy theory?
The second link describes and provides the equation for the growth rate reaction. It’s just to illustrate the point that fast criticality exists. I can provide the analytical proof beyond that wiki page. The SL-1 accident it one the main reasons thermally moderated reactors have safeguards to prevent prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
If you’re right it should be easy to disprove this information. If you just blow it off again then I have no choice but to assume you just some hack troll who really doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
Mike
Thanks. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense. My web site is >20 years old and here you come and suggest I am a hack troll. Sorry, why don't you just piss off and disappear?
-
Speaking of pissing, do you still piss your pants when I mention Rocky Flats?
-
So you're going to completely ignore my follow on post where I PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU ARE WRONG?
Mike
Yes. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense.
Those links and the couple of dozen others I could provide are concrete proof, not propaganda. In order to show they’re fake you must show why the equations are wrong. You have to show that the accident never happened and those men never died. You CANNOT just say they prove nothing because that statement itself proves nothing or don’t you understand that?
I provided proof to you and you can’t even be bothered attempt to show what is wrong with the information provided. The truth is if you actually believed what you are saying you would show how my proof is wrong. Instead you avoid having to talk about it. Have some backbone and actually dispute the following.
The first link below is the story of the SL-1 test reactor. While doing maintenance, a control rod was inadvertently pulled too quickly causing the reactor to go prompt critical. The massive power excursion caused damage to the reactor and killed two people. And I hope you’re not going to imply that government killed these two men and put their families through hell to perpetuate your propaganda conspiracy theory?
The second link describes and provides the equation for the growth rate reaction. It’s just to illustrate the point that fast criticality exists. I can provide the analytical proof beyond that wiki page. The SL-1 accident it one the main reasons thermally moderated reactors have safeguards to prevent prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
If you’re right it should be easy to disprove this information. If you just blow it off again then I have no choice but to assume you just some hack troll who really doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
Mike
Thanks. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense. My web site is >20 years old and here you come and suggest I am a hack troll. Sorry, why don't you just piss off and disappear?
Really? You've got nothing whatsoever to refute this guy? You're looking pretty foolish right about now!
-
Speaking of pissing, do you still piss your pants when I mention Rocky Flats?
I don't know who you are and why I should piss your pants when you mention something? Are you paid by FE Forum to ask stupid questions?
-
So you're going to completely ignore my follow on post where I PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU ARE WRONG?
Mike
Yes. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense.
Those links and the couple of dozen others I could provide are concrete proof, not propaganda. In order to show they’re fake you must show why the equations are wrong. You have to show that the accident never happened and those men never died. You CANNOT just say they prove nothing because that statement itself proves nothing or don’t you understand that?
I provided proof to you and you can’t even be bothered attempt to show what is wrong with the information provided. The truth is if you actually believed what you are saying you would show how my proof is wrong. Instead you avoid having to talk about it. Have some backbone and actually dispute the following.
The first link below is the story of the SL-1 test reactor. While doing maintenance, a control rod was inadvertently pulled too quickly causing the reactor to go prompt critical. The massive power excursion caused damage to the reactor and killed two people. And I hope you’re not going to imply that government killed these two men and put their families through hell to perpetuate your propaganda conspiracy theory?
The second link describes and provides the equation for the growth rate reaction. It’s just to illustrate the point that fast criticality exists. I can provide the analytical proof beyond that wiki page. The SL-1 accident it one the main reasons thermally moderated reactors have safeguards to prevent prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
If you’re right it should be easy to disprove this information. If you just blow it off again then I have no choice but to assume you just some hack troll who really doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
Mike
Thanks. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense. My web site is >20 years old and here you come and suggest I am a hack troll. Sorry, why don't you just piss off and disappear?
I knew you wouldn't be able to stand up to the scrutiny. You had the opportunity to prove you are right and you blew it. By not refuting my proof that refutes your claims makes you look like a conspiracy theorist who can even support his own claims.
-
So you're going to completely ignore my follow on post where I PROVE BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT YOU ARE WRONG?
Mike
Yes. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense.
Those links and the couple of dozen others I could provide are concrete proof, not propaganda. In order to show they’re fake you must show why the equations are wrong. You have to show that the accident never happened and those men never died. You CANNOT just say they prove nothing because that statement itself proves nothing or don’t you understand that?
I provided proof to you and you can’t even be bothered attempt to show what is wrong with the information provided. The truth is if you actually believed what you are saying you would show how my proof is wrong. Instead you avoid having to talk about it. Have some backbone and actually dispute the following.
The first link below is the story of the SL-1 test reactor. While doing maintenance, a control rod was inadvertently pulled too quickly causing the reactor to go prompt critical. The massive power excursion caused damage to the reactor and killed two people. And I hope you’re not going to imply that government killed these two men and put their families through hell to perpetuate your propaganda conspiracy theory?
The second link describes and provides the equation for the growth rate reaction. It’s just to illustrate the point that fast criticality exists. I can provide the analytical proof beyond that wiki page. The SL-1 accident it one the main reasons thermally moderated reactors have safeguards to prevent prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
If you’re right it should be easy to disprove this information. If you just blow it off again then I have no choice but to assume you just some hack troll who really doesn’t believe what he’s saying.
Mike
Thanks. You arguments are not very good and prove nothing. You just repeat propaganda nonsense. My web site is >20 years old and here you come and suggest I am a hack troll. Sorry, why don't you just piss off and disappear?
You literally offered nothing to support your position. You have to see that right? You have, again completely failed.
-
Is everyone just going to ignore Heiwa just said Niels Bohr fucked his grandma?
-
One last try.
In thermally moderated reactor design one of the equations in reactor theory is the six factor formula (AKA the effective multiplication factor - keff). The keff formula is about as basic as it gets in nuclear physics and it determines the total probabilistic ratio between neutron production and neutron loss in a finite reactor geometry. keff is used in determining the amount of mass you’ll need for a given geometry. This equation is easily verified so there’s no need to take my word for it.
Now for the proof that fast fission exists. One of the equations that make up keff is the fast fission factor. The fast fission factor is the ratio of fast plus thermal fission rates to the thermal fission rate. The fast fission rate though very small has to be taken into account to ensure the total neutron production can sustain the thermalized chain reaction.
Fast fission is a consideration in every design of thermally moderated reactors. This is also a proof that fast fission exists. In order for your premise that nuclear weapons can’t work you must address and disprove my evidence.
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/nuclear-fission-chain-reaction/six-factor-formula-effective-multiplication-factor/
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/nuclear-fission-chain-reaction/fast-fission-factor/
This is not propaganda. This is actual reactor theory that you can verify in any college text book. You will find it on the NRC website and the Office of Scientific and Technical Information website. You can't call it fake or propaganda. And, it proves your nuclear bombs are fake premise is incorrect.
Refute it if you can.
Mike
-
I think Heiwa would have trouble even grasping anything out of a primary school book let alone a college one.
-
I think Heiwa would have trouble even grasping anything out of a primary school book let alone a college one.
Doesn't his website say he has a masters in engineering? ???
-
One last try.
In thermally moderated reactor design one of the equations in reactor theory is the six factor formula (AKA the effective multiplication factor - keff). The keff formula is about as basic as it gets in nuclear physics and it determines the total probabilistic ratio between neutron production and neutron loss in a finite reactor geometry. keff is used in determining the amount of mass you’ll need for a given geometry. This equation is easily verified so there’s no need to take my word for it.
Now for the proof that fast fission exists. One of the equations that make up keff is the fast fission factor. The fast fission factor is the ratio of fast plus thermal fission rates to the thermal fission rate. The fast fission rate though very small has to be taken into account to ensure the total neutron production can sustain the thermalized chain reaction.
Fast fission is a consideration in every design of thermally moderated reactors. This is also a proof that fast fission exists. In order for your premise that nuclear weapons can’t work you must address and disprove my evidence.
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/nuclear-fission-chain-reaction/six-factor-formula-effective-multiplication-factor/
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/nuclear-fission-chain-reaction/fast-fission-factor/
This is not propaganda. This is actual reactor theory that you can verify in any college text book. You will find it on the NRC website and the Office of Scientific and Technical Information website. You can't call it fake or propaganda. And, it proves your nuclear bombs are fake premise is incorrect.
Refute it if you can.
Mike
You really have to study what I say. There is only one type of fission, i.e. the moderated one used in nuclear power plants producing electricity and warm water. It is easy to start and stop using suitable nuclear fuel.
The military, instantaneous fission that produces radiation in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds is just propaganda invented by Stalin/FDR/Truman 1942/5, e.g. at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam. To start it is a joke, i.e. compressing two parts of metal with a free neutron in between into a critical mass of double density. LOL. Apart from the FLASH there is often a dirty mushroom cloud to look out for on fake propaganda footage.
The military fission destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 was therefore a bluff. The two towns were destroyed by US carpet napalm bombings May/July 1945 like >60 other Japanese towns.
-
You really have to study what I say. There is only one type of fission, i.e. the moderated one used in nuclear power plants producing electricity and warm water. It is easy to start and stop using suitable nuclear fuel.
I read your piddly little conspiracy theory website. I also studied reactor theory which you haven’t. This statement is 100% wrong and I’ve proved it.
I’ve proved you wrong just deal with it.
Mike
-
One last try.
In thermally moderated reactor design one of the equations in reactor theory is the six factor formula (AKA the effective multiplication factor - keff). The keff formula is about as basic as it gets in nuclear physics and it determines the total probabilistic ratio between neutron production and neutron loss in a finite reactor geometry. keff is used in determining the amount of mass you’ll need for a given geometry. This equation is easily verified so there’s no need to take my word for it.
Now for the proof that fast fission exists. One of the equations that make up keff is the fast fission factor. The fast fission factor is the ratio of fast plus thermal fission rates to the thermal fission rate. The fast fission rate though very small has to be taken into account to ensure the total neutron production can sustain the thermalized chain reaction.
Fast fission is a consideration in every design of thermally moderated reactors. This is also a proof that fast fission exists. In order for your premise that nuclear weapons can’t work you must address and disprove my evidence.
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/nuclear-fission-chain-reaction/six-factor-formula-effective-multiplication-factor/
http://www.nuclear-power.net/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/nuclear-fission-chain-reaction/fast-fission-factor/
This is not propaganda. This is actual reactor theory that you can verify in any college text book. You will find it on the NRC website and the Office of Scientific and Technical Information website. You can't call it fake or propaganda. And, it proves your nuclear bombs are fake premise is incorrect.
Refute it if you can.
Mike
You really have to study what I say. There is only one type of fission, i.e. the moderated one used in nuclear power plants producing electricity and warm water. It is easy to start and stop using suitable nuclear fuel.
The military, instantaneous fission that produces radiation in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds is just propaganda invented by Stalin/FDR/Truman 1942/5, e.g. at Teheran, Yalta and Potsdam. To start it is a joke, i.e. compressing two parts of metal with a free neutron in between into a critical mass of double density. LOL. Apart from the FLASH there is often a dirty mushroom cloud to look out for on fake propaganda footage.
The military fission destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 was therefore a bluff. The two towns were destroyed by US carpet napalm bombings May/July 1945 like >60 other Japanese towns.
Translation: I don't understand it so it must not work. Have you seen my website? I get a whole 100 or so hits a day! (mostly from search bots but it still gives me a stiffy just thinking about it) Where's my nurse?
-
You really have to study what I say. There is only one type of fission, i.e. the moderated one used in nuclear power plants producing electricity and warm water. It is easy to start and stop using suitable nuclear fuel.
I read your piddly little conspiracy theory website. I also studied reactor theory which you haven’t. This statement is 100% wrong and I’ve proved it.
I’ve proved you wrong just deal with it.
Mike
Hm, my website http://heiwaco.com is not about conspiracies. It is about safety at sea! Of course, it is easy to invent false causes of accidents at sea to protect criminal ship owners and I give some examples of it.
If you have studied nuclear reactor technology and theory you should know how simple (and costly) a small nuclear reactor fitted on a ship is to provide steam. I like steam ships.
You haven't proven me wrong. You just invent things for unknown reasons.
-
You really have to study what I say. There is only one type of fission, i.e. the moderated one used in nuclear power plants producing electricity and warm water. It is easy to start and stop using suitable nuclear fuel.
I read your piddly little conspiracy theory website. I also studied reactor theory which you haven’t. This statement is 100% wrong and I’ve proved it.
I’ve proved you wrong just deal with it.
Mike
Hm, my website http://heiwaco.com is not about conspiracies. It is about safety at sea! Of course, it is easy to invent false causes of accidents at sea to protect criminal ship owners and I give some examples of it.
If you have studied nuclear reactor technology and theory you should know how simple (and costly) a small nuclear reactor fitted on a ship is to provide steam. I like steam ships.
You haven't proven me wrong. You just invent things for unknown reasons.
You have chosen to respond to a minor point or two. Why have you ignored the main points he was making? 1M€ if you answer that question correctly.
-
You really have to study what I say. There is only one type of fission, i.e. the moderated one used in nuclear power plants producing electricity and warm water. It is easy to start and stop using suitable nuclear fuel.
I read your piddly little conspiracy theory website. I also studied reactor theory which you haven’t. This statement is 100% wrong and I’ve proved it.
I’ve proved you wrong just deal with it.
Mike
Hm, my website http://heiwaco.com is not about conspiracies. It is about safety at sea! Of course, it is easy to invent false causes of accidents at sea to protect criminal ship owners and I give some examples of it.
If you have studied nuclear reactor technology and theory you should know how simple (and costly) a small nuclear reactor fitted on a ship is to provide steam. I like steam ships.
You haven't proven me wrong. You just invent things for unknown reasons.
You have chosen to respond to a minor point or two. Why have you ignored the main points he was making? 1M€ if you answer that question correctly.
Minor point or two? Ignoring the main points? You sound like suffering from cognitive dissonance.
-
You really have to study what I say. There is only one type of fission, i.e. the moderated one used in nuclear power plants producing electricity and warm water. It is easy to start and stop using suitable nuclear fuel.
I read your piddly little conspiracy theory website. I also studied reactor theory which you haven’t. This statement is 100% wrong and I’ve proved it.
I’ve proved you wrong just deal with it.
Mike
Hm, my website http://heiwaco.com is not about conspiracies. It is about safety at sea! Of course, it is easy to invent false causes of accidents at sea to protect criminal ship owners and I give some examples of it.
If you have studied nuclear reactor technology and theory you should know how simple (and costly) a small nuclear reactor fitted on a ship is to provide steam. I like steam ships.
You haven't proven me wrong. You just invent things for unknown reasons.
You have chosen to respond to a minor point or two. Why have you ignored the main points he was making? 1M€ if you answer that question correctly.
Minor point or two? Ignoring the main points? You sound like suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Well, you lost that round. Better luck next time!
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
These are good links and very relevant.
At a glance, I do not find any reason to dispute the basic story about SL-1. My main argument has been that the exaggeration of the explosive power of weapons of mass destruction (which I believe is a technically more accurate name than nuclear weapons).
I don't question that so-called nuclear reactors function and generate energy. Although I might differ as to the explanation of fission and the science behind "nuclear" reactors because I do not believe atoms exist although atomic theory can be useful in some ways. Rather than argue about atoms, I would defer anyone interested in that view to the work of the late Pierre Duhem who certainly explained it better than I could. At any rate, I do not generally question the reality of such reactors regardless of the explanation of what transpires to make the heat or energy that issues from them.
Two comments about things that Heiwa has said. First, I believe Hiroshoma was bombed by one big bomb, not carpet bombing. However, most of the damage was caused by fires ignited by the bomb rather than the blast which is contrary to American propaganda as well as photos of large areas of the city totally unscathed.
Second, the truth about Niels Bohr is both he and the Nazis generally knew little to nothing about weapons of mass destruction. A book called the Farmhall documents revealing their secretly taped private conversations reveals their ignorance.
-
You really have to study what I say. There is only one type of fission, i.e. the moderated one used in nuclear power plants producing electricity and warm water. It is easy to start and stop using suitable nuclear fuel.
I read your piddly little conspiracy theory website. I also studied reactor theory which you haven’t. This statement is 100% wrong and I’ve proved it.
I’ve proved you wrong just deal with it.
Mike
Hm, my website http://heiwaco.com is not about conspiracies. It is about safety at sea! Of course, it is easy to invent false causes of accidents at sea to protect criminal ship owners and I give some examples of it.
If you have studied nuclear reactor technology and theory you should know how simple (and costly) a small nuclear reactor fitted on a ship is to provide steam. I like steam ships.
You haven't proven me wrong. You just invent things for unknown reasons.
I invented nothing. I make no claims that the equations and theory I presented were formulated by me. Many men and women smarter than I worked that all out long ago. Those equations and theory I discussed are the accepted basis for nuclear reactor design available in every text book on the subject. It's the real actual physics taught to scientists, chemists, and engineers world wide in every university with programs in those fields.
I find it very interesting that your atomic bomb website never discusses why you think fast fission doesn't exist. AAMOF, you present information to support all of your reasoning that nuclear weapons are fake for everything except fast fission. Not once do you provide any reasons to support your most important claim. Your assertion that fast fission doesn’t exist it the very basis for you claim that these bombs are fake and yet you refuse to discuss it.
Then I present basic nuclear physics and you put on blinders and refuse to discuss it. You merely repeat quotes from your website and never once dispute my evidence. It makes you look like you know you’re wrong on this point which is why you won’t dispute my comments.
It’s the most important point on your bomb web page so I have to ask. Why won’t you discuss the reasons fast fission doesn’t exist?
Mike
-
First, I believe Hiroshoma was bombed by one big bomb, not carpet bombing. However, most of the damage was caused by fires ignited by the bomb rather than the blast which is contrary to American propaganda as well as photos of large areas of the city totally unscathed.
The firestorms that followed the bombs did indeed cause a tremendous amount of damage and death, but they are not 'contrary to American propaganda' - it was well reported at the time and in subsequent written accounts, eg
https://archive.org/stream/hiroshima035082mbp/hiroshima035082mbp_djvu.txt
Hiroshima's setting (and the way its buildings were constructed) allowed the fires to develop in a way that Nagasaki's did not. While you can argue that the firestorm is an indirect consequence of the bomb, it happened thanks to the presence of a lot of smaller fires that were a direct consequence of it. It's arguably a moot point: one bomb, not many, led to the destruction of the city.
There are even analyses that suggest Hiroshima's fires were not a true firestorm, just a big collection of fires:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kQYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=hiroshima+firestorm+news+reports&source=bl&ots=FPf1FzDAWo&sig=270m7r7pH4QvvEizkNhktxOtrvo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWqp-ll-XUAhVJB8AKHTkXDsY4ChDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&q=hiroshima%20firestorm%20news%20reports&f=false
-
First, I believe Hiroshoma was bombed by one big bomb, not carpet bombing. However, most of the damage was caused by fires ignited by the bomb rather than the blast which is contrary to American propaganda as well as photos of large areas of the city totally unscathed.
The firestorms that followed the bombs did indeed cause a tremendous amount of damage and death, but they are not 'contrary to American propaganda' - it was well reported at the time and in subsequent written accounts, eg
https://archive.org/stream/hiroshima035082mbp/hiroshima035082mbp_djvu.txt
Hiroshima's setting (and the way its buildings were constructed) allowed the fires to develop in a way that Nagasaki's did not. While you can argue that the firestorm is an indirect consequence of the bomb, it happened thanks to the presence of a lot of smaller fires that were a direct consequence of it. It's arguably a moot point: one bomb, not many, led to the destruction of the city.
There are even analyses that suggest Hiroshima's fires were not a true firestorm, just a big collection of fires:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kQYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=hiroshima+firestorm+news+reports&source=bl&ots=FPf1FzDAWo&sig=270m7r7pH4QvvEizkNhktxOtrvo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWqp-ll-XUAhVJB8AKHTkXDsY4ChDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&q=hiroshima%20firestorm%20news%20reports&f=false
I really like your website. Very cool. My aunt worked as a welder for Valcor Engineering. She etched her name into a valve on a decent module before she welded it in. It was sent to NASA but she never found out if it was used on an Apollo mission.
Mike
-
First, I believe Hiroshoma was bombed by one big bomb, not carpet bombing. However, most of the damage was caused by fires ignited by the bomb rather than the blast which is contrary to American propaganda as well as photos of large areas of the city totally unscathed.
The firestorms that followed the bombs did indeed cause a tremendous amount of damage and death, but they are not 'contrary to American propaganda' - it was well reported at the time and in subsequent written accounts, eg
https://archive.org/stream/hiroshima035082mbp/hiroshima035082mbp_djvu.txt
Hiroshima's setting (and the way its buildings were constructed) allowed the fires to develop in a way that Nagasaki's did not. While you can argue that the firestorm is an indirect consequence of the bomb, it happened thanks to the presence of a lot of smaller fires that were a direct consequence of it. It's arguably a moot point: one bomb, not many, led to the destruction of the city.
There are even analyses that suggest Hiroshima's fires were not a true firestorm, just a big collection of fires:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kQYAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA61&lpg=PA61&dq=hiroshima+firestorm+news+reports&source=bl&ots=FPf1FzDAWo&sig=270m7r7pH4QvvEizkNhktxOtrvo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiWqp-ll-XUAhVJB8AKHTkXDsY4ChDoAQgwMAI#v=onepage&q=hiroshima%20firestorm%20news%20reports&f=false
Well, according my understanding Hiroshima was destroyed prior to August 6, 1945, but was used as a stage for a fake a-bomb attack. It seems there was no radiation at all.
When a friend of mine arrived at Yokohama, September 1945, on a RN warship, he sneaked down to Hiroshima to have a look. The place was burnt down but he didn't notice any radiation at all. People were busy clearing and rebuilding the lot.
-
What about fission?
-
It’s the most important point on your bomb web page so I have to ask. Why won’t you discuss the reasons fast fission doesn’t exist?
Mike
There is only one type of fission - the one used in peaceful, nuclear power stations on shore and water boilers on ships. It is always moderated to adjust output to demand.
The military, FLASH, speed of light, destructive fission, where all the atoms in a little metal piece are suddenly transformed into radiation is just propaganda. It cannot be started. It melts immediately after fission of a few atoms and fizzles.
I think I describe it well at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Sorry you cannot understand it. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance. Consult a doctor, if you can, and tell me the result.
-
It’s the most important point on your bomb web page so I have to ask. Why won’t you discuss the reasons fast fission doesn’t exist?
Mike
There is only one type of fission - the one used in peaceful, nuclear power stations on shore and water boilers on ships. It is always moderated to adjust output to demand.
The military, FLASH, speed of light, destructive fission, where all the atoms in a little metal piece are suddenly transformed into radiation is just propaganda. It cannot be started. It melts immediately after fission of a few atoms and fizzles.
I think I describe it well at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Sorry you cannot understand it. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance. Consult a doctor, if you can, and tell me the result.
It’s apparent you don’t really understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. Besides that you are not even remotely qualified to make such a determination in person let alone over the internet. I’m beginning to even doubt that you’re an engineer.
I provided information that I claim proves there is more than one type of fission. I provided backup information to support my claim.
Your website does not have an explanation or calculation that illustrates you claims that there is only one type of fission. You repeat over and over that there is only one type but you NEVER show any proof for it. Your assertion that you prove there is only one type of fission is either a lie or you simply “forgot” to include that information. Kindly point to the information that proves fast fission doesn’t exist because you saying it is not proof.
Additionally, when someone provides information that contradicts your claim you should at the very least the courtesy to read that information and comment on it. You never do that.
Do you know what a typical characteristic of a troll is? They never actually answer questions. They continually repeat the same thing, try to turn things around on the poster, and belittle/berate the poster. These are things that you continually do. If you’re not a troll, how about you display a little common courtesy and address why my information is incorrect.
Mike
-
It’s the most important point on your bomb web page so I have to ask. Why won’t you discuss the reasons fast fission doesn’t exist?
Mike
There is only one type of fission - the one used in peaceful, nuclear power stations on shore and water boilers on ships. It is always moderated to adjust output to demand.
The military, FLASH, speed of light, destructive fission, where all the atoms in a little metal piece are suddenly transformed into radiation is just propaganda. It cannot be started. It melts immediately after fission of a few atoms and fizzles.
I think I describe it well at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Sorry you cannot understand it. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance. Consult a doctor, if you can, and tell me the result.
It’s apparent you don’t really understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. Besides that you are not even remotely qualified to make such a determination in person let alone over the internet. I’m beginning to even doubt that you’re an engineer.
I provided information that I claim proves there is more than one type of fission. I provided backup information to support my claim.
Your website does not have an explanation or calculation that illustrates you claims that there is only one type of fission. You repeat over and over that there is only one type but you NEVER show any proof for it. Your assertion that you prove there is only one type of fission is either a lie or you simply “forgot” to include that information. Kindly point to the information that proves fast fission doesn’t exist because you saying it is not proof.
Additionally, when someone provides information that contradicts your claim you should at the very least the courtesy to read that information and comment on it. You never do that.
Do you know what a typical characteristic of a troll is? They never actually answer questions. They continually repeat the same thing, try to turn things around on the poster, and belittle/berate the poster. These are things that you continually do. If you’re not a troll, how about you display a little common courtesy and address why my information is incorrect.
Mike
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I do not understand many things, bla, bla, bla. I hear it all the times. I am an unintelligent creator of conspiracy theories since 1996! So, why not make an effort to tell me what is wrong?
Wismut AG! Did it produce any uranium ore to build Stalin's a-bomb 1945-1989? What was Niels Bohr's contribution to the a-bomb 1942/5 apart from skiing in the NM mountains?
And does bow visors of ropax ferries just fall off when a wave hits them 1994? And shouldn't the principle of Archimedes apply in Europe today? Just show a a little common courtesy and address why my information and I will be happy.
-
Every effort has been made to point out your mistakes, you are just too fucking dumb to realise it.
-
It’s the most important point on your bomb web page so I have to ask. Why won’t you discuss the reasons fast fission doesn’t exist?
Mike
There is only one type of fission - the one used in peaceful, nuclear power stations on shore and water boilers on ships. It is always moderated to adjust output to demand.
The military, FLASH, speed of light, destructive fission, where all the atoms in a little metal piece are suddenly transformed into radiation is just propaganda. It cannot be started. It melts immediately after fission of a few atoms and fizzles.
I think I describe it well at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Sorry you cannot understand it. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance. Consult a doctor, if you can, and tell me the result.
It’s apparent you don’t really understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. Besides that you are not even remotely qualified to make such a determination in person let alone over the internet. I’m beginning to even doubt that you’re an engineer.
I provided information that I claim proves there is more than one type of fission. I provided backup information to support my claim.
Your website does not have an explanation or calculation that illustrates you claims that there is only one type of fission. You repeat over and over that there is only one type but you NEVER show any proof for it. Your assertion that you prove there is only one type of fission is either a lie or you simply “forgot” to include that information. Kindly point to the information that proves fast fission doesn’t exist because you saying it is not proof.
Additionally, when someone provides information that contradicts your claim you should at the very least the courtesy to read that information and comment on it. You never do that.
Do you know what a typical characteristic of a troll is? They never actually answer questions. They continually repeat the same thing, try to turn things around on the poster, and belittle/berate the poster. These are things that you continually do. If you’re not a troll, how about you display a little common courtesy and address why my information is incorrect.
Mike
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I do not understand many things, bla, bla, bla. I hear it all the times. I am an unintelligent creator of conspiracy theories since 1996! So, why not make an effort to tell me what is wrong?
Wismut AG! Did it produce any uranium ore to build Stalin's a-bomb 1945-1989? What was Niels Bohr's contribution to the a-bomb 1942/5 apart from skiing in the NM mountains?
And does bow visors of ropax ferries just fall off when a wave hits them 1994? And shouldn't the principle of Archimedes apply in Europe today? Just show a a little common courtesy and address why my information and I will be happy.
What does any of that have to do with proof that fast fission is impossible?
-
It’s the most important point on your bomb web page so I have to ask. Why won’t you discuss the reasons fast fission doesn’t exist?
Mike
There is only one type of fission - the one used in peaceful, nuclear power stations on shore and water boilers on ships. It is always moderated to adjust output to demand.
The military, FLASH, speed of light, destructive fission, where all the atoms in a little metal piece are suddenly transformed into radiation is just propaganda. It cannot be started. It melts immediately after fission of a few atoms and fizzles.
I think I describe it well at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Sorry you cannot understand it. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance. Consult a doctor, if you can, and tell me the result.
It’s apparent you don’t really understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. Besides that you are not even remotely qualified to make such a determination in person let alone over the internet. I’m beginning to even doubt that you’re an engineer.
I provided information that I claim proves there is more than one type of fission. I provided backup information to support my claim.
Your website does not have an explanation or calculation that illustrates you claims that there is only one type of fission. You repeat over and over that there is only one type but you NEVER show any proof for it. Your assertion that you prove there is only one type of fission is either a lie or you simply “forgot” to include that information. Kindly point to the information that proves fast fission doesn’t exist because you saying it is not proof.
Additionally, when someone provides information that contradicts your claim you should at the very least the courtesy to read that information and comment on it. You never do that.
Do you know what a typical characteristic of a troll is? They never actually answer questions. They continually repeat the same thing, try to turn things around on the poster, and belittle/berate the poster. These are things that you continually do. If you’re not a troll, how about you display a little common courtesy and address why my information is incorrect.
Mike
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I do not understand many things, bla, bla, bla. I hear it all the times. I am an unintelligent creator of conspiracy theories since 1996! So, why not make an effort to tell me what is wrong?
Wismut AG! Did it produce any uranium ore to build Stalin's a-bomb 1945-1989? What was Niels Bohr's contribution to the a-bomb 1942/5 apart from skiing in the NM mountains?
And does bow visors of ropax ferries just fall off when a wave hits them 1994? And shouldn't the principle of Archimedes apply in Europe today? Just show a a little common courtesy and address why my information and I will be happy.
What does any of that have to do with proof that fast fission is impossible?
I ask you some questions, so reply.
Re fast fission there is only one type of fission. It is moderated and used in power plants.
If you think military, instantaneous, FLASH fission exists to radiate you and any onlooker, I suggest you consult a medical doctor. Maybe you are sick, ill, crazy, stupid, just unhappy, poor, beating your wife, children, not getting around? Sorry I can't help you. Please stop posting your shit here.
-
It’s the most important point on your bomb web page so I have to ask. Why won’t you discuss the reasons fast fission doesn’t exist?
Mike
There is only one type of fission - the one used in peaceful, nuclear power stations on shore and water boilers on ships. It is always moderated to adjust output to demand.
The military, FLASH, speed of light, destructive fission, where all the atoms in a little metal piece are suddenly transformed into radiation is just propaganda. It cannot be started. It melts immediately after fission of a few atoms and fizzles.
I think I describe it well at my web page http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Sorry you cannot understand it. You probably suffer from cognitive dissonance. Consult a doctor, if you can, and tell me the result.
It’s apparent you don’t really understand the concept of cognitive dissonance. Besides that you are not even remotely qualified to make such a determination in person let alone over the internet. I’m beginning to even doubt that you’re an engineer.
I provided information that I claim proves there is more than one type of fission. I provided backup information to support my claim.
Your website does not have an explanation or calculation that illustrates you claims that there is only one type of fission. You repeat over and over that there is only one type but you NEVER show any proof for it. Your assertion that you prove there is only one type of fission is either a lie or you simply “forgot” to include that information. Kindly point to the information that proves fast fission doesn’t exist because you saying it is not proof.
Additionally, when someone provides information that contradicts your claim you should at the very least the courtesy to read that information and comment on it. You never do that.
Do you know what a typical characteristic of a troll is? They never actually answer questions. They continually repeat the same thing, try to turn things around on the poster, and belittle/berate the poster. These are things that you continually do. If you’re not a troll, how about you display a little common courtesy and address why my information is incorrect.
Mike
Thanks for your reply. Yes, I do not understand many things, bla, bla, bla. I hear it all the times. I am an unintelligent creator of conspiracy theories since 1996! So, why not make an effort to tell me what is wrong?
Wismut AG! Did it produce any uranium ore to build Stalin's a-bomb 1945-1989? What was Niels Bohr's contribution to the a-bomb 1942/5 apart from skiing in the NM mountains?
And does bow visors of ropax ferries just fall off when a wave hits them 1994? And shouldn't the principle of Archimedes apply in Europe today? Just show a a little common courtesy and address why my information and I will be happy.
What does any of that have to do with proof that fast fission is impossible?
I ask you some questions, so reply.
Re fast fission there is only one type of fission. It is moderated and used in power plants.
If you think military, instantaneous, FLASH fission exists to radiate you and any onlooker, I suggest you consult a medical doctor. Maybe you are sick, ill, crazy, stupid, just unhappy, poor, beating your wife, children, not getting around? Sorry I can't help you. Please stop posting your shit here.
There you go with the personal attacks again. Interesting.
I really have no idea how or why visors fall off ferries and I’m not really qualified to judge such things. I believe that’s your wheelhouse isn’t it?
Well of course Archimedes principal applies in Europe today...wait did the laws of physics change recently?
My post never said you didn’t understand things. Not sure what that’s all about.
So, fast fission? Why is it impossible?
Mike
-
You sound like suffering from cognitive dissonance.
And you sound like you're suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect.
-
Whenever Heiwa is in a corner he starts in with the whole "cognitive dissonance" shtick. I think he thinks it makes him sound smart, which is something he desperately needs to do in order to make up for the utter fool he is making of himself in regards to the actual issues under discussion. ;D
Also, the only thing I want to know right now is "why is fast fission impossible?" 1M€ to the person who is capable of satisfactorily answering that question.
-
Whenever Heiwa is in a corner he start in with the whole "cognitive dissonance" shtick. I think he thinks it makes him sound smart, which is something he desperately needs to do in order to make up for the utter fool he is making of himself in regards to the actual issues under discussion. ;D
Also, the only thing I want to know right now is "why is fast fission impossible?" 1M€ to the person who i capable of satisfactorily answering that question.
Now that's bleepin' funny. ;D
-
Also, the only thing I want to know right now is "why is fast fission impossible?" 1M€ to the person who is capable of satisfactorily answering that question.
Fast fission is impossible because Anders said so and he wouldn't lie about something as plainly obvious as that.
You owe me 1M€. 8)
-
Why doesn’t fast fission exist?
Beacuse you cannot start it.
You've already said that. Why can't you start it?
What about natural decay?
Mike
Fission - certain atoms splitting relasing radiation/energy - is a fairly well understood natural phenomenom, even if Niels Bohr had great difficlties to explain it late 1930's. Niels had won the Nobel prize physics almost twenty years earlier with his research about atoms. 1942 USA and president FDR appparently needed Niels' assistance to build the first a-bombs. Niels was then at home in Nazi-occupied Denmark, but it was fairly easy to simple to sneak away to Sweden across the Sound, which Niels did 1942. He then stayed at my grandparent's house there awating a flight across the Atlantic to learn skiing at Los Alamos, NM, USA, and to build a-bombs. My grandfather was a good friend of Niels since the 1910's. It seems my grandfather helped Niels with the mathematics and statistics back then. Niels slept in my mother's bed 1942, as she was away somewhere else (actually with my father), and one day Niels was gone. When Niels returned from USA 1945, he was not really popular having killed 100 000's of Japanese with his bomb. Niels could also not really explain how the speed-of-light fast military fission of an a-bomb worked and how it got triggered/started (and why he had lent himself to this stupid job).
Niels explained that it was very easy to start a military, speed-of-light, FLASH, fission. You just split the uranium in two subcritical parts and ... by suddenly compressing the two parts together with a free neutron in between ... the uranium atoms split and became a FLASH killing innocent people.
We all had a good laugh at that and considered Niels gaga ... and soon after he died.
My grandfather had another friend, Manne Siegbahn, who had also won the Nobel prize physics in the 1920's, and lived in the neighbourhood. They both studied together at Lund as young men. Bohr studied at Copenhagen but it was not far away. Manne was 1945 asked by the Swedish government to build a Swedish a-bomb and Manne agreed subject to all data being peer reviewed and published and explained publicly ... how it didn't work. Manne thought physics and physical research should be available to the common man. The Swedish government disagreed and Manne never built a Swedish a-bomb. When I later around 1961/4 got to know Manne better, I asked him about a career in physics. Manne suggested I better study mechanical sciences. I explain more at my web site. Only idiots with IQ >150 go into nuclear weapons design and rocket design and human space exploration and other nonsense.They are easy to manipulate.
Anyway, nuclear weapons do not work as you cannot trigger them. If you try, they blow up in your face.
So you're saying you can detonate a nuclear weapon. I'm glad you finally understand how it works.
-
Also, the only thing I want to know right now is "why is fast fission impossible?" 1M€ to the person who is capable of satisfactorily answering that question.
Fast fission is impossible because Anders said so and he wouldn't lie about something as plainly obvious as that.
You owe me 1M€. 8)
This is definitely the best answer so far. I don't think it quite qualifies though. Let's see if Heiwa is capable of giving a better answer.
-
In order to use the energy/heat released due to fission you must cool the nuclear power plant to prevent the nuclear fuel and the combustion chamber from melting, which will stop the fission. Thus the temperatures must be kept low to permit fission.
In an atomic bomb, it is not possible. It is suggested (read invented) that the temperature in an atomic bomb becomes very high but before that happens the fuel has melted and the atomic bomb has also melted = stopped operating = doesn't work.
Same with fusion! Fusion is similar to fission. In fission atoms split to release energy/heat. In fusion atoms merge to release energy/heat. Experts think that fusion is possible on Earth and that the energy released can be used to provide steam for electricity production. However if fusion is possible, it will immediately melt the fusion combustion chamber and the fusion will stop. That's why fusion on Earth is not possible. I explain the Challenge at http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .
The fusion plant down the road from me looks like:
(http://heiwaco.com/fusion.gif)
It will never work.
-
It will never work.
Everything is impossible if you're Heiwa.
-
It will never work.
Everything is impossible if you're Heiwa.
Not really! In my case only five minor question - because you have to check what the authorities say - if it is correct and possible or not. I offer anyone €1M to prove I am wrong and the authorities are right - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
I cannot possibly be wrong, can I?
-
In order to use the energy/heat released due to fission you must cool the nuclear power plant to prevent the nuclear fuel and the combustion chamber from melting, which will stop the fission. Thus the temperatures must be kept low to permit fission.
In an atomic bomb, it is not possible. It is suggested (read invented) that the temperature in an atomic bomb becomes very high but before that happens the fuel has melted and the atomic bomb has also melted = stopped operating = doesn't work.
Same with fusion! Fusion is similar to fission. In fission atoms split to release energy/heat. In fusion atoms merge to release energy/heat. Experts think that fusion is possible on Earth and that the energy released can be used to provide steam for electricity production. However if fusion is possible, it will immediately melt the fusion combustion chamber and the fusion will stop. That's why fusion on Earth is not possible. I explain the Challenge at http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm .
The fusion plant down the road from me looks like:
(http://heiwaco.com/fusion.gif)
It will never work.
Reactor coolant flows over the fuel cells to remove heat and keep the fuel assemblies cool. That much is true.
This process also to carries that heat away in the form of steam in boiling water reactor or through a tube bundle in a steam generator for a pressurized water reactor. The steam drives turbines to generate power.
Further, the temperatures in the reactor have nothing to do with a fission reaction. Fission will happen regardless of temperature. That is as long as there is critical mass and critical geometry. Once Three Mile Island Unit 1 melted you no longer had critical geometry and, for the most part, fission stopped. However, they still had to deal with decay heat for a while.
My point is there is no combustion in a fission reaction therefore no combustion chamber. You say things like this and you still want people to take your claims seriously. Additionally, fusion is not a combustion reaction either.
As for fusion, I’m not sure we’ll ever get a useful power production system from the technology. However, I have to ask. On what do you base the assumption that the fusion chamber will melt down?
BTW, interesting mis-direction. I really don’t understand you. Your claim that fission from high energy neutrons is impossible is at the very heart of your fake bomb theory. I would think you would want to support that claim with something, anything that proves that claim. Yet you have nothing that shows there is some kind of limit to neutron energy that make fission impossible above that limit.
Why is fast fission impossible. What is the neutron energy level above which fission can’t happen?
Mike
-
However, I have to ask. On what do you base the assumption that the fusion chamber will melt down?
BTW, interesting mis-direction. I really don’t understand you. Your claim that fission from high energy neutrons is impossible is at the very heart of your fake bomb theory. I would think you would want to support that claim with something, anything that proves that claim. Yet you have nothing that shows there is some kind of limit to neutron energy that make fission impossible above that limit.
Why is fast fission impossible. What is the neutron energy level above which fission can’t happen?
Mike
Thanks for asking.
1. Fusion requires great amount of energy/heat just to get started at 120 000 000C temperature and 'experts' suggest it can be done in a some 'cloud' not touching the surrounding structure. I think the surrounding structure will melt quickly and the plant will be destroyed.
2. You have misunderstood fission. There is only one type of fission possible. It takes place when free neutrons split atoms and energy is released as radiation normally in a man-made plant but also in nature itself. It is not a fast or slow process. It just depends on the number of free neutrons available. In a plant it is done by moderation to keep the temperatures inside the plant down. If you lose control of the moderation, the plant and the fuel may overheat and melt down and fission stops by itself.
Military, destructive, FLASH fission releasing great amount of energy/heat in nano-seconds doesn't exist at all. It was just an invention - science fiction - by crazy, miltary propagandists supported by FDR, Truman and Stalin 1942/5 to scare people. I describe the nonsense at my web site. It was suggested that a certain amount of solid metal could be transformed into pure energy by compressing two bits with a free neutron in between. It would take nano-seconds. The first neutron would split one atom and release two neutrons + energy and this was repeated exponentially 20 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 times at the speed of light, bla, bla, bla. There is no evidence that such nonsense is possible. After a few atoms fissioned the whole thing melts and fission stops.
They used plenty past or future Nobel prize winners to support their lies but those were the times and the people. Media published it as the TRUTH. Military jumped on the bandwagon and all sorts of nuclear weapons were developed based on the FLASH fission lies. But no nuclear weapons work. I am happy to conclude. I wonder why people and media are so unhappy about it. Any ideas?
-
<snip>
2. You have misunderstood fission. There is only one type of fission possible. It takes place when free neutrons split atoms and energy is released as radiation normally in a man-made plant but also in nature itself. It is not a fast or slow process. It just depends on the number of free neutrons available. In a plant it is done by moderation to keep the temperatures inside the plant down. If you lose control of the moderation, the plant and the fuel may overheat and melt down and fission stops by itself.
<snip>
Fast or slow fission has nothing to do with reaction rate. It describes the free neutron energy level. I assumed you did your research and understood how fission reactions work. I now understand the disconnect. My mistake. I hope this info helps you formulate a more cogent argument.
In a reactor the moderator, which is usually water, thermalizes or reduces neutron energy levels. This is necessary because uranium has a higher probability of absorbing a neutron in a certain energy range (called the macroscopic cross-section for absorption). Uranium can absorb high energy, or fast neutrons but it’s macroscopic cross-section at these energy levels is very small. However, since it can and does happen is the reason the fast fission is accounted for in reactor design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
Water is used as a moderator because the hydrogen atom is about the same-ish mass as a neutron. Therefore, collision between the neutron and hydrogen transfers energy from the neutron to the water molecule slowing or thermalizing the neutron.
It’s also why water isn’t the coolant used it fast breeder reactors. They’re cooled by something much heavier such as sodium or lead. A neutron collides with one of these atoms and bounces right off giving up very little energy. Kinda like shooting a ping pong ball at a cannon ball. It bounces off and the cannon ball doesn’t move. In these reactors, there are only high energy, or fast neutrons causing fission reactions. However, the fission reaction rate it on par with a light water reactor.
Both types of reactors control reaction rate, reactor power, with control rods. Control rods are made of materials with much higher affinities to absorb neutrons. When inserted into the reactor they take all the neutrons so the fuel chain reaction slows.
The SL-1 accident I posted about earlier illustrates how uranium can fission at a very high reaction rate if the fast neutron flux is high enough. When the rod was pulled too quickly the neutron flux increased fast enough to cause prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
As an aside note, high radiation levels do cause light to be produced. It’s commonly called Cherenkov light. I once saw it at a spent fuel pool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Okay, I realize this has nothing to do with the light seen from a nuclear explosion but It’s pretty danged cool.
Another side note, the macroscopic cross-section units are in barns...because it’s like hitting the broad side of a barn. Get it...the broad side of a barn. I slay me. :D
Mike
-
<snip>
2. You have misunderstood fission. There is only one type of fission possible. It takes place when free neutrons split atoms and energy is released as radiation normally in a man-made plant but also in nature itself. It is not a fast or slow process. It just depends on the number of free neutrons available. In a plant it is done by moderation to keep the temperatures inside the plant down. If you lose control of the moderation, the plant and the fuel may overheat and melt down and fission stops by itself.
<snip>
Fast or slow fission has nothing to do with reaction rate. It describes the free neutron energy level. I assumed you did your research and understood how fission reactions work. I now understand the disconnect. My mistake. I hope this info helps you formulate a more cogent argument.
In a reactor the moderator, which is usually water, thermalizes or reduces neutron energy levels. This is necessary because uranium has a higher probability of absorbing a neutron in a certain energy range (called the macroscopic cross-section for absorption). Uranium can absorb high energy, or fast neutrons but it’s macroscopic cross-section at these energy levels is very small. However, since it can and does happen is the reason the fast fission is accounted for in reactor design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
Water is used as a moderator because the hydrogen atom is about the same-ish mass as a neutron. Therefore, collision between the neutron and hydrogen transfers energy from the neutron to the water molecule slowing or thermalizing the neutron.
It’s also why water isn’t the coolant used it fast breeder reactors. They’re cooled by something much heavier such as sodium or lead. A neutron collides with one of these atoms and bounces right off giving up very little energy. Kinda like shooting a ping pong ball at a cannon ball. It bounces off and the cannon ball doesn’t move. In these reactors, there are only high energy, or fast neutrons causing fission reactions. However, the fission reaction rate it on par with a light water reactor.
Both types of reactors control reaction rate, reactor power, with control rods. Control rods are made of materials with much higher affinities to absorb neutrons. When inserted into the reactor they take all the neutrons so the fuel chain reaction slows.
The SL-1 accident I posted about earlier illustrates how uranium can fission at a very high reaction rate if the fast neutron flux is high enough. When the rod was pulled too quickly the neutron flux increased fast enough to cause prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
As an aside note, high radiation levels do cause light to be produced. It’s commonly called Cherenkov light. I once saw it at a spent fuel pool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Okay, I realize this has nothing to do with the light seen from a nuclear explosion but It’s pretty danged cool.
Another side note, the macroscopic cross-section units are in barns...because it’s like hitting the broad side of a barn. Get it...the broad side of a barn. I slay me. :D
Mike
Does this explain how fission can happen quickly without melting everything? Is it because they use heavier coolant?
-
I cannot possibly be wrong, can I?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! ;D ;D ;D
-
<snip>
2. You have misunderstood fission. There is only one type of fission possible. It takes place when free neutrons split atoms and energy is released as radiation normally in a man-made plant but also in nature itself. It is not a fast or slow process. It just depends on the number of free neutrons available. In a plant it is done by moderation to keep the temperatures inside the plant down. If you lose control of the moderation, the plant and the fuel may overheat and melt down and fission stops by itself.
<snip>
Fast or slow fission has nothing to do with reaction rate. It describes the free neutron energy level. I assumed you did your research and understood how fission reactions work. I now understand the disconnect. My mistake. I hope this info helps you formulate a more cogent argument.
In a reactor the moderator, which is usually water, thermalizes or reduces neutron energy levels. This is necessary because uranium has a higher probability of absorbing a neutron in a certain energy range (called the macroscopic cross-section for absorption). Uranium can absorb high energy, or fast neutrons but it’s macroscopic cross-section at these energy levels is very small. However, since it can and does happen is the reason the fast fission is accounted for in reactor design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
Water is used as a moderator because the hydrogen atom is about the same-ish mass as a neutron. Therefore, collision between the neutron and hydrogen transfers energy from the neutron to the water molecule slowing or thermalizing the neutron.
It’s also why water isn’t the coolant used it fast breeder reactors. They’re cooled by something much heavier such as sodium or lead. A neutron collides with one of these atoms and bounces right off giving up very little energy. Kinda like shooting a ping pong ball at a cannon ball. It bounces off and the cannon ball doesn’t move. In these reactors, there are only high energy, or fast neutrons causing fission reactions. However, the fission reaction rate it on par with a light water reactor.
Both types of reactors control reaction rate, reactor power, with control rods. Control rods are made of materials with much higher affinities to absorb neutrons. When inserted into the reactor they take all the neutrons so the fuel chain reaction slows.
The SL-1 accident I posted about earlier illustrates how uranium can fission at a very high reaction rate if the fast neutron flux is high enough. When the rod was pulled too quickly the neutron flux increased fast enough to cause prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
As an aside note, high radiation levels do cause light to be produced. It’s commonly called Cherenkov light. I once saw it at a spent fuel pool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Okay, I realize this has nothing to do with the light seen from a nuclear explosion but It’s pretty danged cool.
Another side note, the macroscopic cross-section units are in barns...because it’s like hitting the broad side of a barn. Get it...the broad side of a barn. I slay me. :D
Mike
Does this explain how fission can happen quickly without melting everything? Is it because they use heavier coolant?
I’m not sure I understand your question but it appears you’re asking about fast fission reactors.?
If so, fast fission merely describes fission using high energy neutrons. The fuel atom absorbs the neutron, becomes unstable, and then splits into fission products (other elements). The reason for heavier coolant if a fast fission reactor is so it doesn’t reduce neutron energy levels.
The amount of heat produced between a light water reactor and a fast fission reactor is essentially the same. The reaction rate in percent reactor power works the same too. Reactor power is determined by measuring the neutron flux.
If this doesn’t answer your question it’s my bad for not understanding the question.
Mike
-
<snip>
2. You have misunderstood fission. There is only one type of fission possible. It takes place when free neutrons split atoms and energy is released as radiation normally in a man-made plant but also in nature itself. It is not a fast or slow process. It just depends on the number of free neutrons available. In a plant it is done by moderation to keep the temperatures inside the plant down. If you lose control of the moderation, the plant and the fuel may overheat and melt down and fission stops by itself.
<snip>
Fast or slow fission has nothing to do with reaction rate. It describes the free neutron energy level. I assumed you did your research and understood how fission reactions work. I now understand the disconnect. My mistake. I hope this info helps you formulate a more cogent argument.
In a reactor the moderator, which is usually water, thermalizes or reduces neutron energy levels. This is necessary because uranium has a higher probability of absorbing a neutron in a certain energy range (called the macroscopic cross-section for absorption). Uranium can absorb high energy, or fast neutrons but it’s macroscopic cross-section at these energy levels is very small. However, since it can and does happen is the reason the fast fission is accounted for in reactor design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
Water is used as a moderator because the hydrogen atom is about the same-ish mass as a neutron. Therefore, collision between the neutron and hydrogen transfers energy from the neutron to the water molecule slowing or thermalizing the neutron.
It’s also why water isn’t the coolant used it fast breeder reactors. They’re cooled by something much heavier such as sodium or lead. A neutron collides with one of these atoms and bounces right off giving up very little energy. Kinda like shooting a ping pong ball at a cannon ball. It bounces off and the cannon ball doesn’t move. In these reactors, there are only high energy, or fast neutrons causing fission reactions. However, the fission reaction rate it on par with a light water reactor.
Both types of reactors control reaction rate, reactor power, with control rods. Control rods are made of materials with much higher affinities to absorb neutrons. When inserted into the reactor they take all the neutrons so the fuel chain reaction slows.
The SL-1 accident I posted about earlier illustrates how uranium can fission at a very high reaction rate if the fast neutron flux is high enough. When the rod was pulled too quickly the neutron flux increased fast enough to cause prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
As an aside note, high radiation levels do cause light to be produced. It’s commonly called Cherenkov light. I once saw it at a spent fuel pool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Okay, I realize this has nothing to do with the light seen from a nuclear explosion but It’s pretty danged cool.
Another side note, the macroscopic cross-section units are in barns...because it’s like hitting the broad side of a barn. Get it...the broad side of a barn. I slay me. :D
Mike
Does this explain how fission can happen quickly without melting everything? Is it because they use heavier coolant?
I’m not sure I understand your question but it appears you’re asking about fast fission reactors.?
If so, fast fission merely describes fission using high energy neutrons. The fuel atom absorbs the neutron, becomes unstable, and then splits into fission products (other elements). The reason for heavier coolant if a fast fission reactor is so it doesn’t reduce neutron energy levels.
The amount of heat produced between a light water reactor and a fast fission reactor is essentially the same. The reaction rate in percent reactor power works the same too. Reactor power is determined by measuring the neutron flux.
If this doesn’t answer your question it’s my bad for not understanding the question.
Mike
Well my understanding of Heiwa's objection was that fast fission was impossible because too much heat would be created, everything would melt, and the process would stop. You're saying there is the same amount of heat. But would that heat get released in a much shorter time?
I could be completely misunderstanding Heiwa's objection, for that matter.
-
Does this explain how fission can happen quickly without melting everything? Is it because they use heavier coolant?
I’m not sure I understand your question but it appears you’re asking about fast fission reactors.?
If so, fast fission merely describes fission using high energy neutrons. The fuel atom absorbs the neutron, becomes unstable, and then splits into fission products (other elements). The reason for heavier coolant if a fast fission reactor is so it doesn’t reduce neutron energy levels.
The amount of heat produced between a light water reactor and a fast fission reactor is essentially the same. The reaction rate in percent reactor power works the same too. Reactor power is determined by measuring the neutron flux.
If this doesn’t answer your question it’s my bad for not understanding the question.
Mike
Hm, what has this to do with nuclear weapons using the military, destructive, instantaneous, FLASH fission that radiates innocent onlookers into vapor ... in nanoseconds?
What happens in peaceful nuclear reactors of different types to produce energy/heat at low temperatures to make steam, that can drive generators producing electricity, have nothing in common with the military FLASH fission.
Reaction rates! Neutron fluxes! In nuclear weapons and a-bombs. LOL! Give me a break.
-
Well my understanding of Heiwa's objection was that fast fission was impossible because too much heat would be created, everything would melt, and the process would stop. You're saying there is the same amount of heat. But would that heat get released in a much shorter time?
I could be completely misunderstanding Heiwa's objection, for that matter.
There is only one type of fission - the one that happens in nature and that can be moderated in nuclear power plants to recover energy, when neutrons split atoms.
There is no military, instantaneous, destructive fission that releases enormous amounts of energy, heat, radiation in a nano-seconds FLASH!
-
Well my understanding of Heiwa's objection was that fast fission was impossible because too much heat would be created, everything would melt, and the process would stop. You're saying there is the same amount of heat. But would that heat get released in a much shorter time?
I could be completely misunderstanding Heiwa's objection, for that matter.
There is only one type of fission - the one that happens in nature and that can be moderated in nuclear power plants to recover energy, when neutrons split atoms.
There is no military, instantaneous, destructive fission that releases enormous amounts of energy, heat, radiation in a nano-seconds FLASH!
Why do you keep repeating that over and over.
The question we are discussing is why?
-
<snip>
2. You have misunderstood fission. There is only one type of fission possible. It takes place when free neutrons split atoms and energy is released as radiation normally in a man-made plant but also in nature itself. It is not a fast or slow process. It just depends on the number of free neutrons available. In a plant it is done by moderation to keep the temperatures inside the plant down. If you lose control of the moderation, the plant and the fuel may overheat and melt down and fission stops by itself.
<snip>
Fast or slow fission has nothing to do with reaction rate. It describes the free neutron energy level. I assumed you did your research and understood how fission reactions work. I now understand the disconnect. My mistake. I hope this info helps you formulate a more cogent argument.
In a reactor the moderator, which is usually water, thermalizes or reduces neutron energy levels. This is necessary because uranium has a higher probability of absorbing a neutron in a certain energy range (called the macroscopic cross-section for absorption). Uranium can absorb high energy, or fast neutrons but it’s macroscopic cross-section at these energy levels is very small. However, since it can and does happen is the reason the fast fission is accounted for in reactor design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
Water is used as a moderator because the hydrogen atom is about the same-ish mass as a neutron. Therefore, collision between the neutron and hydrogen transfers energy from the neutron to the water molecule slowing or thermalizing the neutron.
It’s also why water isn’t the coolant used it fast breeder reactors. They’re cooled by something much heavier such as sodium or lead. A neutron collides with one of these atoms and bounces right off giving up very little energy. Kinda like shooting a ping pong ball at a cannon ball. It bounces off and the cannon ball doesn’t move. In these reactors, there are only high energy, or fast neutrons causing fission reactions. However, the fission reaction rate it on par with a light water reactor.
Both types of reactors control reaction rate, reactor power, with control rods. Control rods are made of materials with much higher affinities to absorb neutrons. When inserted into the reactor they take all the neutrons so the fuel chain reaction slows.
The SL-1 accident I posted about earlier illustrates how uranium can fission at a very high reaction rate if the fast neutron flux is high enough. When the rod was pulled too quickly the neutron flux increased fast enough to cause prompt criticality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
As an aside note, high radiation levels do cause light to be produced. It’s commonly called Cherenkov light. I once saw it at a spent fuel pool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
Okay, I realize this has nothing to do with the light seen from a nuclear explosion but It’s pretty danged cool.
Another side note, the macroscopic cross-section units are in barns...because it’s like hitting the broad side of a barn. Get it...the broad side of a barn. I slay me. :D
Mike
Does this explain how fission can happen quickly without melting everything? Is it because they use heavier coolant?
I’m not sure I understand your question but it appears you’re asking about fast fission reactors.?
If so, fast fission merely describes fission using high energy neutrons. The fuel atom absorbs the neutron, becomes unstable, and then splits into fission products (other elements). The reason for heavier coolant if a fast fission reactor is so it doesn’t reduce neutron energy levels.
The amount of heat produced between a light water reactor and a fast fission reactor is essentially the same. The reaction rate in percent reactor power works the same too. Reactor power is determined by measuring the neutron flux.
If this doesn’t answer your question it’s my bad for not understanding the question.
Mike
Well my understanding of Heiwa's objection was that fast fission was impossible because too much heat would be created, everything would melt, and the process would stop. You're saying there is the same amount of heat. But would that heat get released in a much shorter time?
I could be completely misunderstanding Heiwa's objection, for that matter.
For what it’s worth I believe Heiwa’s objection is based on an erroneous assumption. Fission is fission regardless of the cause. Fast neutron absorption, thermal neutron absorption, or spontaneous fission; it’s all the same. The amount of energy released per fission is the same-ish every time.
The reaction rate, fissions per time, is what is controlled in a reactor. The control rods do the same thing in both light water reactors (LWR) and liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR). The reaction rate, or power production, is controlled by how much fuel is covered by withdrawing the rods. The rods ensure there are only enough neutrons available to sustain the chain reaction need to produce a given power level. The drive mechanisms are limited in their speed withdrawal and upon loss of power they release the rods and they drop into the reactor shutting it down…a reactor scram.
In the SL-1 accident rate was higher than the system could handle. The heat production occurred faster than the system could dissipate it. The reason it got out of control is because the control rod was withdrawn too fast and too far so all the neutrons released by fission were available for further fission (average of 2.43 neutrons per fission of uranium). The cooling flashed to steam so there was no thermalization process to slow down the neutrons.
So:
- No control rods to reduce the number of neutrons for a given amount of fuel
- No water to lower the neutron energies
- Very high fast neutron flux (concentration)
- All of which caused a very high energy release in a very short time, damage to the reactor and loss of life
This could have happened in a fast breeder reactor too.
This is exactly the type of reaction you get in a bomb. Very high rate of energy release is a very short period of time. The huge amount of heat produced causes everything in the vicinity, including air, to combust. That combustion is the fire ball you see after the initial release of light.
Keep in mind that I’m no bomb designer and my expertise is solely in reactors so, while my explanation is correct, it may be missing a few points. Not mention my reactor theory is a little rusty. ;D
You can probably find clear descriptions on the net. Not exactly light reading though. :D
Mike
-
Does this explain how fission can happen quickly without melting everything? Is it because they use heavier coolant?
I’m not sure I understand your question but it appears you’re asking about fast fission reactors.?
If so, fast fission merely describes fission using high energy neutrons. The fuel atom absorbs the neutron, becomes unstable, and then splits into fission products (other elements). The reason for heavier coolant if a fast fission reactor is so it doesn’t reduce neutron energy levels.
The amount of heat produced between a light water reactor and a fast fission reactor is essentially the same. The reaction rate in percent reactor power works the same too. Reactor power is determined by measuring the neutron flux.
If this doesn’t answer your question it’s my bad for not understanding the question.
Mike
Hm, what has this to do with nuclear weapons using the military, destructive, instantaneous, FLASH fission that radiates innocent onlookers into vapor ... in nanoseconds?
What happens in peaceful nuclear reactors of different types to produce energy/heat at low temperatures to make steam, that can drive generators producing electricity, have nothing in common with the military FLASH fission.
Reaction rates! Neutron fluxes! In nuclear weapons and a-bombs. LOL! Give me a break.
Do you realize everyone reading this exchange can verify every fact we post? Do you realize that everyone will know who's information is more factual? I admit I don't have all the answers. Honestly, it's been a long time since I needed my knowledge in reactor and I'm a little rusty but I haven't posted anything that isn't verifiable.
Let's see who's information stands up to the scrutiny. I don't have a million of any kind of money but if you're proved right I'll send you my favorite coin. I'm a coin collector and I love the Morgan dollar. I don't have one worth a lot of money but it's yours if the consensus here is your info is more factual than mine.
The fact is you don't not understand the mechanism behind fission so your claims are baseless. Just because it's your opinion doesn't make it fact. I'm done discussing this with you until you catch a freakin' clue.
Mike
-
Reaction rates! Neutron fluxes! In nuclear weapons and a-bombs. LOL! Give me a break.
Do you realize everyone reading this exchange can verify every fact we post? Do you realize that everyone will know who's information is more factual?
You forget that Anders claims that all "facts" about atomic bombs are just propaganda.
-
Reaction rates! Neutron fluxes! In nuclear weapons and a-bombs. LOL! Give me a break.
Do you realize everyone reading this exchange can verify every fact we post? Do you realize that everyone will know who's information is more factual?
You forget that Anders claims that all "facts" about atomic bombs are just propaganda.
LOL
Maybe he's propaganda. eerie music in the background
-
Speaking of pissing, do you still piss your pants when I mention Rocky Flats?
I don't know who you are and why I should piss your pants when you mention something? Are you paid by FE Forum to ask stupid questions?
You need to reread what I posed, but anyways, no I'm not paid to ask stupid questions. But right near me people were paid to make nuclear bombs for almost 40 years. You still have no answer for the place. Shame.
-
For what it’s worth I believe Heiwa’s objection is based on an erroneous assumption. Fission is fission regardless of the cause. Fast neutron absorption, thermal neutron absorption, or spontaneous fission; it’s all the same. The amount of energy released per fission is the same-ish every time.
The reaction rate, fissions per time, is what is controlled in a reactor. The control rods do the same thing in both light water reactors (LWR) and liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR). The reaction rate, or power production, is controlled by how much fuel is covered by withdrawing the rods. The rods ensure there are only enough neutrons available to sustain the chain reaction need to produce a given power level. The drive mechanisms are limited in their speed withdrawal and upon loss of power they release the rods and they drop into the reactor shutting it down…a reactor scram.
In the SL-1 accident rate was higher than the system could handle. The heat production occurred faster than the system could dissipate it. The reason it got out of control is because the control rod was withdrawn too fast and too far so all the neutrons released by fission were available for further fission (average of 2.43 neutrons per fission of uranium). The cooling flashed to steam so there was no thermalization process to slow down the neutrons.
So:
- No control rods to reduce the number of neutrons for a given amount of fuel
- No water to lower the neutron energies
- Very high fast neutron flux (concentration)
- All of which caused a very high energy release in a very short time, damage to the reactor and loss of life
This could have happened in a fast breeder reactor too.
This is exactly the type of reaction you get in a bomb. Very high rate of energy release is a very short period of time. The huge amount of heat produced causes everything in the vicinity, including air, to combust. That combustion is the fire ball you see after the initial release of light.
Keep in mind that I’m no bomb designer and my expertise is solely in reactors so, while my explanation is correct, it may be missing a few points. Not mention my reactor theory is a little rusty. ;D
You can probably find clear descriptions on the net. Not exactly light reading though. :D
Mike
Well Mike, you haven't understood what I, Heiwa, say at my web site.
Fission works only in nuclear power plants on land and on ships. The fuel is 100's of tons of nuclear fuel (less on ships) - uranium oxide - atoms/molecules of which are fissioned by moderated neutrons at a controlled rate. Energy is released, water is heated and becomes steam, etc, etc. After 5-10 years the fuel is depleted and fresh fuel is loaded. Nothing magic. Such a plant cannot explode. It can overheat and melt due to bad operation procedures and slack safety.
Fission doesn't work in nuclear weapons like a-bombs, where the fuel is two bits of about 60 kgs of pure, solid uranium metal, which are suddenly compressed to double density with a free neutron in between resulting in billions of uranium atoms splitting during some nano-seconds producing at the speed of light a FLASH of radiation ... killing 100 000's of innocent civilians. Only crazy people like warlord FDR, dictator Stalin and naive scientist Niels Bohr can come up with such a stupid idea. But assisted by media the a-bomb became an historic fact 1945 but ... it will not last.
Why do you support the FDR/Stalin/Bohr stupidities 72 years later?
-
Reaction rates! Neutron fluxes! In nuclear weapons and a-bombs. LOL! Give me a break.
Do you realize everyone reading this exchange can verify every fact we post? Do you realize that everyone will know who's information is more factual?
You forget that Anders claims that all "facts" about atomic bombs are just propaganda.
Thanks for reminding MicroBeta about this fact.
-
Reaction rates! Neutron fluxes! In nuclear weapons and a-bombs. LOL! Give me a break.
Do you realize everyone reading this exchange can verify every fact we post? Do you realize that everyone will know who's information is more factual?
You forget that Anders claims that all "facts" about atomic bombs are just propaganda.
Thanks for reminding MicroBeta about this fact.
Heiwa proves he doesn't understand sarcasm. Bot?
-
For what it’s worth I believe Heiwa’s objection is based on an erroneous assumption. Fission is fission regardless of the cause. Fast neutron absorption, thermal neutron absorption, or spontaneous fission; it’s all the same. The amount of energy released per fission is the same-ish every time.
The reaction rate, fissions per time, is what is controlled in a reactor. The control rods do the same thing in both light water reactors (LWR) and liquid metal fast breeder reactors (LMFBR). The reaction rate, or power production, is controlled by how much fuel is covered by withdrawing the rods. The rods ensure there are only enough neutrons available to sustain the chain reaction need to produce a given power level. The drive mechanisms are limited in their speed withdrawal and upon loss of power they release the rods and they drop into the reactor shutting it down…a reactor scram.
In the SL-1 accident rate was higher than the system could handle. The heat production occurred faster than the system could dissipate it. The reason it got out of control is because the control rod was withdrawn too fast and too far so all the neutrons released by fission were available for further fission (average of 2.43 neutrons per fission of uranium). The cooling flashed to steam so there was no thermalization process to slow down the neutrons.
So:
- No control rods to reduce the number of neutrons for a given amount of fuel
- No water to lower the neutron energies
- Very high fast neutron flux (concentration)
- All of which caused a very high energy release in a very short time, damage to the reactor and loss of life
This could have happened in a fast breeder reactor too.
This is exactly the type of reaction you get in a bomb. Very high rate of energy release is a very short period of time. The huge amount of heat produced causes everything in the vicinity, including air, to combust. That combustion is the fire ball you see after the initial release of light.
Keep in mind that I’m no bomb designer and my expertise is solely in reactors so, while my explanation is correct, it may be missing a few points. Not mention my reactor theory is a little rusty. ;D
You can probably find clear descriptions on the net. Not exactly light reading though. :D
Mike
Well Mike, you haven't understood what I, Heiwa, say at my web site.
Fission works only in nuclear power plants on land and on ships. The fuel is 100's of tons of nuclear fuel (less on ships) - uranium oxide - atoms/molecules of which are fissioned by moderated neutrons at a controlled rate. Energy is released, water is heated and becomes steam, etc, etc. After 5-10 years the fuel is depleted and fresh fuel is loaded. Nothing magic. Such a plant cannot explode. It can overheat and melt due to bad operation procedures and slack safety.
Fission doesn't work in nuclear weapons like a-bombs, where the fuel is two bits of about 60 kgs of pure, solid uranium metal, which are suddenly compressed to double density with a free neutron in between resulting in billions of uranium atoms splitting during some nano-seconds producing at the speed of light a FLASH of radiation ... killing 100 000's of innocent civilians. Only crazy people like warlord FDR, dictator Stalin and naive scientist Niels Bohr can come up with such a stupid idea. But assisted by media the a-bomb became an historic fact 1945 but ... it will not last.
Why do you support the FDR/Stalin/Bohr stupidities 72 years later?
Why do you keep making the same claims about fission without explaining why?
I understood what you said at your site very well. I'm educated, fairly smart, and I know how to read.
What I'm saying is your website is wrong. Your conclusions are wrong. You have no understanding how fission is initiated and you made many unsubstantiated assumptions that you don't even try to prove. That's what I'm saying.
Additionally, every university on the planet agrees with me so you're outta gas on this subject...unless there's some big conspiracy to hide the truth from even the scientists, physicists, and engineers.
You need to do a little actual research instead of making clueless assumptions. 'cause here's the thing. If you were right about fission, you would explain why on your site. You don't provide any explanation because you don't have one.
Explain it or admit you don't know.
Mike
-
Why do you keep making the same claims about fission without explaining why?
I understood what you said at your site very well. I'm educated, fairly smart, and I know how to read.
What I'm saying is your website is wrong. Your conclusions are wrong. You have no understanding how fission is initiated and you made many unsubstantiated assumptions that you don't even try to prove. That's what I'm saying.
Additionally, every university on the planet agrees with me so you're outta gas on this subject...unless there's some big conspiracy to hide the truth from even the scientists, physicists, and engineers.
You need to do a little actual research instead of making clueless assumptions. 'cause here's the thing. If you were right about fission, you would explain why on your site. You don't provide any explanation because you don't have one.
Mike
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I doubt you are educated, fairly smart, and I know how to read. You sound like a paid opposition agent. Every university on the planet agrees with you!
You are out of your mind.
... unless there's some big conspiracy ...
???
I am in the safety at sea biz. One of my problems is when opponents say the principle of Archimedes is no longer valid ... and governments and the United Nations agree.
-
Why do you keep making the same claims about fission without explaining why?
I understood what you said at your site very well. I'm educated, fairly smart, and I know how to read.
What I'm saying is your website is wrong. Your conclusions are wrong. You have no understanding how fission is initiated and you made many unsubstantiated assumptions that you don't even try to prove. That's what I'm saying.
Additionally, every university on the planet agrees with me so you're outta gas on this subject...unless there's some big conspiracy to hide the truth from even the scientists, physicists, and engineers.
You need to do a little actual research instead of making clueless assumptions. 'cause here's the thing. If you were right about fission, you would explain why on your site. You don't provide any explanation because you don't have one.
Mike
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
No you don't!
WHY?
-
I am in the safety at sea biz. One of my problems is when opponents say the principle of Archimedes is no longer valid ... and governments and the United Nations agree.
Directly link where your opponents have said the above or admit you are LYING.
I'll bet you won't do either.
-
Why do you keep making the same claims about fission without explaining why?
I understood what you said at your site very well. I'm educated, fairly smart, and I know how to read.
What I'm saying is your website is wrong. Your conclusions are wrong. You have no understanding how fission is initiated and you made many unsubstantiated assumptions that you don't even try to prove. That's what I'm saying.
Additionally, every university on the planet agrees with me so you're outta gas on this subject...unless there's some big conspiracy to hide the truth from even the scientists, physicists, and engineers.
You need to do a little actual research instead of making clueless assumptions. 'cause here's the thing. If you were right about fission, you would explain why on your site. You don't provide any explanation because you don't have one.
Mike
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I doubt you are educated, fairly smart, and I know how to read. You sound like a paid opposition agent. Every university on the planet agrees with you!
You are out of your mind.
... unless there's some big conspiracy ...
???
I am in the safety at sea biz. One of my problems is when opponents say the principle of Archimedes is no longer valid ... and governments and the United Nations agree.
Paid opposition agent? Paranoid much?
I do like how you keep avoiding the question. Your website does not explain why you disagree with every college text book on the subject. It doesn't explain why you can't initial fission with fast neutrons. You keep saying it does but the explanation doesn't exist. It does say that thermal fission is the only type so that must be what you're talking about. What it doesn't do is say why.
Mike
-
Your website does not explain why you disagree with every college text book on the subject. It doesn't explain why you can't initial fission with fast neutrons. You keep saying it does but the explanation doesn't exist. It does say that thermal fission is the only type so that must be what you're talking about. What it doesn't do is say why.
Mike
But my website does. College books tell you what to report at exams.
Thermal fission? What is that? Why do you invent new terms all the time. Licking the wrong bottoms?
-
Why!?
-
Your website does not explain why you disagree with every college text book on the subject. It doesn't explain why you can't initial fission with fast neutrons. You keep saying it does but the explanation doesn't exist. It does say that thermal fission is the only type so that must be what you're talking about. What it doesn't do is say why.
Mike
But my website does. College books tell you what to report at exams.
Thermal fission? What is that? Why do you invent new terms all the time. Licking the wrong bottoms?
Now it all becomes clear. You've given yourself away. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Thermal fission is fission initiated by thermal neutron capture.
That red highlighted text above proves the following:
- You didn't know that the slow fission you've been talking about all this time is fission caused by thermal neutron capture.
- You didn't know that when you say there is "only one type of fission - the one that happens in nature and that can be moderated in nuclear power plants to recover energy" you are talking about a thermal neutron reactor.
- You didn't know that the only difference between fast and slow fission is neutron energy levels that initiate fission and not how fast fission happens...although, these days it refereed to as neutron temperature.
The three links below prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Which is why you can't prove what you say about fission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal-neutron_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_temperature
Mike
-
Note that Heiwa ignored the following.
I am in the safety at sea biz. One of my problems is when opponents say the principle of Archimedes is no longer valid ... and governments and the United Nations agree.
Directly link where your opponents have said the above or admit you are LYING.
I'll bet you won't do either.
-
One of my problems is when opponents say the principle of Archimedes is no longer valid ...
Hahaha, I agree.
-
Your website does not explain why you disagree with every college text book on the subject. It doesn't explain why you can't initial fission with fast neutrons. You keep saying it does but the explanation doesn't exist. It does say that thermal fission is the only type so that must be what you're talking about. What it doesn't do is say why.
Mike
But my website does. College books tell you what to report at exams.
Thermal fission? What is that? Why do you invent new terms all the time. Licking the wrong bottoms?
Now it all becomes clear. You've given yourself away. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Thermal fission is fission initiated by thermal neutron capture.
That red highlighted text above proves the following:
- You didn't know that the slow fission you've been talking about all this time is fission caused by thermal neutron capture.
- You didn't know that when you say there is "only one type of fission - the one that happens in nature and that can be moderated in nuclear power plants to recover energy" you are talking about a thermal neutron reactor.
- You didn't know that the only difference between fast and slow fission is neutron energy levels that initiate fission and not how fast fission happens...although, these days it refereed to as neutron temperature.
The three links below prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Which is why you can't prove what you say about fission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal-neutron_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_temperature
Mike
Sorry Mike,
there is only one type of fission - the one I describe at my website.
The military type of fission that releases energy in a FLASH at the speed of light is an invention by crazy people. I describe it too at my website.
Only idiots believe in the military, dirty mushroom cloud type fission.
-
there is only one type of fission
Why!?
1M€ to anyone who can offer a competent, non-curmudgeon-like answer to the above question.
-
Because.
Pay me. ;)
-
I'll settle for WAY less. ;D
-
there is only one type of fission
Why!?
1M€ to anyone who can offer a competent, non-curmudgeon-like answer to the above question.
If there are two it is propaganda! Like this http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm . Imagine that 19 Arabs in 2 airplanes can wipe out 7 buildings in 5 hours 911 style and that Americans believe the solution is to bomb Afghanistan and Iraq back to the stone age ... not using the prime weapon - the nuclear one!
-
Fast fission can't work because of 911? I guess that clears up a lot of the confusion. These bombs were only ever used before 911 which is why they worked. I'm still confused as to how 911 made it impossible for fast fission to work though. Can you help me out with that?
-
I'll settle for WAY less. ;D
That seems reasonable. What are you proposing?
-
I'll settle for WAY less. ;D
That seems reasonable. What are you proposing?
A couple of IPA's?
I'm a cheap date. :P
-
IPA?
-
India Pale Ale.
-
beer
-
the cause of, and solution to, every problem.
-
Well your answer is better than any Heiwa has given so I would think a couple of IPAs would be fair. Isn't Heiwa flying you to his condo in France? How about we square up when you get back? ;D
Edit: Yes beer has been the solution and cause for many problems. Has it ever been the cause and solution for the same problem?
-
Fast fission can't work because of 911? I guess that clears up a lot of the confusion. These bombs were only ever used before 911 which is why they worked. I'm still confused as to how 911 made it impossible for fast fission to work though. Can you help me out with that?
Fission works. The one I describe at my website.
But speed of light, fast, military, destructive, mushroom cloud, FLASH radiation fission vaporizing civilians is just propaganda (like 911 Arabs) promoted by particular interests ... and has nothing do with real fission.
-
-
Fast fission can't work because of 911? I guess that clears up a lot of the confusion. These bombs were only ever used before 911 which is why they worked. I'm still confused as to how 911 made it impossible for fast fission to work though. Can you help me out with that?
Fission works. The one I describe at my website.
But speed of light, fast, military, destructive, mushroom cloud, FLASH radiation fission vaporizing civilians is just propaganda (like 911 Arabs) promoted by particular interests ... and has nothing do with real fission.
But why? The only answer you've given so far is 911. That makes about as much sense as saying that DNA is because of WWII.
-
beer
Mmmmmmm Beeeeeeeerrrrrr. Love me a good IPA.
-
Fast fission can't work because of 911? I guess that clears up a lot of the confusion. These bombs were only ever used before 911 which is why they worked. I'm still confused as to how 911 made it impossible for fast fission to work though. Can you help me out with that?
Fission works. The one I describe at my website.
But speed of light, fast, military, destructive, mushroom cloud, FLASH radiation fission vaporizing civilians is just propaganda (like 911 Arabs) promoted by particular interests ... and has nothing do with real fission.
But why? The only answer you've given so far is 911. That makes about as much sense as saying that DNA is because of WWII.
He won't answer you. He won't answer anyone. He has proven he doesn't understand the fission. He won't explain why because he doesn't know. His website says he has a Masters as a Marine Engineer so he should be able to understand but he refuses to do the research.
-
Your website does not explain why you disagree with every college text book on the subject. It doesn't explain why you can't initial fission with fast neutrons. You keep saying it does but the explanation doesn't exist. It does say that thermal fission is the only type so that must be what you're talking about. What it doesn't do is say why.
Mike
But my website does. College books tell you what to report at exams.
Thermal fission? What is that? Why do you invent new terms all the time. Licking the wrong bottoms?
Now it all becomes clear. You've given yourself away. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Thermal fission is fission initiated by thermal neutron capture.
That red highlighted text above proves the following:
- You didn't know that the slow fission you've been talking about all this time is fission caused by thermal neutron capture.
- You didn't know that when you say there is "only one type of fission - the one that happens in nature and that can be moderated in nuclear power plants to recover energy" you are talking about a thermal neutron reactor.
- You didn't know that the only difference between fast and slow fission is neutron energy levels that initiate fission and not how fast fission happens...although, these days it refereed to as neutron temperature.
The three links below prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Which is why you can't prove what you say about fission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal-neutron_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_temperature
Mike
Sorry Mike,
there is only one type of fission - the one I describe at my website.
The military type of fission that releases energy in a FLASH at the speed of light is an invention by crazy people. I describe it too at my website.
Only idiots believe in the military, dirty mushroom cloud type fission.
You haven't read a single link have you?
Only idiots make outrageous claims base of false information for all the world to see. Only idiots post wrong shit not realizing everyone reading can spend ten minutes on google and realize that that idiot is nothing but clueless conspiracy theorist. Only idiots thinks it isn’t a conspiracy theory to claim that a bunch of countries colluding together to convince the world that nuclear weapons are real.
-
Your website does not explain why you disagree with every college text book on the subject. It doesn't explain why you can't initial fission with fast neutrons. You keep saying it does but the explanation doesn't exist. It does say that thermal fission is the only type so that must be what you're talking about. What it doesn't do is say why.
Mike
But my website does. College books tell you what to report at exams.
Thermal fission? What is that? Why do you invent new terms all the time. Licking the wrong bottoms?
Now it all becomes clear. You've given yourself away. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Thermal fission is fission initiated by thermal neutron capture.
That red highlighted text above proves the following:
- You didn't know that the slow fission you've been talking about all this time is fission caused by thermal neutron capture.
- You didn't know that when you say there is "only one type of fission - the one that happens in nature and that can be moderated in nuclear power plants to recover energy" you are talking about a thermal neutron reactor.
- You didn't know that the only difference between fast and slow fission is neutron energy levels that initiate fission and not how fast fission happens...although, these days it refereed to as neutron temperature.
The three links below prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Which is why you can't prove what you say about fission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal-neutron_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_temperature
Mike
Sorry Mike,
there is only one type of fission - the one I describe at my website.
The military type of fission that releases energy in a FLASH at the speed of light is an invention by crazy people. I describe it too at my website.
Only idiots believe in the military, dirty mushroom cloud type fission.
You haven't read a single link have you?
Well, speed of light fission and dirty mushroom clouds are just an old FDR/Stalin Yalta joke. They were so funny, FDR died before he pulled them. But people believ them today. It is similar to the Clinton/Bush 911 joke. 19 Arabs destroyed 7 WTC buildings in 1 hour by landing airplanes in the tops of two towers. LOL! But Americans believe it happened.
I wonder what will (not) happen next.
-
Your website does not explain why you disagree with every college text book on the subject. It doesn't explain why you can't initial fission with fast neutrons. You keep saying it does but the explanation doesn't exist. It does say that thermal fission is the only type so that must be what you're talking about. What it doesn't do is say why.
Mike
But my website does. College books tell you what to report at exams.
Thermal fission? What is that? Why do you invent new terms all the time. Licking the wrong bottoms?
Now it all becomes clear. You've given yourself away. You really don't know what you're talking about do you?
Thermal fission is fission initiated by thermal neutron capture.
That red highlighted text above proves the following:
- You didn't know that the slow fission you've been talking about all this time is fission caused by thermal neutron capture.
- You didn't know that when you say there is "only one type of fission - the one that happens in nature and that can be moderated in nuclear power plants to recover energy" you are talking about a thermal neutron reactor.
- You didn't know that the only difference between fast and slow fission is neutron energy levels that initiate fission and not how fast fission happens...although, these days it refereed to as neutron temperature.
The three links below prove you have no idea what you are talking about. Which is why you can't prove what you say about fission.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal-neutron_reactor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fission
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_temperature
Mike
Sorry Mike,
there is only one type of fission - the one I describe at my website.
The military type of fission that releases energy in a FLASH at the speed of light is an invention by crazy people. I describe it too at my website.
Only idiots believe in the military, dirty mushroom cloud type fission.
You haven't read a single link have you?
Well, speed of light fission and dirty mushroom clouds are just an old FDR/Stalin Yalta joke. They were so funny, FDR died before he pulled them. But people believ them today. It is similar to the Clinton/Bush 911 joke. 19 Arabs destroyed 7 WTC buildings in 1 hour by landing airplanes in the tops of two towers. LOL! But Americans believe it happened.
I wonder what will (not) happen next.
It's amazing how you never answer a question
-
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
-
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
This one, among countless others.
You haven't read a single link have you?
-
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
My plane ticket?
-
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
-
You aren't supposed to drink isopropyl alcohol.
-
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and - FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
-
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and - FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
It's good to see you agree with the laws physics on the subject of fission. Now you have to update your website.
Not only does a nuclear weapon emit light, it actually emits two flashes of light. The double flash is how you can tell a nuclear explosion from a conventional bomb. The physics behind the flash is very well understood.
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Fission.htm#.WVk7x4jyuM8
“The idea behind an atomic bomb is really very simple: bring lots of uranium-235 together very quickly so that it undergoes very rapid fission. This can be done in a number of ways, for example by causing a conventional explosion around a lump of high-grade (i.e. high density) U-235. This causes an "implosion", crushing the U-235 together to the point at which fission very rapidly takes over and a huge explosion results as all the particles fly apart, together with a lot of heat and light that is also released during the fission process.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
“causing the characteristic double pulse of light seen from a nuclear detonation, with the dip causing the double pulse due to the shock wave–fireball interaction. It is this unique feature of nuclear explosions that is exploited when verifying that an atmospheric nuclear explosion has occurred and not simply a large conventional explosion, with radiometer instruments known as Bhangmeters capable of determining the nature of explosions.”
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2015/04/18/the-nuclear-double-flash/
“looking for the characteristic double flash of a nuclear detonation.”
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects1.shtml
“and a large proportion of the energy in a nuclear explosion is emitted in the form of light and heat”
-
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and - FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
It's good to see you agree with the laws physics on the subject of fission. Now you have to update your website.
Not only does a nuclear weapon emit light, it actually emits two flashes of light. The double flash is how you can tell a nuclear explosion from a conventional bomb. The physics behind the flash is very well understood.
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Fission.htm#.WVk7x4jyuM8
“The idea behind an atomic bomb is really very simple: bring lots of uranium-235 together very quickly so that it undergoes very rapid fission. This can be done in a number of ways, for example by causing a conventional explosion around a lump of high-grade (i.e. high density) U-235. This causes an "implosion", crushing the U-235 together to the point at which fission very rapidly takes over and a huge explosion results as all the particles fly apart, together with a lot of heat and light that is also released during the fission process.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
“causing the characteristic double pulse of light seen from a nuclear detonation, with the dip causing the double pulse due to the shock wave–fireball interaction. It is this unique feature of nuclear explosions that is exploited when verifying that an atmospheric nuclear explosion has occurred and not simply a large conventional explosion, with radiometer instruments known as Bhangmeters capable of determining the nature of explosions.”
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2015/04/18/the-nuclear-double-flash/
“looking for the characteristic double flash of a nuclear detonation.”
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects1.shtml
“and a large proportion of the energy in a nuclear explosion is emitted in the form of light and heat”
LOL. Fission doesn't work like that! You just repeat old propaganda. Why?
-
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and - FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
It's good to see you agree with the laws physics on the subject of fission. Now you have to update your website.
Not only does a nuclear weapon emit light, it actually emits two flashes of light. The double flash is how you can tell a nuclear explosion from a conventional bomb. The physics behind the flash is very well understood.
http://www.emc2-explained.info/Emc2/Fission.htm#.WVk7x4jyuM8
“The idea behind an atomic bomb is really very simple: bring lots of uranium-235 together very quickly so that it undergoes very rapid fission. This can be done in a number of ways, for example by causing a conventional explosion around a lump of high-grade (i.e. high density) U-235. This causes an "implosion", crushing the U-235 together to the point at which fission very rapidly takes over and a huge explosion results as all the particles fly apart, together with a lot of heat and light that is also released during the fission process.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
“causing the characteristic double pulse of light seen from a nuclear detonation, with the dip causing the double pulse due to the shock wave–fireball interaction. It is this unique feature of nuclear explosions that is exploited when verifying that an atmospheric nuclear explosion has occurred and not simply a large conventional explosion, with radiometer instruments known as Bhangmeters capable of determining the nature of explosions.”
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2015/04/18/the-nuclear-double-flash/
“looking for the characteristic double flash of a nuclear detonation.”
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects1.shtml
“and a large proportion of the energy in a nuclear explosion is emitted in the form of light and heat”
LOL. Fission doesn't work like that! You just repeat old propaganda. Why?
Because I don't believe this data is propaganda and this is the only data...at least that I can find.
Okay, I'll bite. What links do you have that show these are wrong? And, I don't mean you site.
Mike
-
Who bets that Heiwa is going to post his website anyway?
Taking bets right now! winning party takes all.
I bet 50$ hes going to post it.
-
No ones's gonna take your bet unless you give fantastic odds.
-
Whats life without a little risk?
"Someone who has never failed, never tried something new"
- Heiwa
-
Here's some light from a reactor.....okay, that has absolutely nothing to with fission but it really bleepin' cool. ;D
It's called Cherenkov Light.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Cerenkov_Effect.jpg)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/TrigaReactorCore.jpeg)
-
No ones's gonna take your bet unless you give fantastic odds.
I don't care what odds he giving, I ain't takin' that bet.
Mike
-
Because I don't believe this data is propaganda and this is the only data...at least that I can find.
Okay, I'll bite. What links do you have that show these are wrong? And, I don't mean you site.
Mike
Well, your links are propaganda and I explain why at my website. Google, e.g. about how to trigger an a-bomb and you do not get any real answers. Reason being there is no way to trigger an a-bomb, as military, double FLASH (LOL) fission + dirty mushroom cloud don't exist.
Of course, a-bombs being hoaxes, means that you must falsify the type of fission used by an a-bomb, which I explain at my website.
You see I (my website) am the source of that information. Same with the M/S Estonia accident 1994. I am the source of the true cause of that incident. Media and Wikipedia reports the official lies (visor) sponsored by the authorities and do not dare to link to me. In the past they, like you, branded me as a conspiracy theorist (LOL) but have stopped with it. Now they try to ignore me, but, now the children of the victims get interested and ask - the source - about my findings.
Plenty of historians have told me the importance of being my own source and backing up my findings with facts. I know some people get upset feeling they have been fooled about, e.g. Hiroshima, but it is cognitive dissonance works. I warn about it at my website.
-
You see I (my website) am the source of that information.
No, it isn't.
Plenty of historians have told me the importance of ... backing up my findings with facts.
Then please do so, post-haste!
-
Because I don't believe this data is propaganda and this is the only data...at least that I can find.
Okay, I'll bite. What links do you have that show these are wrong? And, I don't mean you site.
Mike
Well, your links are propaganda and I explain why at my website. Google, e.g. about how to trigger an a-bomb and you do not get any real answers. Reason being there is no way to trigger an a-bomb, as military, double FLASH (LOL) fission + dirty mushroom cloud don't exist.
Of course, a-bombs being hoaxes, means that you must falsify the type of fission used by an a-bomb, which I explain at my website.
You see I (my website) am the source of that information. Same with the M/S Estonia accident 1994. I am the source of the true cause of that incident. Media and Wikipedia reports the official lies (visor) sponsored by the authorities and do not dare to link to me. In the past they, like you, branded me as a conspiracy theorist (LOL) but have stopped with it. Now they try to ignore me, but, now the children of the victims get interested and ask - the source - about my findings.
Plenty of historians have told me the importance of being my own source and backing up my findings with facts. I know some people get upset feeling they have been fooled about, e.g. Hiroshima, but it is cognitive dissonance works. I warn about it at my website.
You don’t understand and are not even remotely qualified to discuss cognitive dissonance. It does NOT happen by merely reading something you don’t agree with. To suggest that everyone here who disagrees with you is suffering from cognitive dissonance is just plain ignorant. You are not qualified to diagnose people for anything so just stop it already. It’s getting old.
We could argue forever about what information is propaganda and what is real. But, here’s the problem I have with your claims of propaganda. If everything I’ve posted is propaganda then who is perpetuating that propaganda? In order for all that info to be propaganda there has to be some power behind it. There has to be a whole lot of power behind it.
A short list of some of the more famous intelligence failures.
- The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
- The Rosenbergs
- The Bay of Pigs
- The Pentagon Papers
- Watergate
- Iran-Contra
- ABSCAM
- White Water
- Mail Gate
- Valerie Plame
- Abu Ghraib
- Bush era warrentless wiretaps
- Eric Snoden
- Chelsea Manning
- Wiki Leaks
People can’t keep secrets. The bigger the secret the harder it is to keep. The truth always comes out in the end.
The one thing that I can’t get past is the idea that all the nuclear powers of the world conspire together to lie about nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. However, you want us to believe all these countries have been working together to keep this secret for 70 years. In all that time, there hasn’t been a single whistle blower, leaked document, or deathbed confession.
Further, your claims rely on things/people like universities, defense contractors, manufacturing & industry, scientists, physicists, and engineers would be needed to perpetuate the story that a-bombs exist. This would be the largest conspiracy the world has ever seen is central in all your claims.
It is not possible for so many countries, so many people, over so many decades to hide the fact that nuclear weapons are fake. Even you have to admit that the largest conspiracy theory in the history of mankind is required or your entire premise falls apart. Okay, the faked moon landings requires a much larger conspiracy.
Mike
-
Because I don't believe this data is propaganda and this is the only data...at least that I can find.
Okay, I'll bite. What links do you have that show these are wrong? And, I don't mean you site.
Mike
Well, your links are propaganda and I explain why at my website. Google, e.g. about how to trigger an a-bomb and you do not get any real answers. Reason being there is no way to trigger an a-bomb, as military, double FLASH (LOL) fission + dirty mushroom cloud don't exist.
Of course, a-bombs being hoaxes, means that you must falsify the type of fission used by an a-bomb, which I explain at my website.
You see I (my website) am the source of that information. Same with the M/S Estonia accident 1994. I am the source of the true cause of that incident. Media and Wikipedia reports the official lies (visor) sponsored by the authorities and do not dare to link to me. In the past they, like you, branded me as a conspiracy theorist (LOL) but have stopped with it. Now they try to ignore me, but, now the children of the victims get interested and ask - the source - about my findings.
Plenty of historians have told me the importance of being my own source and backing up my findings with facts. I know some people get upset feeling they have been fooled about, e.g. Hiroshima, but it is cognitive dissonance works. I warn about it at my website.
You don’t understand and are not even remotely qualified to discuss cognitive dissonance. It does NOT happen by merely reading something you don’t agree with. To suggest that everyone here who disagrees with you is suffering from cognitive dissonance is just plain ignorant. You are not qualified to diagnose people for anything so just stop it already. It’s getting old.
We could argue forever about what information is propaganda and what is real. But, here’s the problem I have with your claims of propaganda. If everything I’ve posted is propaganda then who is perpetuating that propaganda? In order for all that info to be propaganda there has to be some power behind it. There has to be a whole lot of power behind it.
A short list of some of the more famous intelligence failures.
- The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
- The Rosenbergs
- The Bay of Pigs
- The Pentagon Papers
- Watergate
- Iran-Contra
- ABSCAM
- White Water
- Mail Gate
- Valerie Plame
- Abu Ghraib
- Bush era warrentless wiretaps
- Eric Snoden
- Chelsea Manning
- Wiki Leaks
People can’t keep secrets. The bigger the secret the harder it is to keep. The truth always comes out in the end.
The one thing that I can’t get past is the idea that all the nuclear powers of the world conspire together to lie about nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. However, you want us to believe all these countries have been working together to keep this secret for 70 years. In all that time, there hasn’t been a single whistle blower, leaked document, or deathbed confession.
Further, your claims rely on things/people like universities, defense contractors, manufacturing & industry, scientists, physicists, and engineers would be needed to perpetuate the story that a-bombs exist. This would be the largest conspiracy the world has ever seen is central in all your claims.
It is not possible for so many countries, so many people, over so many decades to hide the fact that nuclear weapons are fake. Even you have to admit that the largest conspiracy theory in the history of mankind is required or your entire premise falls apart. Okay, the faked moon landings requires a much larger conspiracy.
Mike
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Take M/S Estonia 1994 sinking killing ~1000 persons. Officially the ferry sank due to a defective bow visor that had fallen off. In reality the visor never fell off but was blown off the ship under water after the sinking. The people who did it apparently know how to keep a secret. If you don't, you will suddenly die.
Same with Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945. The towns were destroyed already May/June by conventional bombings by USA to prepare for the a-bomb show in August.
Same with the US space program. A complete swindle. No humans have ever been in space. Today we shall be afraid of asteroids. Ridiculous.
Not to talk about 911. 19 Arabs completely destroying 7 solid buldings by landing two planes in two of them. Plenty people know how to invent false stories and how to keep secrets.
-
Because I don't believe this data is propaganda and this is the only data...at least that I can find.
Okay, I'll bite. What links do you have that show these are wrong? And, I don't mean you site.
Mike
Well, your links are propaganda and I explain why at my website. Google, e.g. about how to trigger an a-bomb and you do not get any real answers. Reason being there is no way to trigger an a-bomb, as military, double FLASH (LOL) fission + dirty mushroom cloud don't exist.
Of course, a-bombs being hoaxes, means that you must falsify the type of fission used by an a-bomb, which I explain at my website.
You see I (my website) am the source of that information. Same with the M/S Estonia accident 1994. I am the source of the true cause of that incident. Media and Wikipedia reports the official lies (visor) sponsored by the authorities and do not dare to link to me. In the past they, like you, branded me as a conspiracy theorist (LOL) but have stopped with it. Now they try to ignore me, but, now the children of the victims get interested and ask - the source - about my findings.
Plenty of historians have told me the importance of being my own source and backing up my findings with facts. I know some people get upset feeling they have been fooled about, e.g. Hiroshima, but it is cognitive dissonance works. I warn about it at my website.
You don’t understand and are not even remotely qualified to discuss cognitive dissonance. It does NOT happen by merely reading something you don’t agree with. To suggest that everyone here who disagrees with you is suffering from cognitive dissonance is just plain ignorant. You are not qualified to diagnose people for anything so just stop it already. It’s getting old.
We could argue forever about what information is propaganda and what is real. But, here’s the problem I have with your claims of propaganda. If everything I’ve posted is propaganda then who is perpetuating that propaganda? In order for all that info to be propaganda there has to be some power behind it. There has to be a whole lot of power behind it.
A short list of some of the more famous intelligence failures.
- The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
- The Rosenbergs
- The Bay of Pigs
- The Pentagon Papers
- Watergate
- Iran-Contra
- ABSCAM
- White Water
- Mail Gate
- Valerie Plame
- Abu Ghraib
- Bush era warrentless wiretaps
- Eric Snoden
- Chelsea Manning
- Wiki Leaks
People can’t keep secrets. The bigger the secret the harder it is to keep. The truth always comes out in the end.
The one thing that I can’t get past is the idea that all the nuclear powers of the world conspire together to lie about nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. However, you want us to believe all these countries have been working together to keep this secret for 70 years. In all that time, there hasn’t been a single whistle blower, leaked document, or deathbed confession.
Further, your claims rely on things/people like universities, defense contractors, manufacturing & industry, scientists, physicists, and engineers would be needed to perpetuate the story that a-bombs exist. This would be the largest conspiracy the world has ever seen is central in all your claims.
It is not possible for so many countries, so many people, over so many decades to hide the fact that nuclear weapons are fake. Even you have to admit that the largest conspiracy theory in the history of mankind is required or your entire premise falls apart. Okay, the faked moon landings requires a much larger conspiracy.
Mike
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Take M/S Estonia 1994 sinking killing ~1000 persons. Officially the ferry sank due to a defective bow visor that had fallen off. In reality the visor never fell off but was blown off the ship under water after the sinking. The people who did it apparently know how to keep a secret. If you don't, you will suddenly die.
Same with Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945. The towns were destroyed already May/June by conventional bombings by USA to prepare for the a-bomb show in August.
Same with the US space program. A complete swindle. No humans have ever been in space. Today we shall be afraid of asteroids. Ridiculous.
Not to talk about 911. 19 Arabs completely destroying 7 solid buldings by landing two planes in two of them. Plenty people know how to invent false stories and how to keep secrets.
Sorry you have offered nothing of substance to back up your statements. 911 and the Estonia have nothing to do with whether nuclear bombs are possible.
And you have yet to show why they are not possible beyond making bald assertions.
-
It will never work.
Everything is impossible if you're Heiwa.
Correction, everything is CGI.
I realise this post is old, I am working under the pretense that I really didn't miss much.
@ Heiwa. Seven, dude really?
-
It will never work.
Everything is impossible if you're Heiwa.
I am working under the pretense that I really didn't miss much.
A fairly safe assumption, to be sure. We did get another participant who is quite well versed in nuclear physics. He confirms that Heiwa is full of nonsense. Heiwa, of course, insists that he knows everything there is to know and so continues in his ridiculous and unfounded assertions.
-
Indeed, he is a blowhard.
Sorry I was rude last week Boots. You did nothing to deserve me being rude to you.
-
Indeed, he is a blowhard.
Sorry I was rude last week Boots. You did nothing to deserve me being rude to you.
No problems m8, it's all good!
-
@ Heiwa. Seven, dude really?
Yes, 19 Arabs destroyed seven big, solid office buildings at NY on 911 2001 by landing airplanes in the tops of two of them! http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm according to GWB, CIA, FBI, ABC, CBS, NYT, NSA, God, bla, bla, bla.
-
Because I don't believe this data is propaganda and this is the only data...at least that I can find.
Okay, I'll bite. What links do you have that show these are wrong? And, I don't mean you site.
Mike
Well, your links are propaganda and I explain why at my website. Google, e.g. about how to trigger an a-bomb and you do not get any real answers. Reason being there is no way to trigger an a-bomb, as military, double FLASH (LOL) fission + dirty mushroom cloud don't exist.
Of course, a-bombs being hoaxes, means that you must falsify the type of fission used by an a-bomb, which I explain at my website.
You see I (my website) am the source of that information. Same with the M/S Estonia accident 1994. I am the source of the true cause of that incident. Media and Wikipedia reports the official lies (visor) sponsored by the authorities and do not dare to link to me. In the past they, like you, branded me as a conspiracy theorist (LOL) but have stopped with it. Now they try to ignore me, but, now the children of the victims get interested and ask - the source - about my findings.
Plenty of historians have told me the importance of being my own source and backing up my findings with facts. I know some people get upset feeling they have been fooled about, e.g. Hiroshima, but it is cognitive dissonance works. I warn about it at my website.
You don’t understand and are not even remotely qualified to discuss cognitive dissonance. It does NOT happen by merely reading something you don’t agree with. To suggest that everyone here who disagrees with you is suffering from cognitive dissonance is just plain ignorant. You are not qualified to diagnose people for anything so just stop it already. It’s getting old.
We could argue forever about what information is propaganda and what is real. But, here’s the problem I have with your claims of propaganda. If everything I’ve posted is propaganda then who is perpetuating that propaganda? In order for all that info to be propaganda there has to be some power behind it. There has to be a whole lot of power behind it.
A short list of some of the more famous intelligence failures.
- The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
- The Rosenbergs
- The Bay of Pigs
- The Pentagon Papers
- Watergate
- Iran-Contra
- ABSCAM
- White Water
- Mail Gate
- Valerie Plame
- Abu Ghraib
- Bush era warrentless wiretaps
- Eric Snoden
- Chelsea Manning
- Wiki Leaks
People can’t keep secrets. The bigger the secret the harder it is to keep. The truth always comes out in the end.
The one thing that I can’t get past is the idea that all the nuclear powers of the world conspire together to lie about nuclear weapons. It doesn’t make sense. However, you want us to believe all these countries have been working together to keep this secret for 70 years. In all that time, there hasn’t been a single whistle blower, leaked document, or deathbed confession.
Further, your claims rely on things/people like universities, defense contractors, manufacturing & industry, scientists, physicists, and engineers would be needed to perpetuate the story that a-bombs exist. This would be the largest conspiracy the world has ever seen is central in all your claims.
It is not possible for so many countries, so many people, over so many decades to hide the fact that nuclear weapons are fake. Even you have to admit that the largest conspiracy theory in the history of mankind is required or your entire premise falls apart. Okay, the faked moon landings requires a much larger conspiracy.
Mike
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. Take M/S Estonia 1994 sinking killing ~1000 persons. Officially the ferry sank due to a defective bow visor that had fallen off. In reality the visor never fell off but was blown off the ship under water after the sinking. The people who did it apparently know how to keep a secret. If you don't, you will suddenly die.
Same with Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945. The towns were destroyed already May/June by conventional bombings by USA to prepare for the a-bomb show in August.
Same with the US space program. A complete swindle. No humans have ever been in space. Today we shall be afraid of asteroids. Ridiculous.
Not to talk about 911. 19 Arabs completely destroying 7 solid buldings by landing two planes in two of them. Plenty people know how to invent false stories and how to keep secrets.
None of this has anything to do with my post. Not even sure what you're replying to.
Mike
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing yellow monkies, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
-
What did the workers at Rocky Flats make for 40 years?
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing yellow monkies, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
On what are you basing that statement?
-
I didn't know Heiwa was that racist, but I did expect it.
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
-
I didn't know Heiwa was that racist, but I did expect it.
17 November was banned for a comment equal to that. I expect Heiwa to get a ban as well.
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
Thanks for asking. When a single free neutron fissions an atom, the reaction is instantaneous, and the original atom is split into two smaller atoms and two or more neutrons are released, that can fission other atoms or just fly away and die.
The two smaller atoms (fission fragments) and the free neutrons fly away at high speed and it is their kinetic energy - about 180 MeV - that mainly heats up the environment. Radiation of different types adds 20 MeV of energy.
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
-
I didn't know Heiwa was that racist, but I did expect it.
17 November was banned for a comment equal to that. I expect Heiwa to get a ban as well.
Did you report him?
-
I didn't know Heiwa was that racist, but I did expect it.
17 November was banned for a comment equal to that. I expect Heiwa to get a ban as well.
Did you report him?
It shouldn't need reporting. Forum mods worth their salt should be on that kind of crap without needing to be asked.
-
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
@MicroBeta
This is what I was talking about earlier.
-
I didn't know Heiwa was that racist, but I did expect it.
17 November was banned for a comment equal to that. I expect Heiwa to get a ban as well.
Did you report him?
Yes
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
Thanks for asking. When a single free neutron fissions an atom, the reaction is instantaneous, and the original atom is split into two smaller atoms and two or more neutrons are released, that can fission other atoms or just fly away and die.
So, how long do you suppose it would take for those free neutrons to hit and fission other atoms?
The two smaller atoms (fission fragments) and the free neutrons fly away at high speed and it is their kinetic energy - about 180 MeV - that mainly heats up the environment. Radiation of different types adds 20 MeV of energy.
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
So, how much energy do you suppose would be released if the fission wasn't moderated and the rate of fission went crazy?
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
Thanks for asking. When a single free neutron fissions an atom, the reaction is instantaneous, and the original atom is split into two smaller atoms and two or more neutrons are released, that can fission other atoms or just fly away and die.
1. So, how long do you suppose it would take for those free neutrons to hit and fission other atoms?
The two smaller atoms (fission fragments) and the free neutrons fly away at high speed and it is their kinetic energy - about 180 MeV - that mainly heats up the environment. Radiation of different types adds 20 MeV of energy.
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
2. So, how much energy do you suppose would be released if the fission wasn't moderated and the rate of fission went crazy?
1. It depends on the geometry of the nuclear plant and the moderating media. To burn some 100 tons of nuclear fuel may take several years ... and then you have to add new fuel.
2. Then the plant overheats, the moderating medium evaporates and the plant melts ... and fission stops.
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
Thanks for asking. When a single free neutron fissions an atom, the reaction is instantaneous, and the original atom is split into two smaller atoms and two or more neutrons are released, that can fission other atoms or just fly away and die.
1. So, how long do you suppose it would take for those free neutrons to hit and fission other atoms?
The two smaller atoms (fission fragments) and the free neutrons fly away at high speed and it is their kinetic energy - about 180 MeV - that mainly heats up the environment. Radiation of different types adds 20 MeV of energy.
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
2. So, how much energy do you suppose would be released if the fission wasn't moderated and the rate of fission went crazy?
1. It depends on the geometry of the nuclear plant and the moderating media. To burn some 100 tons of nuclear fuel may take several years ... and then you have to add new fuel.
2. Then the plant overheats, the moderating medium evaporates and the plant melts ... and fission stops.
Your description of moderation is incorrect. Moderation is about neutron energy levels and nothing to do with reactor temperature.
The process of moderation reduces neutron energy levels-reducing from fast neutrons to thermal neutrons. In the case of light water reactor, the reactor coolant is also the moderator. Some reactors are graphite moderated but they’re rare. Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor. Moderation is the difference between thermal neutron and fast neutron fission. Thermal neutron fission reactors are moderated and fast neutron fission reactors are not.
Temperature in a reactor is controlled by coolant flow. Water in a LWR or a metal in a LMFBR. An LMFBR is unmoderated because it relies on fast neutrons. The liquid metal (e.g. sodium) is the coolant transfers heat to the steam generators. Again, a fast breeder reactor is an unmoderated reactor.
Before you completely dismiss what I’ve just posted please read the following links.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_neutron
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_criticality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_chain_reaction
-
If you want to be taken seriously you need to prove the mechanisms wrong and use assumptions to form conclusions.
There are two types of neutrons produced from fission. The first are prompt neutrons. These are produced directly from fission. You get fission fragments, and neutrons. The second are delayed neutrons. All the fission products are unstable isotopes of other elements. When the fission fragments decay to stable isotopes, some of them emit neutrons. These are the delayed neutrons. Then SL-1 accident went critical on the prompt neutrons (prompt criticality). Prompt criticality is an uncontrolled reaction. It has a very high and exponentially increasing reaction rate. Reaction rates in normal reactor operation are controlled by the control rods.
Prompt critically is what happens in a nuclear weapon. An uncontrolled, exponentially increasing reaction rate that releases all the energy from fission of the entire fissile mass in milliseconds. The ONLY difference between the fission of a reactor and a bomb are the control rods. The control rods control the reaction rate so the coolant flow is sufficient to remove heat from the reactor.
Let me be clear. The reason I don’t believe you website and that book you link to amazon for (do you get a cut of the sales) is because both yours and the books conclusions are based on assumptions. Assumptions that are not based on any real science. By that I mean neither gives any analytical proof showing that physics of a bomb are incorrect. No calculations that show what would really happen. No peer reviewed papers and not one calculation that tests the veracity of the mechanisms that make a bomb work. Only conclusions based on assumptions and links between random facts. While the theory you put forth is intriguing, in a tabloid newspaper kinda way, there is absolutely no solid science that contradicts the physics of a nuclear weapon. AAMOF, we’ve already established that your statements on fast fission were incorrect. Something you already agreed with.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
<snip>
The “a little later” part is wrong. The energy is released immediately. Although, there is energy that is also released after the initial fission.
If you want anyone to take you seriously, attack the physics. Unless you can show that a prompt critical reaction is impossible your conclusions are meaningless.
Mike
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
Thanks for asking. When a single free neutron fissions an atom, the reaction is instantaneous, and the original atom is split into two smaller atoms and two or more neutrons are released, that can fission other atoms or just fly away and die.
1. So, how long do you suppose it would take for those free neutrons to hit and fission other atoms?
The two smaller atoms (fission fragments) and the free neutrons fly away at high speed and it is their kinetic energy - about 180 MeV - that mainly heats up the environment. Radiation of different types adds 20 MeV of energy.
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
2. So, how much energy do you suppose would be released if the fission wasn't moderated and the rate of fission went crazy?
1. It depends on the geometry of the nuclear plant and the moderating media. To burn some 100 tons of nuclear fuel may take several years ... and then you have to add new fuel.
What if the geometry is such that there are many fissile atoms nearby and there is no moderating media?
2. Then the plant overheats, the moderating medium evaporates and the plant melts ... and fission stops.
Do you think that's what happened at Three Mile Island and Fukashima when those reactors melted down?
-
The ONLY difference between the fission of a reactor and a bomb are the control rods. The control rods control the reaction rate so the coolant flow is sufficient to remove heat from the reactor.
Let me be clear. The reason I don’t believe you website and that book you link to amazon for (do you get a cut of the sales) is because both yours and the books conclusions are based on assumptions.
LOL - The ONLY difference between an atomic bomb and a nuclear reactor are the control rods, you say. Well, for certain atomic bombs do not use control rods! They consist of two subcritical parts of pure, solid metal that are suddenly brought in compressive touch with each other and ... FLASH ... and dirty mushroom cloud. It is just stupid propaganda.
A nuclear reactor has control rods and no flash and no mushroom cloud. They are not propaganda.
Re the book I link to it is not based on assumptions. The writer is a scientist. And he doesn't believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by FLASHES! The assumption is that a-bombs are propaganda to scare and plenty facts are presented to support the assumption.
Only sick people believe I should get a cut of any sales of such a book.
-
What did the workers at Rocky Flats make for 40 years?
-
What did the workers at Rocky Flats make for 40 years?
Ever heard of Wismut AG? Biggest company in German Democratic Republic with 100 000's of workers drilling holes in mountains and working for PEACE on Earth from 1945 to 1990. And then suddenly it disappeared; only staff left is closing the holes. I describe the joke at my website.
-
The UK used to have a thriving coal industry. Now most mines are closed. Therefore coal is fake.
-
What did the workers at Rocky Flats make for 40 years?
Ever heard of Wismut AG? Biggest company in German Democratic Republic with 100 000's of workers drilling holes in mountains and working for PEACE on Earth from 1945 to 1990. And then suddenly it disappeared; only staff left is closing the holes. I describe the joke at my website.
That's quite normal, as soon as the good ore is gone the mine closes.
-
What did the workers at Rocky Flats make for 40 years?
Ever heard of Wismut AG? Biggest company in German Democratic Republic with 100 000's of workers drilling holes in mountains and working for PEACE on Earth from 1945 to 1990. And then suddenly it disappeared; only staff left is closing the holes. I describe the joke at my website.
That's quite normal, as soon as the good ore is gone the mine closes.
And everybody laughs!
(Apparently. I'm not sure why that would be a joke though. :-\)
-
The UK used to have a thriving coal industry. Now most mines are closed. Therefore coal is fake.
Well, the East German uranium industry 1945-1990 never produced any uranium at all to produce the Stalin a-bomb. Therefore the Stalin a-bomb is fake.
-
The normal world that doesn't have its head rammed up its own arse says different.
Substantiate your argument or stfu.
-
The normal world that doesn't have its head rammed up its own arse says different.
Substantiate your argument or stfu.
Well I happened to live in Saxony 1999-2016 where the famous Stalin a-bomb uranium ore was allegedly mined 1945/90 to ensure PEACE on EARTH and found that it was 100% propaganda. I describe it at my website. Re Saxony 1945/90 it was a workers' socialist paradise that suddenly disappeared 1990. Saxony was part of East Germany that was the 11th strongest economy in the world at the time according to statistics, bla, bla, bla. But it was all normal world propaganda.
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
Thanks for asking. When a single free neutron fissions an atom, the reaction is instantaneous, and the original atom is split into two smaller atoms and two or more neutrons are released, that can fission other atoms or just fly away and die.
1. So, how long do you suppose it would take for those free neutrons to hit and fission other atoms?
The two smaller atoms (fission fragments) and the free neutrons fly away at high speed and it is their kinetic energy - about 180 MeV - that mainly heats up the environment. Radiation of different types adds 20 MeV of energy.
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
2. So, how much energy do you suppose would be released if the fission wasn't moderated and the rate of fission went crazy?
1. It depends on the geometry of the nuclear plant and the moderating media. To burn some 100 tons of nuclear fuel may take several years ... and then you have to add new fuel.
What if the geometry is such that there are many fissile atoms nearby and there is no moderating media?
2. Then the plant overheats, the moderating medium evaporates and the plant melts ... and fission stops.
Do you think that's what happened at Three Mile Island and Fukashima when those reactors melted down?
Those were both loss of coolant accidents. Three Mile Island Unit 1 was a pressurized water reactor (PWR). They run at a very high pressure so there is no steam produced in the reactor. TMI had a stuck open relief valve and pressure dropped way below saturation. They also had other issues such as the down temperature sensor that shows the relief valve has lifted was disabled so nobody knew it lifted.
Fukashima is a boiling water reactor (BWR). It makes steam directly in the reactor. When they lost power to the feed pumps and lost the emergency diesels so they couldn't restore power to the feed pumps. BWRs are already at saturation temp/pressure so it didn't take long to uncover the core.
No cooling so they both melted down.
Mike
-
The ONLY difference between the fission of a reactor and a bomb are the control rods. The control rods control the reaction rate so the coolant flow is sufficient to remove heat from the reactor.
Let me be clear. The reason I don’t believe you website and that book you link to amazon for (do you get a cut of the sales) is because both yours and the books conclusions are based on assumptions.
LOL - The ONLY difference between an atomic bomb and a nuclear reactor are the control rods, you say. Well, for certain atomic bombs do not use control rods! They consist of two subcritical parts of pure, solid metal that are suddenly brought in compressive touch with each other and ... FLASH ... and dirty mushroom cloud. It is just stupid propaganda.
A nuclear reactor has control rods and no flash and no mushroom cloud. They are not propaganda.
Re the book I link to it is not based on assumptions. The writer is a scientist. And he doesn't believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by FLASHES! The assumption is that a-bombs are propaganda to scare and plenty facts are presented to support the assumption.
Only sick people believe I should get a cut of any sales of such a book.
There you go with the personal attacks again. Can’t you be civil or do you have call people sick and idiots to make yourself feel better?
I’ve read the book and while there are some interesting arguments there is no technical support. If the book is right and nuclear weapons don’t work, then there has to be something wrong with physics or engineering. The book doesn’t provide any analytical explanations that show the physics or engineering are incorrect.
The physics are well understood so if there was something incorrect somebody would have found that by now. The engineering, at least for the first two bombs, are also well understood.
Shouldn’t someone have found the errors in the physics or engineering by now?
Mike
-
The normal world that doesn't have its head rammed up its own arse says different.
Substantiate your argument or stfu.
Well I happened to live in Saxony 1999-2016 where the famous Stalin a-bomb uranium ore was allegedly mined 1945/90 to ensure PEACE on EARTH and found that it was 100% propaganda. I describe it at my website. Re Saxony 1945/90 it was a workers' socialist paradise that suddenly disappeared 1990. Saxony was part of East Germany that was the 11th strongest economy in the world at the time according to statistics, bla, bla, bla. But it was all normal world propaganda.
You realize that you making unsupported claims isn't evidence right?
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
Thanks for asking. When a single free neutron fissions an atom, the reaction is instantaneous, and the original atom is split into two smaller atoms and two or more neutrons are released, that can fission other atoms or just fly away and die.
1. So, how long do you suppose it would take for those free neutrons to hit and fission other atoms?
The two smaller atoms (fission fragments) and the free neutrons fly away at high speed and it is their kinetic energy - about 180 MeV - that mainly heats up the environment. Radiation of different types adds 20 MeV of energy.
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
2. So, how much energy do you suppose would be released if the fission wasn't moderated and the rate of fission went crazy?
1. It depends on the geometry of the nuclear plant and the moderating media. To burn some 100 tons of nuclear fuel may take several years ... and then you have to add new fuel.
What if the geometry is such that there are many fissile atoms nearby and there is no moderating media?
2. Then the plant overheats, the moderating medium evaporates and the plant melts ... and fission stops.
Do you think that's what happened at Three Mile Island and Fukashima when those reactors melted down?
Those were both loss of coolant accidents. Three Mile Island Unit 1 was a pressurized water reactor (PWR). They run at a very high pressure so there is no steam produced in the reactor. TMI had a stuck open relief valve and pressure dropped way below saturation. They also had other issues such as the down temperature sensor that shows the relief valve has lifted was disabled so nobody knew it lifted.
Fukashima is a boiling water reactor (BWR). It makes steam directly in the reactor. When they lost power to the feed pumps and lost the emergency diesels so they couldn't restore power to the feed pumps. BWRs are already at saturation temp/pressure so it didn't take long to uncover the core.
No cooling so they both melted down.
Mike
But did the fission stop after the melt downs?
-
It's pretty clear he'd like to change the subject.
Well, at least he finally admitted that fast fission is real.
Fission is real. But the military, destructive, speed-of-light, dirty mushroom cloud, vaporizing *******, FLASH fission version lasting nano-seconds was just stupid propaganda to scare the shit out of you. Only idiots believe such nonsense today.
How long do you think that a single fission reaction takes? How much energy is released in that single fission reaction?
Thanks for asking. When a single free neutron fissions an atom, the reaction is instantaneous, and the original atom is split into two smaller atoms and two or more neutrons are released, that can fission other atoms or just fly away and die.
1. So, how long do you suppose it would take for those free neutrons to hit and fission other atoms?
The two smaller atoms (fission fragments) and the free neutrons fly away at high speed and it is their kinetic energy - about 180 MeV - that mainly heats up the environment. Radiation of different types adds 20 MeV of energy.
You really have to moderate the fission to keep the temperature down to prevent the while thing from melting stopping further fission. That's why a-bombs do not work. All fission must be moderated.
2. So, how much energy do you suppose would be released if the fission wasn't moderated and the rate of fission went crazy?
1. It depends on the geometry of the nuclear plant and the moderating media. To burn some 100 tons of nuclear fuel may take several years ... and then you have to add new fuel.
What if the geometry is such that there are many fissile atoms nearby and there is no moderating media?
2. Then the plant overheats, the moderating medium evaporates and the plant melts ... and fission stops.
Do you think that's what happened at Three Mile Island and Fukashima when those reactors melted down?
Those were both loss of coolant accidents. Three Mile Island Unit 1 was a pressurized water reactor (PWR). They run at a very high pressure so there is no steam produced in the reactor. TMI had a stuck open relief valve and pressure dropped way below saturation. They also had other issues such as the down temperature sensor that shows the relief valve has lifted was disabled so nobody knew it lifted.
Fukashima is a boiling water reactor (BWR). It makes steam directly in the reactor. When they lost power to the feed pumps and lost the emergency diesels so they couldn't restore power to the feed pumps. BWRs are already at saturation temp/pressure so it didn't take long to uncover the core.
No cooling so they both melted down.
Mike
But did the fission stop after the melt downs?
These plants were already shutdown when the loss of coolant accidents happened. The fission process was already "stopped".
Heiwa is correct that fission would stop. He's just wrong as to why.
The heat production at the time of the accidents were from decay heat produced by the fission products. Fission fragments are unstable elements. They decay to stable isotopes over time. The amount of decay heat produced and how long it lasts depends on power history.
However, if we assume that the reactor was operating at the time of the accident, the reactor safety systems would drop the rods, reactor scram, which would stop fission. Lets say all the rods are stuck, not possible but let's go with it. Unless the rods are inserted, fission will not stop until the amount of fuel needed for the shape of the reactor relationship is broken (critical mass & critical geometry). Once the reactor begins to melt down the mass/geometry relationship is broken and fission stops.
Commercial power plants run at max power levels for long periods of time so the decay heat after shutdown it very high and last a long time. Until you get to unlimited grace period, you have keep coolant flow running full time or when temperatures need to be reduced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_heat
Mike
-
The normal world that doesn't have its head rammed up its own arse says different.
Substantiate your argument or stfu.
Well I happened to live in Saxony 1999-2016 where the famous Stalin a-bomb uranium ore was allegedly mined 1945/90 to ensure PEACE on EARTH and found that it was 100% propaganda. I describe it at my website. Re Saxony 1945/90 it was a workers' socialist paradise that suddenly disappeared 1990. Saxony was part of East Germany that was the 11th strongest economy in the world at the time according to statistics, bla, bla, bla. But it was all normal world propaganda.
You realize that you making unsupported claims isn't evidence right?
No, I just describe the findings at my web site and many historians find them interesting, particularly about the M/S Estonia sinking 1994.
Re Wismut AG - an East German company owned 50/50 by USSR - it is clear that it never produced any uranium as there is no uranium in Germany. However West Germany recognized East Germany around 1972 and agreed to carry on the hoax. When East and West Germanies became one Germany 1991, it was apparently agreed to continue the fraud to avoid complications of all sorts, e.g. falsification of history and to keep old allies happy.
-
Only a moron and/or a liar would claim that there are no uranium deposits in Germany.
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9783540785538
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_328_web.pdf
-
Only a moron and/or a liar would claim that there are no uranium deposits in Germany.
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9783540785538
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_328_web.pdf
Well, the expensive links confirms I am right.
There is no uranium (to build a-bombs or to fuel nuclear power plants) in Germany.
Why little monkey do you suggest I am wrong?
-
The normal world that doesn't have its head rammed up its own arse says different.
Substantiate your argument or stfu.
Well I happened to live in Saxony 1999-2016 where the famous Stalin a-bomb uranium ore was allegedly mined 1945/90 to ensure PEACE on EARTH and found that it was 100% propaganda. I describe it at my website. Re Saxony 1945/90 it was a workers' socialist paradise that suddenly disappeared 1990. Saxony was part of East Germany that was the 11th strongest economy in the world at the time according to statistics, bla, bla, bla. But it was all normal world propaganda.
You realize that you making unsupported claims isn't evidence right?
No, I just describe the findings at my web site and many historians find them interesting, particularly about the M/S Estonia sinking 1994.
Re Wismut AG - an East German company owned 50/50 by USSR - it is clear that it never produced any uranium as there is no uranium in Germany. However West Germany recognized East Germany around 1972 and agreed to carry on the hoax. When East and West Germanies became one Germany 1991, it was apparently agreed to continue the fraud to avoid complications of all sorts, e.g. falsification of history and to keep old allies happy.
Again, you making unsupported claims is not evidence. What part of that is confusing you?
-
The normal world that doesn't have its head rammed up its own arse says different.
Substantiate your argument or stfu.
Well I happened to live in Saxony 1999-2016 where the famous Stalin a-bomb uranium ore was allegedly mined 1945/90 to ensure PEACE on EARTH and found that it was 100% propaganda. I describe it at my website. Re Saxony 1945/90 it was a workers' socialist paradise that suddenly disappeared 1990. Saxony was part of East Germany that was the 11th strongest economy in the world at the time according to statistics, bla, bla, bla. But it was all normal world propaganda.
You realize that you making unsupported claims isn't evidence right?
No, I just describe the findings at my web site and many historians find them interesting, particularly about the M/S Estonia sinking 1994.
Re Wismut AG - an East German company owned 50/50 by USSR - it is clear that it never produced any uranium as there is no uranium in Germany. However West Germany recognized East Germany around 1972 and agreed to carry on the hoax. When East and West Germanies became one Germany 1991, it was apparently agreed to continue the fraud to avoid complications of all sorts, e.g. falsification of history and to keep old allies happy.
Again, you making unsupported claims is not evidence. What part of that is confusing you?
Suggest you study http://heiwaco.com !
Just contact me there.
-
I am in the safety at sea biz. One of my problems is when opponents say the principle of Archimedes is no longer valid ... and governments and the United Nations agree.
Directly link where your opponents have said the above or admit you are LYING.
I'll bet you won't do either.
Heiwa still hasn't responded to the above. He knows he can't link the comment and he won't admit his LIE.
-
Nor has he responded to MicroBeta's explanation for how nuclear bombs work if you use the right coolant and make sure the rods are not inserted.
-
Nor has he responded to MicroBeta's explanation for how nuclear bombs work if you use the right coolant and make sure the rods are not inserted.
That's not exactly what I said. A nuclear bomb doesn't have coolant or rods. I was answering markjo's question about reactors in relation to meltdown.
However, you are on the right track. Without a control rod like kinda thing there isn't anything to prevent the weapon from going prompt critical. If I understand Heiwa's point, or at least the point in the book he links to, is about the inability to use an explosive and triggering device to start the reaction. IIUC, the book's point is that the engineering is not possible...I think.
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
-
Nor has he responded to MicroBeta's explanation for how nuclear bombs work if you use the right coolant and make sure the rods are not inserted.
That's not exactly what I said. A nuclear bomb doesn't have coolant or rods. I was answering markjo's question about reactors in relation to meltdown.
However, you are on the right track. Without a control rod like kinda thing there isn't anything to prevent the weapon from going prompt critical. If I understand Heiwa's point, or at least the point in the book he links to, is about the inability to use an explosive and triggering device to start the reaction. IIUC, the book's point is that the engineering is not possible...I think.
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Fair enough. I just think if he is going to keep making the kinds of statements makes, we should keep pushing him to back his statements up and clarify what he is talking about.
-
Nor has he responded to MicroBeta's explanation for how nuclear bombs work if you use the right coolant and make sure the rods are not inserted.
That's not exactly what I said. A nuclear bomb doesn't have coolant or rods. I was answering markjo's question about reactors in relation to meltdown.
However, you are on the right track. Without a control rod like kinda thing there isn't anything to prevent the weapon from going prompt critical. If I understand Heiwa's point, or at least the point in the book he links to, is about the inability to use an explosive and triggering device to start the reaction. IIUC, the book's point is that the engineering is not possible...I think.
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Fair enough. I just think if he is going to keep making the kinds of statements makes, we should keep pushing him to back his statements up and clarify what he is talking about.
Agreed.
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
Incorrect. I believe in A-bombs and I most definitely am not a twirp.
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
more LIES from Heiwa. The people executed had access to CLASSIFIED info. Heiwa has NOT and NEVER will. He is NOT subject to death, only ridicule. He makes up these LIES to try to make himself look more important (but fails).
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
Incorrect. I believe in A-bombs and I most definitely am not a twirp.
Sorry, you are a twirp. But you are not alone. Plenty people believed in Stalin!
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
more LIES from Heiwa. The people executed had access to CLASSIFIED info. Heiwa has NOT and NEVER will. He is NOT subject to death, only ridicule. He makes up these LIES to try to make himself look more important (but fails).
Hm, the US laws are quite clear about all info leaked about a-bombs being punished by death and I do not argue about it. It is a fact. Imagine executing people telling the truth about a-bombs. I wonder how it is done. Gas chamber? Hanging? Electric chair? Firing squad?
I have been told they use a lethal injection today. Doesn't sound nice. Lethal injection. So I stay away from USA. I don't want to get a lethal injection telling people about the a-bomb hoax.
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
Incorrect. I believe in A-bombs and I most definitely am not a twirp.
Sorry, you are a twirp. But you are not alone. Plenty people believed in Stalin!
Sorry. I am not a twirp.
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
more LIES from Heiwa. The people executed had access to CLASSIFIED info. Heiwa has NOT and NEVER will. He is NOT subject to death, only ridicule. He makes up these LIES to try to make himself look more important (but fails).
Hm, the US laws are quite clear about all info leaked about a-bombs being punished by death and I do not argue about it. It is a fact. Imagine executing people telling the truth about a-bombs. I wonder how it is done. Gas chamber? Hanging? Electric chair? Firing squad?
I have been told they use a lethal injection today. Doesn't sound nice. Lethal injection. So I stay away from USA. I don't want to get a lethal injection telling people about the a-bomb hoax.
I have actually spoken with a US attorney and several other well informed people about your claim that what you are doing is punishable by death. I showed them the law you refer to, as well as some of the comments which you claim are punishable by death. They ALL said your comments do not apply and you are in no danger of the death penalty. If I could paraphrase them, they said that "Only a twirp would think the US would put someone to death for this claptrap."
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
more LIES from Heiwa. The people executed had access to CLASSIFIED info. Heiwa has NOT and NEVER will. He is NOT subject to death, only ridicule. He makes up these LIES to try to make himself look more important (but fails).
Hm, the US laws are quite clear about all info leaked about a-bombs being punished by death and I do not argue about it. It is a fact. Imagine executing people telling the truth about a-bombs. I wonder how it is done. Gas chamber? Hanging? Electric chair? Firing squad?
I have been told they use a lethal injection today. Doesn't sound nice. Lethal injection. So I stay away from USA. I don't want to get a lethal injection telling people about the a-bomb hoax.
Stop LYING Heiwa. You know quite well it refers to classified info of which you have NONE. AGAIN you are just making up a lie to try to make yourself look more important. NOBODY believes you are in danger of being punished by death. Stop LYING.
-
But more to the point, on what do you base your claim that a nuclear bomb is impossible?
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
more LIES from Heiwa. The people executed had access to CLASSIFIED info. Heiwa has NOT and NEVER will. He is NOT subject to death, only ridicule. He makes up these LIES to try to make himself look more important (but fails).
Hm, the US laws are quite clear about all info leaked about a-bombs being punished by death and I do not argue about it. It is a fact. Imagine executing people telling the truth about a-bombs. I wonder how it is done. Gas chamber? Hanging? Electric chair? Firing squad?
I have been told they use a lethal injection today. Doesn't sound nice. Lethal injection. So I stay away from USA. I don't want to get a lethal injection telling people about the a-bomb hoax.
I have actually spoken with a US attorney and several other well informed people about your claim that what you are doing is punishable by death. I showed them the law you refer to as well as some of the comments which you claim are punishable by death. They ALL said your comments do not apply and you are in no danger of the death penalty. If I could paraphrase them, they said that "Only a twirp would think the US would put someone to death for this claptrap."
This post proves you are a twirp. Actually you are suffering from cognitive dissonance just making up things. You have not spoken with a US attorney and several other well informed people about the matter.
-
Heiwa also talks about uranium mines in Germany that don't "exist" and I have no idea what that has to do with weapons. Uranium exists so even if there isn't any in Germany it doesn't matter.
Then again, I'm not really sure he's sure about what he believes.
I also think he's never going to answer me because he doesn't understand the physics. He makes too many assumptions and believe what others say.
Mike
Well, you have to learn about Wismut AG and the Stalin 1949 a-bomb at my web site. Ever heard about Stalin? He and FDR developed the a-bomb together! Or US developed it and Stalin's spies just copied/pasted it. What a story. USA spent plenty money and used plenty people to develop the a-bomb 1942/5 and other people just copied it. And FBI didn't do anything about it. Of course a married American couple with children were caught and the parents executed (but not the children) because giving away a-bomb secrets is punished by death in USA! That's why I and my Japanese friend are staying away from USA.
Anyway, the US a-bomb is just a hoax to scare people. Only twirps believe in a-bombs.
more LIES from Heiwa. The people executed had access to CLASSIFIED info. Heiwa has NOT and NEVER will. He is NOT subject to death, only ridicule. He makes up these LIES to try to make himself look more important (but fails).
Hm, the US laws are quite clear about all info leaked about a-bombs being punished by death and I do not argue about it. It is a fact. Imagine executing people telling the truth about a-bombs. I wonder how it is done. Gas chamber? Hanging? Electric chair? Firing squad?
I have been told they use a lethal injection today. Doesn't sound nice. Lethal injection. So I stay away from USA. I don't want to get a lethal injection telling people about the a-bomb hoax.
I have actually spoken with a US attorney and several other well informed people about your claim that what you are doing is punishable by death. I showed them the law you refer to as well as some of the comments which you claim are punishable by death. They ALL said your comments do not apply and you are in no danger of the death penalty. If I could paraphrase them, they said that "Only a twirp would think the US would put someone to death for this claptrap."
This post proves you are a twirp. Actually you are suffering from cognitive dissonance just making up things. You have not spoken with a US attorney and several other well informed people about the matter.
I absolutely did. That was why I made a point of getting it straight which laws you were referring to and some of the comments you were referring to. It's just a few pages back on this very thread. I can link to it if you like.
-
But more to the point, on what do you base your claim that a nuclear bomb is impossible?
According to my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm you cannot (1) start/trigger an a-bomb and (2) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were like 60 other Japanese (and many German) towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
A-bombs are just propaganda to scare! Many people believe the nonsense. Not me.
-
But more to the point, on what do you base your claim that a nuclear bomb is impossible?
According to my findings at you cannot (1) start/trigger an a-bomb and (2) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were like 60 other Japanese (and many German) towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
A-bombs are just propaganda to scare! Many people believe the nonsense. Not me.
You must have misunderstood my question. I was asking you to explain why you think a nuclear bomb is impossible. If I didn't already know your position I obviously wouldn't have asked the question. Re-asserting your opinion is not an answer.
Also, I am not a twirp.
-
According to my findings at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm you cannot (1) start/trigger an a-bomb and (2) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were like 60 other Japanese (and many German) towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
Perhaps you should consider looking at sources other than your own web site.
-
Only a moron and/or a liar would claim that there are no uranium deposits in Germany.
http://www.springer.com/gb/book/9783540785538
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_328_web.pdf
Well, the expensive links confirms I am right.
There is no uranium (to build a-bombs or to fuel nuclear power plants) in Germany.
Why little monkey do you suggest I am wrong?
We can add blind to the list of your failings:
the main European uranium regions, for example in the Czech Republic, Eastern Germany, France, the Iberian Peninsula or Ukraine
-
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were...towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
Lies, again.
-
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were...towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
Lies, again.
How do you know? Maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Re uranium in Eastern Germany - actually Erzgebirge in Saxony - in Middle Germany - Stalin also thought so and professors of all sorts agreed 1945. If they disagreed they would have been shot. But the amounts are so small that mining it is a waste of time and money. Stalin didn't know that Kazakhstan had 1000 times more uranium.
-
In case anybody cares, you can view and download all the Manhattan Project documents from the Office of Science and Technical Information.
Manhattan Project Search Link (https://www.osti.gov/scitech/search/title:Manhattan%20Project/sort:publication_date%20asc/filter-results:F)
OSTI is also a great source for just about any science/technology related information from the US Gov't, labs, and contractors. String theory, it's there. Biological effects of radiation, that too. Quantum mechanics, soil compaction, road infrastructure and design, etc. Pretty cool place source for info. Math and physics are a hobby of mine and I love to see how things developed.
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/
Mike
-
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were...towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
Lies, again.
How do you know? Maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Re uranium in Eastern Germany - actually Erzgebirge in Saxony - in Middle Germany - Stalin also thought so and professors of all sorts agreed 1945. If they disagreed they would have been shot. But the amounts are so small that mining it is a waste of time and money. Stalin didn't know that Kazakhstan had 1000 times more uranium.
You really do like to get personal. What is up with that? Try having a civil discussion. I admit I got pissed at your name calling at first but I've let it go. I find it fascinating that a man of your age continually acts like a kid in a school yard who isn't getting his way.
Mike
-
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were...towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
Lies, again.
How do you know? Maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Re uranium in Eastern Germany - actually Erzgebirge in Saxony - in Middle Germany - Stalin also thought so and professors of all sorts agreed 1945. If they disagreed they would have been shot. But the amounts are so small that mining it is a waste of time and money. Stalin didn't know that Kazakhstan had 1000 times more uranium.
You really do like to get personal. What is up with that? Try having a civil discussion. I admit I got pissed at your name calling at first but I've let it go. I find it fascinating that a man of your age continually acts like a kid in a school yard who isn't getting his way.
Mike
Well, Microbrains or what you call yourself I am not impressed by the level of discussion here. I only participate to get ideas how to improve my website, content of which nobody has found anything wrong with.
I only started my website to teach people about safer oil tankers and safety at sea generally. My oil tanker design was very popular and an American oil company associated with Condi wanted to buy the patents. We couldn't agree on the price and then it was suggested that the design would not be accepted into US waters. And it happened. When IMO approved the design 9/1997, the USCG informed the next day that the design was forbidden in USA. The matter was later discussed in the US Congress and then quitely swept under the carpet. I was then also unpopular about my findings about the M/S Estonia incident 1994 killing ~1000 people. The authorities invented a false history - hurricane, visor lost, ship sinking to serve particular interests. Anyone disagreeing was just killed off. Luckily I was busy in Egypt at the time and could carry on as usual.
1998 a ship of mine had some problem at Mombasa, Kenya, so I went there to assist and there I met a beautiful woman whose father, I learnt later, had assisted Stalin building the communist a-bomb 1949. The a-bomb was just propaganda according them. The beautiful woman supported my work about Estonia and better safety at sea.
And there we are today. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com . 100's of people study it daily since many years.
You really should too.
-
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were...towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
Lies, again.
How do you know? Maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Re uranium in Eastern Germany - actually Erzgebirge in Saxony - in Middle Germany - Stalin also thought so and professors of all sorts agreed 1945. If they disagreed they would have been shot. But the amounts are so small that mining it is a waste of time and money. Stalin didn't know that Kazakhstan had 1000 times more uranium.
You really do like to get personal. What is up with that? Try having a civil discussion. I admit I got pissed at your name calling at first but I've let it go. I find it fascinating that a man of your age continually acts like a kid in a school yard who isn't getting his way.
Mike
Well, Microbrains or what you call yourself I am not impressed by the level of discussion here. I only participate to get ideas how to improve my website, content of which nobody has found anything wrong with.
I only started my website to teach people about safer oil tankers and safety at sea generally. My oil tanker design was very popular and an American oil company associated with Condi wanted to buy the patents. We couldn't agree on the price and then it was suggested that the design would not be accepted into US waters. And it happened. When IMO approved the design 9/1997, the USCG informed the next day that the design was forbidden in USA. The matter was later discussed in the US Congress and then quitely swept under the carpet. I was then also unpopular about my findings about the M/S Estonia incident 1994 killing ~1000 people. The authorities invented a false history - hurricane, visor lost, ship sinking to serve particular interests. Anyone disagreeing was just killed off. Luckily I was busy in Egypt at the time and could carry on as usual.
1998 a ship of mine had some problem at Mombasa, Kenya, so I went there to assist and there I met a beautiful woman whose father, I learnt later, had assisted Stalin building the communist a-bomb 1949. The a-bomb was just propaganda according them. The beautiful woman supported my work about Estonia and better safety at sea.
And there we are today. I explain more at. 100's of people study it daily since many years.
You really should too.
Sure, whatever Heiwa. Back to the question at hand:
But more to the point, on what do you base your claim that a nuclear bomb is impossible?
According to my findings at you cannot (1) start/trigger an a-bomb and (2) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were like 60 other Japanese (and many German) towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
A-bombs are just propaganda to scare! Many people believe the nonsense. Not me.
You must have misunderstood my question. I was asking you to explain why you think a nuclear bomb is impossible. If I didn't already know your position I obviously wouldn't have asked the question. Re-asserting your opinion is not an answer.
Also, I am not a twirp.
-
Well, Microbrains or what you call yourself I am not impressed by the level of discussion here. I only participate to get ideas how to improve my website, content of which nobody has found anything wrong with.
so you're here to "improve" your website, yet it is still filled with opinions, arguments from incredulity, and begging the question. And it still looks like a 20+ year old Geocities site. Do you know what the word "improve" means?
I only started my website to teach people about safer oil tankers and safety at sea generally. My oil tanker design was very popular and an American oil company associated with Condi wanted to buy the patents. We couldn't agree on the price and then it was suggested that the design would not be accepted into US waters. And it happened. When IMO approved the design 9/1997, the USCG informed the next day that the design was forbidden in USA. The matter was later discussed in the US Congress and then quitely swept under the carpet.
translation: I had an idea that nobody liked and it broke something in my brain. Since then I've been trying and failing to remain relevant. But it is difficult since I'm really just a plumber.
I was then also unpopular about my findings about the M/S Estonia incident 1994 killing ~1000 people. The authorities invented a false history - hurricane, visor lost, ship sinking to serve particular interests. Anyone disagreeing was just killed off. Luckily I was busy in Egypt at the time and could carry on as usual.
Hey look, yet another claim that Heiwa can't and won't bother to ever back up. More LIES from Heiwa.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com http://angry curmudgeon.net. 100's of people search bots study it daily since many years.
You really should too.
FTFY
-
The normal world that doesn't have its head rammed up its own arse says different.
Substantiate your argument or stfu.
Well I happened to live in Saxony 1999-2016 where the famous Stalin a-bomb uranium ore was allegedly mined 1945/90 to ensure PEACE on EARTH and found that it was 100% propaganda. I describe it at my website. Re Saxony 1945/90 it was a workers' socialist paradise that suddenly disappeared 1990. Saxony was part of East Germany that was the 11th strongest economy in the world at the time according to statistics, bla, bla, bla. But it was all normal world propaganda.
You realize that you making unsupported claims isn't evidence right?
No, I just describe the findings at my web site and many historians find them interesting, particularly about the M/S Estonia sinking 1994.
Re Wismut AG - an East German company owned 50/50 by USSR - it is clear that it never produced any uranium as there is no uranium in Germany. However West Germany recognized East Germany around 1972 and agreed to carry on the hoax. When East and West Germanies became one Germany 1991, it was apparently agreed to continue the fraud to avoid complications of all sorts, e.g. falsification of history and to keep old allies happy.
Again, you making unsupported claims is not evidence. What part of that is confusing you?
Suggest you study http://heiwaco.com !
Just contact me there.
No evidence there. You are coming to a forum and making claims. Support them, here where you make them. Otherwise, you are just a lying failure.
-
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were...towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
Lies, again.
How do you know? Maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Re uranium in Eastern Germany - actually Erzgebirge in Saxony - in Middle Germany - Stalin also thought so and professors of all sorts agreed 1945. If they disagreed they would have been shot. But the amounts are so small that mining it is a waste of time and money. Stalin didn't know that Kazakhstan had 1000 times more uranium.
You really do like to get personal. What is up with that? Try having a civil discussion. I admit I got pissed at your name calling at first but I've let it go. I find it fascinating that a man of your age continually acts like a kid in a school yard who isn't getting his way.
Mike
Well, Microbrains or what you call yourself I am not impressed by the level of discussion here. I only participate to get ideas how to improve my website, content of which nobody has found anything wrong with.
I only started my website to teach people about safer oil tankers and safety at sea generally. My oil tanker design was very popular and an American oil company associated with Condi wanted to buy the patents. We couldn't agree on the price and then it was suggested that the design would not be accepted into US waters. And it happened. When IMO approved the design 9/1997, the USCG informed the next day that the design was forbidden in USA. The matter was later discussed in the US Congress and then quitely swept under the carpet. I was then also unpopular about my findings about the M/S Estonia incident 1994 killing ~1000 people. The authorities invented a false history - hurricane, visor lost, ship sinking to serve particular interests. Anyone disagreeing was just killed off. Luckily I was busy in Egypt at the time and could carry on as usual.
1998 a ship of mine had some problem at Mombasa, Kenya, so I went there to assist and there I met a beautiful woman whose father, I learnt later, had assisted Stalin building the communist a-bomb 1949. The a-bomb was just propaganda according them. The beautiful woman supported my work about Estonia and better safety at sea.
And there we are today. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com . 100's of people study it daily since many years.
You really should too.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you can’t act like an adult.
BTW, you really should read that book on your website a little more closely. That book never says that fast fission is impossible. It never says that the only type of fission is slow neutron fission of a reactor. His premise is that under those conditions fission from fast neutrons can’t sustain a super critical chain reaction. Nowhere does he state fast fission is impossible and has no other applications.
I do like how Nakatani built and ran a computer simulation that “proves” his hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt but refuses to share his code, the input data, and the results because he doesn’t want to get arrested. If he released it on the internet through something like wikileaks for all to see there isn’t squat anybody could do about it.
Let’s for a moment make the assumption he is right and nuke weapons are a hoax. If he released his full simulation with all the input and output data the US Gov’t wouldn’t go near him with a ten mile pole. You know why? If they do anything at all it lends credence to his claims. If they want to protect the hoax they have no choice but to say “our simulations work and, well, we have the weapons and have used them”. It would be a political and public relations nightmare for any country who attempts to prosecute him. In the end the world would know the truth and Nakatani wins.
However, let’s assume the US Gov’t does want to arrest him. Good luck with that. How long have they been trying to get Assange and Snowden? There’s not a snowballs chance in hell that they’d get him before the world has a chance to verify his data. The cat will be out of the bag, the house of cards would come crashing down a-bomb hoax, and Nakatani wins again.
Either way, the truth comes out, the hoax is exposed, and Nakatani will be untouchable. IMHO, not releasing the full simulation and all the data is a cop-out.
Mike
-
Only a twirp would believe Nakatani without verifying his code, the input data, and the results.
-
Hiroshima/Nagasaki were...towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
Lies, again.
How do you know? Maybe you suffer from cognitive dissonance?
Re uranium in Eastern Germany - actually Erzgebirge in Saxony - in Middle Germany - Stalin also thought so and professors of all sorts agreed 1945. If they disagreed they would have been shot. But the amounts are so small that mining it is a waste of time and money. Stalin didn't know that Kazakhstan had 1000 times more uranium.
You really do like to get personal. What is up with that? Try having a civil discussion. I admit I got pissed at your name calling at first but I've let it go. I find it fascinating that a man of your age continually acts like a kid in a school yard who isn't getting his way.
Mike
Well, Microbrains or what you call yourself I am not impressed by the level of discussion here. I only participate to get ideas how to improve my website, content of which nobody has found anything wrong with.
I only started my website to teach people about safer oil tankers and safety at sea generally. My oil tanker design was very popular and an American oil company associated with Condi wanted to buy the patents. We couldn't agree on the price and then it was suggested that the design would not be accepted into US waters. And it happened. When IMO approved the design 9/1997, the USCG informed the next day that the design was forbidden in USA. The matter was later discussed in the US Congress and then quitely swept under the carpet. I was then also unpopular about my findings about the M/S Estonia incident 1994 killing ~1000 people. The authorities invented a false history - hurricane, visor lost, ship sinking to serve particular interests. Anyone disagreeing was just killed off. Luckily I was busy in Egypt at the time and could carry on as usual.
1998 a ship of mine had some problem at Mombasa, Kenya, so I went there to assist and there I met a beautiful woman whose father, I learnt later, had assisted Stalin building the communist a-bomb 1949. The a-bomb was just propaganda according them. The beautiful woman supported my work about Estonia and better safety at sea.
And there we are today. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com . 100's of people study it daily since many years.
You really should too.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously if you can’t act like an adult.
BTW, you really should read that book on your website a little more closely. That book never says that fast fission is impossible. It never says that the only type of fission is slow neutron fission of a reactor. His premise is that under those conditions fission from fast neutrons can’t sustain a super critical chain reaction. Nowhere does he state fast fission is impossible and has no other applications.
I do like how Nakatani built and ran a computer simulation that “proves” his hypothesis beyond a shadow of a doubt but refuses to share his code, the input data, and the results because he doesn’t want to get arrested. If he released it on the internet through something like wikileaks for all to see there isn’t squat anybody could do about it.
Let’s for a moment make the assumption he is right and nuke weapons are a hoax. If he released his full simulation with all the input and output data the US Gov’t wouldn’t go near him with a ten mile pole. You know why? If they do anything at all it lends credence to his claims. If they want to protect the hoax they have no choice but to say “our simulations work and, well, we have the weapons and have used them”. It would be a political and public relations nightmare for any country who attempts to prosecute him. In the end the world would know the truth and Nakatani wins.
However, let’s assume the US Gov’t does want to arrest him. Good luck with that. How long have they been trying to get Assange and Snowden? There’s not a snowballs chance in hell that they’d get him before the world has a chance to verify his data. The cat will be out of the bag, the house of cards would come crashing down a-bomb hoax, and Nakatani wins again.
Either way, the truth comes out, the hoax is exposed, and Nakatani will be untouchable. IMHO, not releasing the full simulation and all the data is a cop-out.
Mike
Thaanks for asking. I am just a 71 years old adult with a popular website taken seriously by plenty people. My CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . I am easy to contact. I do not hide. I just retired after 50 years of interesting work. Now I am a consultant. I have a good life.
At my website I explain what fission is and what fission is not and why people spread lies about it.
Fission is thus splitting of atoms of nuclear fuels by free neutrons, e.g. in nuclear power plants under control and moderation. Easy to understand. Pure energy is released and transformed to electricity. No smoke, no explosions, etc. 100's of tons of nuclear fuel are transformed, which takes several years. The plant is easy to start and stop. Ships also use it to make steam for propulsion.
Fission is not a military speed-of-light exlosion of a critical mass of metals in a FLASH producing a dirty mushroom cloud, bla, bla. People suggesting it are just spreading propaganda lies developed by two crazy persons in the 1940's helped by plenty other people and media.
Re Prof. Nakatani he explains his worries about his findings that a-bombs are a hoax and that Hiroshima/Nagasaki were simply destroyed by conventional napalm carpet bomb raids spring 1945. A-bombs are big business in Japan to keep the population afraid and allowing US military bases there, etc. It is thus not popular to suggest the whole thing is a hoax.
Right now US sources tell us that North Korea not only have a-bombs but also ICBMs to deliver them over USA and Japan ... and that we must worry about it. But a-bombs do not work and ICBMs sent up in space just burn up on re-entries so the whole thing is stupid propaganda to serve particular interests. I just laugh about. This Donald Trump is just a big clown. I wonder what will happen to him? Will he start oil painting like GWB?
-
Thaanks for asking. I am just a 71 years old adult with a popular website taken seriously by plenty people.
Nice adults don't call other people not so nice names.
My CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . I am easy to contact. I do not hide. I just retired after 50 years of interesting work. Now I am a consultant. I have a good life.
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
-
Claims that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were destroyed by napalm are bullshit promoted by liars and frauds.
-
Thaanks for asking. I am just a 71 years old adult with a popular website taken seriously by plenty people.
Nice adults don't call other people not so nice names.
My CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . I am easy to contact. I do not hide. I just retired after 50 years of interesting work. Now I am a consultant. I have a good life.
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
I'm pretty sure "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer" means Masters in Science in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. At least that's what his LinkedIn page says.
-
Thaanks for asking. I am just a 71 years old adult with a popular website taken seriously by plenty people.
Nice adults don't call other people not so nice names.
My CV is at http://heiwaco.com/cv.htm . I am easy to contact. I do not hide. I just retired after 50 years of interesting work. Now I am a consultant. I have a good life.
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
I'm pretty sure "M.Sc. Naval Architect and Marine Engineer" means Masters in Science in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. At least that's what his LinkedIn page says.
I'm not questioning his qualifications about things naval or marine. I'm questioning his qualifications in everything else for which he's claiming expertise.
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
How does any of that make you the least bit qualified in the fields of nuclear energy or aerospace engineering?
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
Nope. No evidence on your website. Just more failure.
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
How does any of that make you the least bit qualified in the fields of nuclear energy or aerospace engineering?
3D dynamic ship structural analysis is much more complicated than nuclear energy or aerospace engineering. That's why I studied it. Military nuclear energy or aerospace engineering are subject to so many national security restrictions so you can invent anyting about it.
Do you have any qualifications?
-
But more to the point, on what do you base your claim that a nuclear bomb is impossible?
According to my findings at you cannot (1) start/trigger an a-bomb and (2) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were like 60 other Japanese (and many German) towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
A-bombs are just propaganda to scare! Many people believe the nonsense. Not me.
You must have misunderstood my question. I was asking you to explain why you think a nuclear bomb is impossible. If I didn't already know your position I obviously wouldn't have asked the question. Re-asserting your opinion is not an answer.
Also, I am not a twirp.
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
How does any of that make you the least bit qualified in the fields of nuclear energy or aerospace engineering?
3D dynamic ship structural analysis is much more complicated than nuclear energy or aerospace engineering. That's why I studied it. Military nuclear energy or aerospace engineering are subject to so many national security restrictions so you can invent anyting about it.
Do you have any qualifications?
I do the same type of dynamic analysis and I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's more complicated that nuclear or aerospace. IMHO, that's a bit of an exaggeration.
Oh and by the way, I've studied nuclear engineering and have ten years experience operating and maintaining nuclear power plants.
I don't have all the answers and I'm by no means an authority but I've got you beat by a mile...just sayin'
Mike
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
How does any of that make you the least bit qualified in the fields of nuclear energy or aerospace engineering?
3D dynamic ship structural analysis is much more complicated than nuclear energy or aerospace engineering.
If you've never studied nuclear energy or aerospace engineering, then how can you know which is more complicated? Maybe they're all equally complicated, but in different ways.
That's why I studied it. Military nuclear energy or aerospace engineering are subject to so many national security restrictions so you can invent anyting about it.
Yes, you do seem to invent quite a lot of things about nuclear energy and aerospace engineering. That doesn't mean that you're right and everyone else is wrong.
Do you have any qualifications?
I'm not claiming expertise in any of those fields. More of a general familiarity.
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
How does any of that make you the least bit qualified in the fields of nuclear energy or aerospace engineering?
3D dynamic ship structural analysis is much more complicated than nuclear energy or aerospace engineering. That's why I studied it.
More LIES from Heiwa. In just your previous post you claimed "Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture)" and now claim you studied it because it was more complicated. You just can't keep your lies straight, can you?
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
How does any of that make you the least bit qualified in the fields of nuclear energy or aerospace engineering?
3D dynamic ship structural analysis is much more complicated than nuclear energy or aerospace engineering. That's why I studied it. Military nuclear energy or aerospace engineering are subject to so many national security restrictions so you can invent anyting about it.
Do you have any qualifications?
I do the same type of dynamic analysis and I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's more complicated that nuclear or aerospace. IMHO, that's a bit of an exaggeration.
Oh and by the way, I've studied nuclear engineering and have ten years experience operating and maintaining nuclear power plants.
I don't have all the answers and I'm by no means an authority but I've got you beat by a mile...just sayin'
Mike
Well, if it makes you happy, why not? Operating a nuclear power plant seems boring sitting in a control room all day producing electricity and doing planned maintenance.
Operating seagoing ships is much more interesting and fun. Fresh air, travel, different people, etc, etc.
I could have studied nuclear engineering/theoretical physics 1964 but a friend of mine, Nobel Prize winner physics, didn't recommend it. He had been asked 1945 to secretly build a Swedish a-bomb and agreed ... subject to all being peer reviewed and public. So he didn't get the job ... and he didn't need it. Many students of theoretical physics then just got low paid teachers' jobs = no fun at all. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
-
But more to the point, on what do you base your claim that a nuclear bomb is impossible?
According to my findings at you cannot (1) start/trigger an a-bomb and (2) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were like 60 other Japanese (and many German) towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
A-bombs are just propaganda to scare! Many people believe the nonsense. Not me.
You must have misunderstood my question. I was asking you to explain why you think a nuclear bomb is impossible. If I didn't already know your position I obviously wouldn't have asked the question. Re-asserting your opinion is not an answer.
Also, I am not a twirp.
-
Operating seagoing ships is much more interesting and fun. Fresh air, travel, different people, etc, etc.
. . . . . changing sheets, bringing your guests extra pillows, etc, etc.
-
Operating seagoing ships is much more interesting and fun. Fresh air, travel, different people, etc, etc.
. . . . . changing sheets, bringing your guests extra pillows, etc, etc.
... don't forget the champagne, drinks in the intimate bar, lobsters, caviars of all sorts, filet beef, the lonely girls, women and widows in the onboard nightclub that was part of an old-fashioned luxury cruise in the Carribeans.
It was fun. I do not describe it at http://heiwaco.com . Maybe I should?
What do you think? Do you think? Or you sink like anyhing that doesn't float.
-
Haha, it's so hard to fuck with you. ;D
-
I find it interesting that your CV has no mention of you having any formal education or work experience in the fields of nuclear energy, aerospace engineering or architectural structural analysis. I can't help but to wonder how you can claim any sort of expertise in any of those fields when your own CV does not support any of those claims.
But I explain it http://heiwaco.com. Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965. Architectural structural analysis did. So I studied it (naval architecture) and it made me rich. I was good looking from the beginning. But who cares about money and good looks today? Health is the most important. And I am in good shape.
BTW ship building structural analysis is the most complicated job you can find. The structures are subject to all sorts of dynamic loads apart from the statics. And during construction lifting the blocks there are all sorts of loads ... and resulting overloads ... and cracks.
I am proud the say I have found >1 000's of cracks in ship structures and attended to them. What have you done in your life?
How does any of that make you the least bit qualified in the fields of nuclear energy or aerospace engineering?
3D dynamic ship structural analysis is much more complicated than nuclear energy or aerospace engineering. That's why I studied it. Military nuclear energy or aerospace engineering are subject to so many national security restrictions so you can invent anyting about it.
Do you have any qualifications?
I do the same type of dynamic analysis and I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's more complicated that nuclear or aerospace. IMHO, that's a bit of an exaggeration.
Oh and by the way, I've studied nuclear engineering and have ten years experience operating and maintaining nuclear power plants.
I don't have all the answers and I'm by no means an authority but I've got you beat by a mile...just sayin'
Mike
Well, if it makes you happy, why not? Operating a nuclear power plant seems boring sitting in a control room all day producing electricity and doing planned maintenance.
Operating seagoing ships is much more interesting and fun. Fresh air, travel, different people, etc, etc.
I could have studied nuclear engineering/theoretical physics 1964 but a friend of mine, Nobel Prize winner physics, didn't recommend it. He had been asked 1945 to secretly build a Swedish a-bomb and agreed ... subject to all being peer reviewed and public. So he didn't get the job ... and he didn't need it. Many students of theoretical physics then just got low paid teachers' jobs = no fun at all. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com .
I never spent much time in the “control” room, maneuvering room on a submarine. I operated the propulsion plant, turbine generators, and the primary plant systems; as well as primary and secondary plant chemistry.
You were in the Navy so you know that maintenance a Naval vessel is rarely just planned or routine.
I know a few teachers who would find that comment a bit condescending. It’s a noble profession and not the low paying. Here the average teacher makes ≈$60k/yr. Not too shabby for a public employee.
Mike
-
Dynamic loads are more complicated than nuclear fission.
Heiwa 2017.
(https://s22.postimg.org/krummcpkh/1494061259572.gif)
Teachers should be paid more. It is an important job.
3D structural analysis
Heiwa riddle me this? How often would you need do a 2D structural analysis?
Yes, that's right.
-
Operating seagoing ships is much more interesting and fun. Fresh air, travel, different people, etc, etc.
. . . . . changing sheets, bringing your guests extra pillows, etc, etc.
... don't forget the champagne, drinks in the intimate bar, lobsters, caviars of all sorts, filet beef, the lonely girls, women and widows in the onboard nightclub that was part of an old-fashioned luxury cruise in the Carribeans.
It was fun. I do not describe it at <my shit site>. Maybe I should?
Why not. It would entirely match the rest of the completely delusional fantasy world and tissue of lies you have fabricated there. Call it Confessions of a Plumber.
-
I could have studied nuclear engineering/theoretical physics 1964 but a friend of mine, Nobel Prize winner physics, didn't recommend it.
Now we have a THIRD conflicting reason why he didn't study it. Previous you claimed "Nuclear energy and aerospace engineering didn't offer any well paid jobs 1965." (a lie) then you claimed "3D dynamic ship structural analysis is much more complicated than nuclear energy or aerospace engineering. That's why I studied it." In three consecutive posts on this thread you've given three different answers. Perhaps you should actually pay attention to your lies so you don't contradict yourself so easily.
Probably the only truthful thing you've said is where you admit to be nothing more than a plumber (see my signature for the link).
-
You can't fight dishonesty with dishonesty, even if you win, what you're fighting for loses its meaning.
Took 10 seconds to see the link doesn't say what you claim it to.
-
You can't fight dishonesty with dishonesty, even if you win, what you're fighting for loses its meaning.
Took 10 seconds to see the link doesn't say what you claim it to.
Nope. Seems pretty clear. He is called in to fix problems when sanitary facilities fail. His own words and he didn't deny it when asked about it later.
-
Don't let me hold you back mate.
-
You can't fight dishonesty with dishonesty, even if you win, what you're fighting for loses its meaning.
Took 10 seconds to see the link doesn't say what you claim it to.
Nope. Seems pretty clear. He is called in to fix problems when sanitary facilities fail. His own words and he didn't deny it when asked about it later.
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
That solves the problem according US ship owner operating under Italian flag of convenience!
However, in reality there is also a crew of various officers, sea- and motormen operating, maintaining and fixing the ship, incl. malfunctioning toilets.
It is only when there are big problems that the Master calls the ship owner that calls me, e.g. the whole engine room is full of shit, when a septic tank has rotten away requiring renewals and hot steel works, etc, etc. It is not difficult to fix. I have done it a couple of times. But it is not my main occupation.
-
But more to the point, on what do you base your claim that a nuclear bomb is impossible?
According to my findings at you cannot (1) start/trigger an a-bomb and (2) Hiroshima/Nagasaki were like 60 other Japanese (and many German) towns just destroyed by napalm carpet bombing.
A-bombs are just propaganda to scare! Many people believe the nonsense. Not me.
You must have misunderstood my question. I was asking you to explain why you think a nuclear bomb is impossible. If I didn't already know your position I obviously wouldn't have asked the question. Re-asserting your opinion is not an answer.
Also, I am not a twirp.
1M € to anyone who is capable of giving a real answer to this question!
-
It is only when there are big problems that the Master calls the ship owner that calls me, e.g. the whole engine room is full of shit,
You seem preoccupied with doo-doo.
-
Yes, but who's the Master?
-
Yes, but who's the Master?
(http://i.imgur.com/gyTX8bO.jpg)
-
Yes, but who's the Master?
(http://i.imgur.com/gyTX8bO.jpg)
I thought I identified the Master some posts back. He is the stupid scape goat to blame for everything.
-
Yes, but who's the Master?
(http://i.imgur.com/gyTX8bO.jpg)
I thought I identified the Master some posts back. He is the stupid scape goat to blame for everything.
At first I thought you were talking about yourself but then I realized you're nowhere near important enough to get blamed for anything noteworthy. You're just a marginally funny joke out on the very far margins of this whole issue.
-
Yes, but who's the Master?
(http://i.imgur.com/gyTX8bO.jpg)
I thought I identified the Master some posts back. He is the stupid scape goat to blame for everything.
You hate Hotel California that much?
-
Yes, but who's the Master?
(http://i.imgur.com/gyTX8bO.jpg)
I thought I identified the Master some posts back. He is the stupid scape goat to blame for everything.
You hate Hotel California that much?
Aha, you mixed up the Masters' bedrooms! Too much wine? Too many Masters!
-
Yes, but who's the Master?
(http://i.imgur.com/gyTX8bO.jpg)
I thought I identified the Master some posts back. He is the stupid scape goat to blame for everything.
You hate Hotel California that much?
Aha, you mixed up the Masters' bedrooms! Too much wine? Too many Masters!
It's a joke dum dum!
-
Yes, but who's the Master?
(http://i.imgur.com/gyTX8bO.jpg)
I thought I identified the Master some posts back. He is the stupid scape goat to blame for everything.
You hate Hotel California that much?
Aha, you mixed up the Masters' bedrooms! Too much wine? Too many Masters!
It's a joke dum dum!
Jokes shall be short and fun like the Frenchman visiting Brussels seeing two public workers digging holes in the pavement and then filling them up again. Asking them why, he was told that the third public worker supposed to plant trees in the holes were on sick leave.
-
Operating seagoing ships is much more interesting and fun. Fresh air, travel, different people, etc, etc.
. . . . . changing sheets, bringing your guests extra pillows, etc, etc.
Don't forget those folded towel animals. :D
-
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
So you're saying that it isn't the ship's master's responsibility to make sure that his ship is seaworthy? ???
-
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
So you're saying that it isn't the ship's master's responsibility to make sure that his ship is seaworthy? ???
Yes! The ship owner is responsible that the ship is seaworthy. Study, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm about it.
A ship master is just an employée of the owner to sail a ship from A to B, look after the cargo and carry out other orders of the owner.
No, the ship's master is not responsible that the ship is seaworthy, insurances, banks, agents and crew are paid, etc.
-
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
So you're saying that it isn't the ship's master's responsibility to make sure that his ship is seaworthy? ???
Yes! The ship owner is responsible that the ship is seaworthy. Study, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm about it.
A ship master is just an employée of the owner to sail a ship from A to B, look after the cargo and carry out other orders of the owner.
No, the ship's master is not responsible that the ship is seaworthy, insurances, banks, agents and crew are paid, etc.
So which is it? Is the ship's master responsible for the seaworthiness or not? ???
-
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
So you're saying that it isn't the ship's master's responsibility to make sure that his ship is seaworthy? ???
Yes! The ship owner is responsible that the ship is seaworthy. Study, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm about it.
A ship master is just an employée of the owner to sail a ship from A to B, look after the cargo and carry out other orders of the owner.
No, the ship's master is not responsible that the ship is seaworthy, insurances, banks, agents and crew are paid, etc.
So which is it? Is the ship's master responsible for the seaworthiness or not? ???
As I said, the ship's master is not responsible for seaworthyness. If the master thinks the ship is not seaworthy, the ship should remain in port and the master should inform the owner, etc.
Topic is of course something else. I always recommend military fools in charge of nuclear weapons to test them now and then and report the results to the owners.
-
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
So you're saying that it isn't the ship's master's responsibility to make sure that his ship is seaworthy? ???
Yes! The ship owner is responsible that the ship is seaworthy. Study, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm about it.
A ship master is just an employée of the owner to sail a ship from A to B, look after the cargo and carry out other orders of the owner.
No, the ship's master is not responsible that the ship is seaworthy, insurances, banks, agents and crew are paid, etc.
So which is it? Is the ship's master responsible for the seaworthiness or not? ???
As I said, the ship's master is not responsible for seaworthyness. If the master thinks the ship is not seaworthy, the ship should remain in port and the master should inform the owner, etc.
Topic is of course something else. I always recommend military fools in charge of nuclear weapons to test them now and then and report the results to the owners.
Another contradictory answer.
-
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
So you're saying that it isn't the ship's master's responsibility to make sure that his ship is seaworthy? ???
Yes! The ship owner is responsible that the ship is seaworthy. Study, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm about it.
A ship master is just an employée of the owner to sail a ship from A to B, look after the cargo and carry out other orders of the owner.
No, the ship's master is not responsible that the ship is seaworthy, insurances, banks, agents and crew are paid, etc.
So which is it? Is the ship's master responsible for the seaworthiness or not? ???
As I said, the ship's master is not responsible for seaworthyness. If the master thinks the ship is not seaworthy, the ship should remain in port and the master should inform the owner, etc.
Topic is of course something else. I always recommend military fools in charge of nuclear weapons to test them now and then and report the results to the owners.
Another contradictory answer.
So what is the topic?
-
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
So you're saying that it isn't the ship's master's responsibility to make sure that his ship is seaworthy? ???
Yes! The ship owner is responsible that the ship is seaworthy. Study, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm about it.
A ship master is just an employée of the owner to sail a ship from A to B, look after the cargo and carry out other orders of the owner.
No, the ship's master is not responsible that the ship is seaworthy, insurances, banks, agents and crew are paid, etc.
So which is it? Is the ship's master responsible for the seaworthiness or not? ???
As I said, the ship's master is not responsible for seaworthyness. If the master thinks the ship is not seaworthy, the ship should remain in port and the master should inform the owner, etc.
Topic is of course something else. I always recommend military fools in charge of nuclear weapons to test them now and then and report the results to the owners.
Another contradictory answer.
So what is the topic?
That's easy. The topic is whatever you need it to be to wiggle out of whatever tight spot you're currently in.
-
Many people believe that the Master of a ship at sea does and is responsible for everything - see http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm . If something goes wrong, the solution is to jail the Master 16 years!
So you're saying that it isn't the ship's master's responsibility to make sure that his ship is seaworthy? ???
Yes! The ship owner is responsible that the ship is seaworthy. Study, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/news8.htm about it.
A ship master is just an employée of the owner to sail a ship from A to B, look after the cargo and carry out other orders of the owner.
No, the ship's master is not responsible that the ship is seaworthy, insurances, banks, agents and crew are paid, etc.
So which is it? Is the ship's master responsible for the seaworthiness or not? ???
As I said, the ship's master is not responsible for seaworthyness. If the master thinks the ship is not seaworthy, the ship should remain in port and the master should inform the owner, etc.
Topic is of course something else. I always recommend military fools in charge of nuclear weapons to test them now and then and report the results to the owners.
Another contradictory answer.
So what is the topic?
That's easy. The topic is whatever you need it to be to wiggle out of whatever tight spot you're currently in.
OK. Topic is the a-bomb. Show it worked and I pay €1M ! http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
Show what? Do you want me to show you an a-bomb?
-
Show what? Do you want me to show you an a-bomb?
Apparently he wants someone to show that a nuclear weapon exploded or could be exploded. But, you can't use video, pictures, calculations, or eye witness accounts. I guess we would have to detonate an a-bomb where he could watch because that's all that's left.
-
-
Show what? Do you want me to show you an a-bomb?
Apparently he wants someone to show that a nuclear weapon exploded or could be exploded. But, you can't use video, pictures, calculations, or eye witness accounts. I guess we would have to detonate an a-bomb where he could watch because that's all that's left.
Hm, according CIA North Korea today - 2017 - has ICBMs with a-bombs that can reach 1000 km altitude in space and from there drops down to wipe out the target - a city with 1 million inhabitants.
One way or other CIA has info that it works.
I think it is just propaganda.
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
-
I know . . . for a trillion zillion monies. ::)
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Liar. You simply claim it can't work. You show no evidence. You are nothing more than a lying coward who refuses to show any evidence of your baseless claims here on this forum where you make them. You are pathetic
-
But, he's playing you like a yo-yo.
-
You all keep dancing for him.
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Liar. You simply claim it can't work. You show no evidence. You are nothing more than a lying coward who refuses to show any evidence of your baseless claims here on this forum where you make them. You are pathetic
Just show how to fission 61 kg of pure metal (billions of billions of atoms) in nanoseconds producing energy of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding and I will have a look at it. And how to start it! By compressing it to double density? With a free neutron in between?
Only twerps believe it is possible.
-
god damn twerps! am I right? You go girl!!!!!
-
You all keep dancing for him.
But it's so much fun!
-
You all keep dancing for him.
But it's so much fun!
I do it too. :(
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Liar. You simply claim it can't work. You show no evidence. You are nothing more than a lying coward who refuses to show any evidence of your baseless claims here on this forum where you make them. You are pathetic
Just show how to fission 61 kg of pure metal (billions of billions of atoms) in nanoseconds producing energy of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding and I will have a look at it. And how to start it! By compressing it to double density? With a free neutron in between?
Only twerps believe it is possible.
Only assholes continuously engage in personal attacks and name calling when someone doesn't agree with them.
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Liar. You simply claim it can't work. You show no evidence. You are nothing more than a lying coward who refuses to show any evidence of your baseless claims here on this forum where you make them. You are pathetic
Just show how to fission 61 kg of pure metal (billions of billions of atoms) in nanoseconds producing energy of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding and I will have a look at it. And how to start it! By compressing it to double density? With a free neutron in between?
Only twerps believe it is possible.
Only assholes continuously engage in personal attacks and name calling when someone doesn't agree with them.
Not to mention the fact that he keeps explaining it wrong. Compressing to double density. ::)
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Liar. You simply claim it can't work. You show no evidence. You are nothing more than a lying coward who refuses to show any evidence of your baseless claims here on this forum where you make them. You are pathetic
Just show how to fission 61 kg of pure metal (billions of billions of atoms) in nanoseconds producing energy of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding and I will have a look at it. And how to start it! By compressing it to double density? With a free neutron in between?
Only twerps believe it is possible.
Only assholes continuously engage in personal attacks and name calling when someone doesn't agree with them.
Not to mention the fact that he keeps explaining it wrong. Compressing to double density. ::)
He's trying to imply that a solid metal sphere is compressed when in reality, Fatman had a hollow plutonium sphere which is easy to compress down to a supercritical mass. Just another point he either completely ignored or didn't understand.
Mike
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Liar. You simply claim it can't work. You show no evidence. You are nothing more than a lying coward who refuses to show any evidence of your baseless claims here on this forum where you make them. You are pathetic
Just show how to fission 61 kg of pure metal (billions of billions of atoms) in nanoseconds producing energy of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding and I will have a look at it. And how to start it! By compressing it to double density? With a free neutron in between?
Only twerps believe it is possible.
Only assholes continuously engage in personal attacks and name calling when someone doesn't agree with them.
Not to mention the fact that he keeps explaining it wrong. Compressing to double density. ::)
But I just quote the 'experts' 1945! After three years of costly 'research' they didn't know how to make explode the uranium a-bomb. And then they got it - sudden compression of two solid, subcritical masses of metal (uranium) into a critcal mass of double density - with a free neutron in between.
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Liar. You simply claim it can't work. You show no evidence. You are nothing more than a lying coward who refuses to show any evidence of your baseless claims here on this forum where you make them. You are pathetic
Just show how to fission 61 kg of pure metal (billions of billions of atoms) in nanoseconds producing energy of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding and I will have a look at it. And how to start it! By compressing it to double density? With a free neutron in between?
Only twerps believe it is possible.
Only assholes continuously engage in personal attacks and name calling when someone doesn't agree with them.
Not to mention the fact that he keeps explaining it wrong. Compressing to double density. ::)
But I just quote the 'experts' 1945! After three years of costly 'research' they didn't know how to make explode the uranium a-bomb. And then they got it - sudden compression of two solid, subcritical masses of metal (uranium) into a critcal mass of double density - with a free neutron in between.
Misquoted you mean. And you neglect the reflector & initiator.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/early_bomb_design.htm
-
I think it is just propaganda.
so what?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Liar. You simply claim it can't work. You show no evidence. You are nothing more than a lying coward who refuses to show any evidence of your baseless claims here on this forum where you make them. You are pathetic
Just show how to fission 61 kg of pure metal (billions of billions of atoms) in nanoseconds producing energy of 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding and I will have a look at it. And how to start it! By compressing it to double density? With a free neutron in between?
Only twerps believe it is possible.
Only assholes continuously engage in personal attacks and name calling when someone doesn't agree with them.
Not to mention the fact that he keeps explaining it wrong. Compressing to double density. ::)
But I just quote the 'experts' 1945! After three years of costly 'research' they didn't know how to make explode the uranium a-bomb. And then they got it - sudden compression of two solid, subcritical masses of metal (uranium) into a critcal mass of double density - with a free neutron in between.
Misquoted you mean. And you neglect the reflector & initiator.
https://www.osti.gov/opennet/manhattan-project-history/Events/1942-1945/early_bomb_design.htm
LOL! At Hiroshima the initiator was just gun powder that shot a bullet of pure uranium metal into another piece of pure uranium metal ... with a free neutron in between ... and then BOOM!
At Nagasaki the initiator was again exploding gun powder that compressed a sphere of pure metal plutonium into itself, so that it fissioned ... and as the neutrons were reflecting back into the mess there was a ... BOOM!
The reflector survived the initiator explosion! Magic!
Only twerps believe such nonsense.
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
A lot of conjecture and opinion but zero actual evidence.
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
A lot of conjecture and opinion but zero actual evidence.
Exactly
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
Not even a little. More failure by the king of failure. You make these statements here, support them here.
Of course you are nothing but a whining, lying failure so of course you can't do it.
Even your own government thinks you are an idiot and a nut.
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
Not even a little. More failure by the king of failure. You make these statements here, support them here.
Of course you are nothing but a whining, lying failure so of course you can't do it.
Even your own government thinks you are an idiot and a nut.
Hm, as I always say - my findings are published at my web site. Just copy/paste what you consider wrong and we can discuss.
Re a government thinking I am an idiot and a nut, it is correct that the Swedish government has officially made such statements assisted by main stream media and when I try to reply I am told that there is lack of space in media for such things.
That's why I use Internet.
One result was that the Swedish government asked some 'experts' to explain why a ferry with an intach hull sinks due to water loaded in the superstructure. The 'experts' had to falsify plenty ideas, e.g.
1. Waves hitting ship bows and ripping away visors at sea are not heard and felt. Water can therefore be loaded in the superstructure high above the waterline!
2. Water loaded in the superstructure above the waterline heels the ship, BUT the ship does not capsize, as it floats (!) on the deck house on top of the waterfilled superstructure. The deck house is watertight!
3. Ships cannot float indefinitely on deck houses, so after a while the ship turns upside down and hull leakage floats on air inside the intact hull! In spite of floating upside down based on the principle of Archimedes, the ship sinks! Reason is that the air is compressed and the buoyancy disappears. Magic!
My contribution to this matter was that I suggested 1994 that the ferry sank due to below waterline. Imagine what an unscientific idiot I was then! I explain more at http://heiwaco.com . Just copy/paste what you don't like and I will explain.
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
Not even a little. More failure by the king of failure. You make these statements here, support them here.
Of course you are nothing but a whining, lying failure so of course you can't do it.
Even your own government thinks you are an idiot and a nut.
Hm, as I always say - my findings are published at my web site. Just copy/paste what you consider wrong and we can discuss.
Re a government thinking I am an idiot and a nut, it is correct that the Swedish government has officially made such statements assisted by main stream media and when I try to reply I am told that there is lack of space in media for such things.
That's why I use Internet.
One result was that the Swedish government asked some 'experts' to explain why a ferry with an intach hull sinks due to water loaded in the superstructure. The 'experts' had to falsify plenty ideas, e.g.
1. Waves hitting ship bows and ripping away visors at sea are not heard and felt. Water can therefore be loaded in the superstructure high above the waterline!
2. Water loaded in the superstructure above the waterline heels the ship, BUT the ship does not capsize, as it floats (!) on the deck house on top of the waterfilled superstructure. The deck house is watertight!
3. Ships cannot float indefinitely on deck houses, so after a while the ship turns upside down and hull leakage floats on air inside the intact hull! In spite of floating upside down based on the principle of Archimedes, the ship sinks! Reason is that the air is compressed and the buoyancy disappears. Magic!
My contribution to this matter was that I suggested 1994 that the ferry sank due to below waterline. Imagine what an unscientific idiot I was then! I explain more at http://heiwaco.com . Just copy/paste what you don't like and I will explain.
Just as always. Never a shred of evidence produced here. Epic failure. Your website is shitty and impossible to navigate. If you have evidence show it here or shit up. You're just displaying your own incompetence.
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
Not even a little. More failure by the king of failure. You make these statements here, support them here.
Of course you are nothing but a whining, lying failure so of course you can't do it.
Even your own government thinks you are an idiot and a nut.
Hm, as I always say - my findings are published at my web site. Just copy/paste what you consider wrong and we can discuss.
Re a government thinking I am an idiot and a nut, it is correct that the Swedish government has officially made such statements assisted by main stream media and when I try to reply I am told that there is lack of space in media for such things.
That's why I use Internet.
One result was that the Swedish government asked some 'experts' to explain why a ferry with an intach hull sinks due to water loaded in the superstructure. The 'experts' had to falsify plenty ideas, e.g.
1. Waves hitting ship bows and ripping away visors at sea are not heard and felt. Water can therefore be loaded in the superstructure high above the waterline!
2. Water loaded in the superstructure above the waterline heels the ship, BUT the ship does not capsize, as it floats (!) on the deck house on top of the waterfilled superstructure. The deck house is watertight!
3. Ships cannot float indefinitely on deck houses, so after a while the ship turns upside down and hull leakage floats on air inside the intact hull! In spite of floating upside down based on the principle of Archimedes, the ship sinks! Reason is that the air is compressed and the buoyancy disappears. Magic!
My contribution to this matter was that I suggested 1994 that the ferry sank due to below waterline. Imagine what an unscientific idiot I was then! I explain more at http://heiwaco.com . Just copy/paste what you don't like and I will explain.
Just as always. Never a shred of evidence produced here. Epic failure. Your website is shitty and impossible to navigate. If you have evidence show it here or shit up. You're just displaying your own incompetence.
Hm, my website http://heiwaco.com is easy to navigate and full of proven facts. Why don't you just copy/paste something you consider unclear? I will clarify!
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
What you have at your website is page of unsupported statements and conclusions. This is evidence of your lack of understanding in everything but very little else.
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
What you have at your website is page of unsupported statements and conclusions. This is evidence of your lack of understanding in everything but very little else.
Hm, better copy/paste some examples of my lack of understanding of something than moaning and groaning generally!
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
What you have at your website is page of unsupported statements and conclusions. This is evidence of your lack of understanding in everything but very little else.
Hm, better copy/paste some examples of my lack of understanding of something than moaning and groaning generally!
Here you go:
Heiwaco.com
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
What you have at your website is page of unsupported statements and conclusions. This is evidence of your lack of understanding in everything but very little else.
Hm, better copy/paste some examples of my lack of understanding of something than moaning and groaning generally!
http://heiwaco.com
All of the conclusions here are wrong. Please provide evidence for them. One not referring back to your horrible website.
-
And yet you've never offered a single piece of evidence to support your position
All the evidence is at my web site.
What you have at your website is page of unsupported statements and conclusions. This is evidence of your lack of understanding in everything but very little else.
Hm, better copy/paste some examples of my lack of understanding of something than moaning and groaning generally!
http://heiwaco.com
All of the conclusions here are wrong. Please provide evidence for them. One not referring back to your horrible website.
Thanks for correctly linking to me. All my evidences or links to them you find at my site.
Often I myself am the origin/source of the information, so no evidence is required. You just have to accept what I say or ... show I am wrong. It upsets many twerps. They, the twerps, say I must prove what I have experienced and/or concluded myself. They are just jealous.
BTW, what is so horrible about my website?
You sound like a twerp!
I have spent 20 years to put it together.
I am very pleased with it.
I have plenty of visitors.
It cost them nothing but time.
Anyway, I do not charge anyone or get paid for my info or pay people to study it. It is not my style. Why do you, twerp, get so upset? Who pays you? Twerp!
I am also happy that many search engine robots visit it and then links to me.
-
You spent 20 years putting together THIS?
Talk about a waste of time... I feel bad...
-
You spent 20 years putting together THIS?
Talk about a waste of time... I feel bad...
Sorry, if you feel bad. I am quite proud of my web site - http://heiwaco.com . Before that I used to publish and distribute books about my interests, but then Internet cam along. Soon 2.4 million visitors to my site.
Do you have a website?
-
You mean 2.4 million visitors over the course of 20 years? 60% of which being you?
-
You mean 2.4 million visitors over the course of 20 years? 60% of which being you?
No, I should be 0.03% but the stat program doesn't count me and the web search robots any longer. It is quite easy to adjust the counter, you know.
Do you have a web site? How do you promote your ideas. Writing idiotic posts of forums nobody visits? You sound like a twerp. Try to do better.
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
The USA has just released film of a number of Cold War nuclear tests........but like all flat earth crazy types like yourself you will no doubt cry foul.
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
The USA has just released film of a number of Cold War nuclear tests........but like all flat earth crazy types like yourself you will no doubt cry foul.
Right - the dirty mushroom stem with flames shows the footage is fakery. But the horizon is OK - a round Earth!
-
Think what you want about them, they are some AWESOME devices.
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
I can't think of how someone like you would ever have a useful idea.
Nobody really cares for your website. You live in a delusion.
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
I can't think of how someone like you would ever have a useful idea.
Nobody really cares for your website. You live in a delusion.
People not supporting real work for safety at sea (and in space!) are twerps. And I cannot help that my web site is downloaded 100's of time every day. Since almost 20 years!
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
I can't think of how someone like you would ever have a useful idea.
Nobody really cares for your website. You live in a delusion.
People not supporting real work for safety at sea (and in space!) are twerps. And I cannot help that my web site is downloaded 100's of time every day. Since almost 20 years!
Last I checked the forum where I'm a moderator gets 22675 visits per day with 124135 page views per day. That's 8.3 million visits and 45.3 million page views per year. Traffic to DBSTalk in one year exceeds the traffic to your website in its whole existence by several orders of magnitude.
22675 visits a day sounds like a lot but it's actually is in the bottom 3% of internet traffic. Almost too low for advertisers to care about. That puts your piddly little website in bottom one millionth of a percent of internet traffic. Your hundreds per day doesn't even register on any internet metrics and nobody cares. Get over yourself.
Mike
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
I can't think of how someone like you would ever have a useful idea.
Nobody really cares for your website. You live in a delusion.
People not supporting real work for safety at sea (and in space!) are twerps. And I cannot help that my web site is downloaded 100's of time every day. Since almost 20 years!
Last I checked the forum where I'm a moderator gets 22675 visits per day with 124135 page views per day. That's 8.3 million visits and 45.3 million page views per year. Traffic to DBSTalk in one year exceeds the traffic to your website in its whole existence by several orders of magnitude.
22675 visits a day sounds like a lot but it's actually is in the bottom 3% of internet traffic. Almost too low for advertisers to care about. That puts your piddly little website in bottom one millionth of a percent of internet traffic. Your hundreds per day doesn't even register on any internet metrics and nobody cares. Get over yourself.
Mike
Hm, my visitors are mainly interested in space travel and a-bombs. But also safety at sea, I am happy to say. There is no publicity or pornografy on the site and all is free of charge.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/presentation.htm .
It seems plenty people suffering from cognitive dissonance get upset about my findings. Or they are simple twerps?
I had a look at DBSTalk. Doesn't interest me at all.
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
I can't think of how someone like you would ever have a useful idea.
Nobody really cares for your website. You live in a delusion.
People not supporting real work for safety at sea (and in space!) are twerps. And I cannot help that my web site is downloaded 100's of time every day. Since almost 20 years!
Last I checked the forum where I'm a moderator gets 22675 visits per day with 124135 page views per day. That's 8.3 million visits and 45.3 million page views per year. Traffic to DBSTalk in one year exceeds the traffic to your website in its whole existence by several orders of magnitude.
22675 visits a day sounds like a lot but it's actually is in the bottom 3% of internet traffic. Almost too low for advertisers to care about. That puts your piddly little website in bottom one millionth of a percent of internet traffic. Your hundreds per day doesn't even register on any internet metrics and nobody cares. Get over yourself.
Mike
Hm, my visitors are mainly interested in space travel and a-bombs. But also safety at sea, I am happy to say. There is no publicity or pornografy on the site and all is free of charge.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/presentation.htm .
It seems plenty people suffering from cognitive dissonance get upset about my findings. Or they are simple twerps?
I had a look at DBSTalk. Doesn't interest me at all.
Oh, I believe you have no interest in DBSTalk. Doesn’t surprise me at all. :D
I love how you just attack people’s mental health in order to deflect away from your own lack of understanding of the basics involved in a-bomb and space travel. Made up shit that you pass off as fact.
BTW, you constant attacks on people with you absurd claims of cognitive dissonance belittles those who really struggle on a daily basis with mental health issues. It’s beside the point that you are not applying it correctly. It’s tantamount to making fun of special education children and you need to stop it.
Mike
-
Look man, 2.4 million over 20 years is not a lot, and that's assuming you're saying the truth, and that most of it isn't the same few people over and over again, or people from forums like this one, visiting it just to call you out. The world is better without your ideas being propagated.
No I don't have a website. But at least I have some decency.
No, repeat visitors short term are around 20% of total visitors in 30 days. A few visit me all the time since years. And there are regular comments from my audience - most of them positive.
Why do you think world is better without my ideas? Are you against safety at sea?
You sound like a twerp.
I can't think of how someone like you would ever have a useful idea.
Nobody really cares for your website. You live in a delusion.
People not supporting real work for safety at sea (and in space!) are twerps. And I cannot help that my web site is downloaded 100's of time every day. Since almost 20 years!
Last I checked the forum where I'm a moderator gets 22675 visits per day with 124135 page views per day. That's 8.3 million visits and 45.3 million page views per year. Traffic to DBSTalk in one year exceeds the traffic to your website in its whole existence by several orders of magnitude.
22675 visits a day sounds like a lot but it's actually is in the bottom 3% of internet traffic. Almost too low for advertisers to care about. That puts your piddly little website in bottom one millionth of a percent of internet traffic. Your hundreds per day doesn't even register on any internet metrics and nobody cares. Get over yourself.
Mike
Hm, my visitors are mainly interested in space travel and a-bombs. But also safety at sea, I am happy to say. There is no publicity or pornografy on the site and all is free of charge.
I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/presentation.htm .
It seems plenty people suffering from cognitive dissonance get upset about my findings. Or they are simple twerps?
I had a look at DBSTalk. Doesn't interest me at all.
Oh, I believe you have no interest in DBSTalk. Doesn’t surprise me at all. :D
I love how you just attack people’s mental health in order to deflect away from your own lack of understanding of the basics involved in a-bomb and space travel. Made up shit that you pass off as fact.
BTW, you constant attacks on people with you absurd claims of cognitive dissonance belittles those who really struggle on a daily basis with mental health issues. It’s beside the point that you are not applying it correctly. It’s tantamount to making fun of special education children and you need to stop it.
Mike
I agree with you. But this is the internet and we're dealing with one of the stupidest! So good luck getting him to stop!
-
You spent 20 years putting together THIS?
Talk about a waste of time... I feel bad...
Sorry, if you feel bad. I am quite proud of my web site
I can relate. Some mornings when I do my business I turn around and admire it with a real sense of satisfaction. My favorite is what I call a king coil. That's when it makes a complete coil all around the bowl!
-
I love how you just attack people’s mental health in order to deflect away from your own lack of understanding of the basics involved in a-bomb and space travel. Made up shit that you pass off as fact.
BTW, you constant attacks on people with you absurd claims of cognitive dissonance belittles those who really struggle on a daily basis with mental health issues. It’s beside the point that you are not applying it correctly. It’s tantamount to making fun of special education children and you need to stop it.
Mike
You know I am not an MD but you sound utterly mad or crazy.
I do not attack any people's defects.
I have certain ideas and I have made certain conclusions and I explain it all in writing at my web site. Nothing is made up. It took me a long time to find out how I had been fooled in the past and how attempts were made to fool me in the future. I do this under my own name + full style. What is the result? Only anonymous twerps attack.
Anonymous twerps are always weak, poor, sick, disgusting shitty people. What can I do?
Nothing. They just hide in their own, stinking garbage.
I wonder how they can live there.
Any ideas, loser?
-
I love how you just attack people’s mental health in order to deflect away from your own lack of understanding of the basics involved in a-bomb and space travel. Made up shit that you pass off as fact.
BTW, you constant attacks on people with you absurd claims of cognitive dissonance belittles those who really struggle on a daily basis with mental health issues. It’s beside the point that you are not applying it correctly. It’s tantamount to making fun of special education children and you need to stop it.
Mike
You know I am not an MD but you sound utterly mad or crazy.
I do not attack any people's defects.
I have certain ideas and I have made certain conclusions and I explain it all in writing at my web site. Nothing is made up. It took me a long time to find out how I had been fooled in the past and how attempts were made to fool me in the future. I do this under my own name + full style. What is the result? Only anonymous twerps attack.
Anonymous twerps are always weak, poor, sick, disgusting shitty people. What can I do?
Nothing. They just hide in their own, stinking garbage.
I wonder how they can live there.
Any ideas, loser?
You sir are a loser because you engage in personal attacks for no reason. You have some balls telling me to be polite and civil when you can't do that yourself.
BTW, I'm not anonymous. If you had half a clue how to do a Google search you'd already know who I am. I even gave you a clue and it still eludes you.
Mike
-
Jut though I would re-post this in case it got missed ;D ;D ;D:
You spent 20 years putting together THIS?
Talk about a waste of time... I feel bad...
Sorry, if you feel bad. I am quite proud of my web site
I can relate. Some mornings when I do my business I turn around and admire it with a real sense of satisfaction. My favorite is what I call a king coil. That's when it makes a complete coil all around the bowl!
-
Jut though I would re-post this in case it got missed ;D ;D ;D:
You spent 20 years putting together THIS?
Talk about a waste of time... I feel bad...
Sorry, if you feel bad. I am quite proud of my web site
I can relate. Some mornings when I do my business I turn around and admire it with a real sense of satisfaction. My favorite is what I call a king coil. That's when it makes a complete coil all around the bowl!
Although, I'm not sure he gets it. :D
-
I love how you just attack people’s mental health in order to deflect away from your own lack of understanding of the basics involved in a-bomb and space travel. Made up shit that you pass off as fact.
BTW, you constant attacks on people with you absurd claims of cognitive dissonance belittles those who really struggle on a daily basis with mental health issues. It’s beside the point that you are not applying it correctly. It’s tantamount to making fun of special education children and you need to stop it.
Mike
You know I am not an MD but you sound utterly mad or crazy.
I do not attack any people's defects.
I have certain ideas and I have made certain conclusions and I explain it all in writing at my web site. Nothing is made up. It took me a long time to find out how I had been fooled in the past and how attempts were made to fool me in the future. I do this under my own name + full style. What is the result? Only anonymous twerps attack.
Anonymous twerps are always weak, poor, sick, disgusting shitty people. What can I do?
Nothing. They just hide in their own, stinking garbage.
I wonder how they can live there.
Any ideas, loser?
You sir are a loser because you engage in personal attacks for no reason. You have some balls telling me to be polite and civil when you can't do that yourself.
BTW, I'm not anonymous. If you had half a clue how to do a Google search you'd already know who I am. I even gave you a clue and it still eludes you.
Mike
A new game! Find out who I am. LOL, ROTFL!
Question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.
-
I love how you just attack people’s mental health in order to deflect away from your own lack of understanding of the basics involved in a-bomb and space travel. Made up shit that you pass off as fact.
BTW, you constant attacks on people with you absurd claims of cognitive dissonance belittles those who really struggle on a daily basis with mental health issues. It’s beside the point that you are not applying it correctly. It’s tantamount to making fun of special education children and you need to stop it.
Mike
You know I am not an MD but you sound utterly mad or crazy.
I do not attack any people's defects.
I have certain ideas and I have made certain conclusions and I explain it all in writing at my web site. Nothing is made up. It took me a long time to find out how I had been fooled in the past and how attempts were made to fool me in the future. I do this under my own name + full style. What is the result? Only anonymous twerps attack.
Anonymous twerps are always weak, poor, sick, disgusting shitty people. What can I do?
Nothing. They just hide in their own, stinking garbage.
I wonder how they can live there.
Any ideas, loser?
You sir are a loser because you engage in personal attacks for no reason. You have some balls telling me to be polite and civil when you can't do that yourself.
BTW, I'm not anonymous. If you had half a clue how to do a Google search you'd already know who I am. I even gave you a clue and it still eludes you.
Mike
A new game! Find out who I am. LOL, ROTFL!
Question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.
No new games. You’re the one who implied that the rest of us are anonymous twerps when nobody is truly anonymous. You’re quite the enigma. You say you’re an engineer but yet you don’t trust the physics and engineering. You don’t trust what is right in front of you and with a little research you could solve it yourself. You shouldn’t need to trust what anyone else posts. Interesting.
-
Saying who you are does not make what you are saying any more or less true.
A proof provided under any name or pseudonym is still as legitimate!
-
Question remains how much fuel you need to go to the Moon ... and back ... and how to land! Any proposals? Please, do not ask me again to do it.
Why do you ask such idiotic, off topic questions?
-
Saying who you are does not make what you are saying any more or less true.
A proof provided under any name or pseudonym is still as legitimate!
I heard Heiwa has a €1,000,000 challenge for anyone who figures out my name. :D
-
Saying who you are does not make what you are saying any more or less true.
A proof provided under any name or pseudonym is still as legitimate!
I heard Heiwa has a €1,000,000 challenge for anyone who figures out my name. :D
sup, Mike? ;)
-
Saying who you are does not make what you are saying any more or less true.
A proof provided under any name or pseudonym is still as legitimate!
I heard Heiwa has a €1,000,000 challenge for anyone who figures out my name. :D
sup, Mike? ;)
Okay, whole name. ::)
;D
-
Saying who you are does not make what you are saying any more or less true.
A proof provided under any name or pseudonym is still as legitimate!
I heard Heiwa has a €1,000,000 challenge for anyone who figures out my name. :D
Okay, whole name. ::)
;D
sup, Mike? ;)
I think you are moving the goal post, but, last name . . . . .
Robeta? :P
-
Saying who you are does not make what you are saying any more or less true.
A proof provided under any name or pseudonym is still as legitimate!
I heard Heiwa has a €1,000,000 challenge for anyone who figures out my name. :D
Okay, whole name. ::)
;D
sup, Mike? ;)
I think you are moving the goal post, but, last name . . . . .
Robeta? :P
Now that's funny. ;D
-
Looks like this thread got a little too hot for Heiwa! lol
-
No new games. You’re the one who implied that the rest of us are anonymous twerps when nobody is truly anonymous. You’re quite the enigma. You say you’re an engineer but yet you don’t trust the physics and engineering. You don’t trust what is right in front of you and with a little research you could solve it yourself. You shouldn’t need to trust what anyone else posts. Interesting.
Yes, all posters here are anonymous twerps, as far as I am concerned. LOL!
I am the only public poster with a website - http://heiwaco.com - which is regularly updated.
I am a very good engineer working according the laws of physics and national regulations, if they too are according the laws of physics, since 1965.
Plenty people cheat and lie, not me. That's why I put all my findings in writing on the Internet and invite people to check it.
I also pay people €1M to show I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Nobody has collected anything. ROTFL!
You are all twerps!
-
No new games. You’re the one who implied that the rest of us are anonymous twerps when nobody is truly anonymous. You’re quite the enigma. You say you’re an engineer but yet you don’t trust the physics and engineering. You don’t trust what is right in front of you and with a little research you could solve it yourself. You shouldn’t need to trust what anyone else posts. Interesting.
Yes, all posters here are anonymous twerps, as far as I am concerned. LOL!
I am the only public poster with a website - - which is regularly updated.
I am a very good engineer working according the laws of physics and national regulations, if they too are according the laws of physics, since 1965.
Plenty people cheat and lie, not me. That's why I put all my findings in writing on the Internet and invite people to check it.
I also pay people €1M to show I am wrong - .
Nobody has collected anything. ROTFL!
I also pay you €1M to show that you're right!
You haven't collected anything. ROTFL!
-
Old Heiwa was put on the spot, so he waits a week and tries to change the subject. Tired old tactic of his LOL!
-
No new games. You’re the one who implied that the rest of us are anonymous twerps when nobody is truly anonymous. You’re quite the enigma. You say you’re an engineer but yet you don’t trust the physics and engineering. You don’t trust what is right in front of you and with a little research you could solve it yourself. You shouldn’t need to trust what anyone else posts. Interesting.
Yes, all posters here are anonymous twerps, as far as I am concerned. LOL!
I am the only public poster with a website - http://heiwaco.com - which is regularly updated.
I am a very good engineer working according the laws of physics and national regulations, if they too are according the laws of physics, since 1965.
Plenty people cheat and lie, not me. That's why I put all my findings in writing on the Internet and invite people to check it.
I also pay people €1M to show I am wrong - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Nobody has collected anything. ROTFL!
You are all twerps!
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
-
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
-
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - .
The point here is Mike had posted his name days or even weeks ago already. The rest of us knew that but you seem to have missed it until today. Most of us also seem to know a few other things that you seem to have missed. Maybe you should consider listening to something someone tells you for a change.
I for one would like to see you answer Mikes questions regarding fission. As soon as you're in the hot seat you leave for awhile and then try to change the subject.
Also, at best you are a source when it comes to ship safety. Why are you trying to extrapolate that into being a source regarding nuclear physics? You are barely above high school level in that area.
Edit: And one more thing. We all freely acknowledge that your challenges are unwinnable so why don't you stop shamelessly plugging for them here? (I bet you're so stupid you can't even recognize what I did there.)
-
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - .
The point here is Mike had posted his name days or even weeks ago already. The rest of us knew that but you seem to have missed it until today. Most of us also seem to know a few other things that you seem to have missed. Maybe you should consider listening to something someone tells you for a change.
I for one would like to see you answer Mikes questions regarding fission. As soon as you're in the hot seat you leave for awhile and then try to change the subject.
Also, at best you are a source when it comes to ship safety. Why are you trying to extrapolate that into being a source regarding nuclear physics? You are barely above high school level in that area.
Edit: And one more thing. We all freely acknowledge that your challenges are unwinnable so why don't you stop shamelessly plugging for them here? (I bet you're so stupid you can't even recognize what I did there.)
Nuclear physics is one thing and nuclear safety is another. I deal with the latter.
It seems nuclear weapons are very, very safe as none has ever gone off by mistake. You should really try to figure out why.
So tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable? Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
Or is it some other reason?
Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious!
-
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - .
The point here is Mike had posted his name days or even weeks ago already. The rest of us knew that but you seem to have missed it until today. Most of us also seem to know a few other things that you seem to have missed. Maybe you should consider listening to something someone tells you for a change.
I for one would like to see you answer Mikes questions regarding fission. As soon as you're in the hot seat you leave for awhile and then try to change the subject.
Also, at best you are a source when it comes to ship safety. Why are you trying to extrapolate that into being a source regarding nuclear physics? You are barely above high school level in that area.
Edit: And one more thing. We all freely acknowledge that your challenges are unwinnable so why don't you stop shamelessly plugging for them here? (I bet you're so stupid you can't even recognize what I did there.)
Nuclear physics is one thing and nuclear safety is another. I deal with the latter.
It seems nuclear weapons are very, very safe as none has ever gone off by mistake. You should really try to figure out why.
So tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable? Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
Or is it some other reason?
Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious!
Yep. You are too stupid.
Also, you are not a source for anything nuclear. Why don't you deal with the issues Mike raised?
-
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - .
The point here is Mike had posted his name days or even weeks ago already. The rest of us knew that but you seem to have missed it until today. Most of us also seem to know a few other things that you seem to have missed. Maybe you should consider listening to something someone tells you for a change.
I for one would like to see you answer Mikes questions regarding fission. As soon as you're in the hot seat you leave for awhile and then try to change the subject.
Also, at best you are a source when it comes to ship safety. Why are you trying to extrapolate that into being a source regarding nuclear physics? You are barely above high school level in that area.
Edit: And one more thing. We all freely acknowledge that your challenges are unwinnable so why don't you stop shamelessly plugging for them here? (I bet you're so stupid you can't even recognize what I did there.)
Nuclear physics is one thing and nuclear safety is another. I deal with the latter.
It seems nuclear weapons are very, very safe as none has ever gone off by mistake. You should really try to figure out why.
So tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable? Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
Or is it some other reason?
Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious!
Yep. You are too stupid.
Also, you are not a source for anything nuclear. Why don't you deal with the issues Mike raised?
Beacuse Mike doesn't tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable?
1. Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
2. Or is it some other reason?
3. Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
4. Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
5. Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
6. And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
7. And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious! Like Mike!
-
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - .
The point here is Mike had posted his name days or even weeks ago already. The rest of us knew that but you seem to have missed it until today. Most of us also seem to know a few other things that you seem to have missed. Maybe you should consider listening to something someone tells you for a change.
I for one would like to see you answer Mikes questions regarding fission. As soon as you're in the hot seat you leave for awhile and then try to change the subject.
Also, at best you are a source when it comes to ship safety. Why are you trying to extrapolate that into being a source regarding nuclear physics? You are barely above high school level in that area.
Edit: And one more thing. We all freely acknowledge that your challenges are unwinnable so why don't you stop shamelessly plugging for them here? (I bet you're so stupid you can't even recognize what I did there.)
Nuclear physics is one thing and nuclear safety is another. I deal with the latter.
It seems nuclear weapons are very, very safe as none has ever gone off by mistake. You should really try to figure out why.
So tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable? Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
Or is it some other reason?
Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious!
Yep. You are too stupid.
Also, you are not a source for anything nuclear. Why don't you deal with the issues Mike raised?
Beacuse Mike doesn't tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable?
1. Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
2. Or is it some other reason?
3. Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
4. Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
5. Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
6. And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
7. And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious! Like Mike!
Everyone else understands but you do not! Like most of this thread.
-
I know that I'm going to regret this, but what the hell.
Nuclear physics is one thing and nuclear safety is another. I deal with the latter.
Do you? How many nuclear reactors have you worked with?
It seems nuclear weapons are very, very safe as none has ever gone off by mistake. You should really try to figure out why.
Maybe because there are a great number of safety protocols in place and people tend to be very careful around weapons of mass destruction.
So tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable? Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
Not sure. You've never shown any of your financial records proving that you have the appropriate funds available.
Or is it some other reason?
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
Evidently it not only can, but a process for doing it has been patented.
Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
Who said that no one heard or felt it?
Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
Perhaps because fuel requirements depend greatly on several factors that have not been formalized into a mission plan yet.
And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
That's top secret. If I told you, then I would have to kill you.
And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
Not if you carefully design the magnetic containment field.
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious!
Well, they might be able to if you were running legitimate challenges and understood the sciences involved well enough to know that you've lost.
-
Or is it some other reason?
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
'Nuff said.
-
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - .
The point here is Mike had posted his name days or even weeks ago already. The rest of us knew that but you seem to have missed it until today. Most of us also seem to know a few other things that you seem to have missed. Maybe you should consider listening to something someone tells you for a change.
I for one would like to see you answer Mikes questions regarding fission. As soon as you're in the hot seat you leave for awhile and then try to change the subject.
Also, at best you are a source when it comes to ship safety. Why are you trying to extrapolate that into being a source regarding nuclear physics? You are barely above high school level in that area.
Edit: And one more thing. We all freely acknowledge that your challenges are unwinnable so why don't you stop shamelessly plugging for them here? (I bet you're so stupid you can't even recognize what I did there.)
Nuclear physics is one thing and nuclear safety is another. I deal with the latter.
It seems nuclear weapons are very, very safe as none has ever gone off by mistake. You should really try to figure out why.
So tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable? Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
Or is it some other reason?
Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious!
Yep. You are too stupid.
Also, you are not a source for anything nuclear. Why don't you deal with the issues Mike raised?
Beacuse Mike doesn't tell me why my Challenges are unwinnable?
1. Is it because I cannot pay the winner?
2. Or is it some other reason?
3. Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
4. Does really a bow visor drop of a ship in severe weather and you cannot hear and feel it?
5. Why can't you calculate the fuel required for a manned trip to planet Mars?
6. And how do you start an explosive, military fission that destroys a town in nano-seconds?
7. And fusion on Earth? Doesn't it melt the machine before it starts?
There are plenty experts telling they can win my Challenges but, when I ask them how, they all are speechless. Or get obnoxious! Like Mike!
Everyone else understands but you do not! Like most of this thread.
Hm, but why don't they win my Challenges?
How, e.g, can a little top C of a structure crush bottom A of same structure ... into dust ... by gravity?
-
Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
Evidently it not only can, but a process for doing it has been patented.
So that patented method was used twice in NY at 911?
Tell me more! Win my Challenge!
-
Or is it some other reason?
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
'Nuff said.
Boy you're slow!
-
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
You love your name calling like some school kid in the yard at recess.
The point is I wasn't anonymous before. The truth is, if you had a clue how to do a Goggle search you could have found out everything in those links in half an hour. It probably didn't even occur to you to try.
I do however, believe your a-bomb website is wrong. As I've said before I believe your description on the “safety” of radiation is both wrong and irresponsible but you don’t seem to care safety in this case do you. It’s apparent you don’t understand nuclear reactions or the basics of radiation exposure or you wouldn’t call exposure to radiation “harmless” and discuss some nonsense about nuclear fuel rests.
As far as you so-called challenges...personally, I never even considered trying to win your challenge or even reading what the requirements are to win. I don't for a second believe you'd pay. I don't care whether or not you have the money because it's simply irrelevant. I just plain don't believe you'd pay out so why even bother.
If I'm just a big mouth then prove that anything I've posted is wrong. Don't just point to your website. Show something I've posted that incorrect and why. I don't think you can.
Mike
-
Does really a top of a structure crush the bottom of it by gravity into dust?
Evidently it not only can, but a process for doing it has been patented.
So that patented method was used twice in NY at 911?
Tell me more! Win my Challenge!
Actually, the demonstrations are proof of concept and issued patent means the company met all the requirements.
All of which is proof it is possible. But, since you're incapable of being objective you come up with some hand-waving, smoke and mirrors reasons to dismiss it.
Mike
-
Or is it some other reason?
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
'Nuff said.
Boy you're slow!
Hm, I, Heiwa, explain everything in writing at my very big website http://heiwaco.com since many years. All info is correct as far as I am concerned. Why would I make up anything?
My website was originally about safety at sea but so many governments conspired to hide the true facts about incidents at sea, so I studied some other government lies/hoaxes;
- a bombs,
manned space travel,
911 structural damage analysis and
fusion on Earth.
I always recommend my readers to copy/paste anything they consider wrong and I will correct it. It has happened many times in the past. But no posters at this forum have done so.
-
Or is it some other reason?
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
'Nuff said.
Boy you're slow!
Hm, I, Heiwa, explain everything in writing at my very big website http://heiwaco.com since many years. All info is correct as far as I am concerned. Why would I make up anything?
My website was originally about safety at sea but so many governments conspired to hide the true facts about incidents at sea, so I studied some other government lies/hoaxes;
- a bombs,
manned space travel,
911 structural damage analysis and
fusion on Earth.
I always recommend my readers to copy/paste anything they consider wrong and I will correct it. It has happened many times in the past. But no posters at this forum have done so.
I think there's a post size limit here...
-
Or is it some other reason?
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
'Nuff said.
Boy you're slow!
Hm, I, Heiwa, explain everything in writing at my very big website since many years. All info is correct as far as I am concerned. Why would I make up anything?
My website was originally about safety at sea but so many governments conspired to hide the true facts about incidents at sea, so I studied some other government lies/hoaxes;
- a bombs,
manned space travel,
911 structural damage analysis and
fusion on Earth.
I always recommend my readers to copy/paste anything they consider wrong and I will correct it. It has happened many times in the past. But no posters at this forum have done so.
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
Dumb as a brick.
-
Or is it some other reason?
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
'Nuff said.
Boy you're slow!
Hm, I, Heiwa, explain everything in writing at my very big website since many years. All info is correct as far as I am concerned. Why would I make up anything?
My website was originally about safety at sea but so many governments conspired to hide the true facts about incidents at sea, so I studied some other government lies/hoaxes;
- a bombs,
manned space travel,
911 structural damage analysis and
fusion on Earth.
I always recommend my readers to copy/paste anything they consider wrong and I will correct it. It has happened many times in the past. But no posters at this forum have done so.
Well, there's also the reason that you would never admit to being wrong.
Dumb as a brick.
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
And, that is concrete (pun intended) proof that Heiwa is wrong...again!
Mike
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
Yes! But it has nothing to do with 911 top crushing bottom into dust by gravity, which I show is impossible. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Why do you always change topic with foolish twirp posts?
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
Yes! But it has nothing to do with 911 top crushing bottom into dust by gravity, which I show is impossible. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Why do you always change topic with foolish twirp posts?
Actually, it's pretty much the exact same top crushing bottom into dust by gravity process, except it's initiated in a more controlled manner that happened at WTC.
Your site also claims that fission only works when moderated, but you (reluctantly) admitted that fast (unmoderated) fission works too.
So that's at least 2 examples of your precious site being wrong.
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
Yes! But it has nothing to do with 911 top crushing bottom into dust by gravity, which I show is impossible. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Why do you always change topic with foolish twirp posts?
Actually, it's pretty much the exact same top crushing bottom into dust by gravity process, except it's initiated in a more controlled manner that happened at WTC.
Your site also claims that fission only works when moderated, but you (reluctantly) admitted that fast (unmoderated) fission works too.
So that's at least 2 examples of your precious site being wrong.
Well, at my website I scientifically prove that a top C of any structure cannot crush the bottom A into dust by gravity. Just visit http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm , etc, etc. So a French demolition method where top C crushes bottom A into dust is not real. It seems bottom A is weakened beforehand to facilitate demolition, etc, etc. Anyway, the WTC skyscrapers were not demolished according French patented methods.
Re fission there is only one type of fission, which I explain at my website. The military, secret, explosive fission killing civilians and wiping out towns in nano-seconds is just pseudoscientific propaganda nonsense. Nothing to worry about.
So there is nothing wrong with my website. Only twerps like you thinks so.
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
Yes! But it has nothing to do with 911 top crushing bottom into dust by gravity, which I show is impossible. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Why do you always change topic with foolish twirp posts?
Actually, it's pretty much the exact same top crushing bottom into dust by gravity process, except it's initiated in a more controlled manner that happened at WTC.
Your site also claims that fission only works when moderated, but you (reluctantly) admitted that fast (unmoderated) fission works too.
So that's at least 2 examples of your precious site being wrong.
Well, at my website I scientifically prove that a top C of any structure cannot crush the bottom A into dust by gravity. Just visit http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm , etc, etc. So a French demolition method where top C crushes bottom A into dust is not real. It seems bottom A is weakened beforehand to facilitate demolition, etc, etc. Anyway, the WTC skyscrapers were not demolished according French patented methods.
Re fission there is only one type of fission, which I explain at my website. The military, secret, explosive fission killing civilians and wiping out towns in nano-seconds is just pseudoscientific propaganda nonsense. Nothing to worry about.
So there is nothing wrong with my website. Only twerps like you thinks so.
There are multiple 3D finite element models that contradict you 2d finite difference analysis. Why are all of those 3d FEAs wrong?
Mike
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
Yes! But it has nothing to do with 911 top crushing bottom into dust by gravity, which I show is impossible. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Why do you always change topic with foolish twirp posts?
Actually, it's pretty much the exact same top crushing bottom into dust by gravity process, except it's initiated in a more controlled manner that happened at WTC.
Your site also claims that fission only works when moderated, but you (reluctantly) admitted that fast (unmoderated) fission works too.
So that's at least 2 examples of your precious site being wrong.
Well, at my website I scientifically prove that a top C of any structure cannot crush the bottom A into dust by gravity. Just visit http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm , etc, etc. So a French demolition method where top C crushes bottom A into dust is not real. It seems bottom A is weakened beforehand to facilitate demolition, etc, etc. Anyway, the WTC skyscrapers were not demolished according French patented methods.
Re fission there is only one type of fission, which I explain at my website. The military, secret, explosive fission killing civilians and wiping out towns in nano-seconds is just pseudoscientific propaganda nonsense. Nothing to worry about.
So there is nothing wrong with my website. Only twerps like you thinks so.
See, I told you that you would never admit that you're wrong.
Only a twerp thinks that he's infallible.
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
Yes! But it has nothing to do with 911 top crushing bottom into dust by gravity, which I show is impossible. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Why do you always change topic with foolish twirp posts?
Actually, it's pretty much the exact same top crushing bottom into dust by gravity process, except it's initiated in a more controlled manner that happened at WTC.
Your site also claims that fission only works when moderated, but you (reluctantly) admitted that fast (unmoderated) fission works too.
So that's at least 2 examples of your precious site being wrong.
Well, at my website I scientifically prove that a top C of any structure cannot crush the bottom A into dust by gravity. Just visit http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm , etc, etc. So a French demolition method where top C crushes bottom A into dust is not real. It seems bottom A is weakened beforehand to facilitate demolition, etc, etc. Anyway, the WTC skyscrapers were not demolished according French patented methods.
Re fission there is only one type of fission, which I explain at my website. The military, secret, explosive fission killing civilians and wiping out towns in nano-seconds is just pseudoscientific propaganda nonsense. Nothing to worry about.
So there is nothing wrong with my website. Only twerps like you thinks so.
There are multiple 3D finite element models that contradict you 2d finite difference analysis. Why are all of those 3d FEAs wrong?
Mike
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
-
I see what you write. But what reason are you talking about? I am a reasonable person that presents proven facts in writing at my webside http://heiwaco.com . There is nothing wrong there.
You say that top down demolition doesn't work despite a French demolition company patenting and demonstrating a process to do exactly that.
Yes! But it has nothing to do with 911 top crushing bottom into dust by gravity, which I show is impossible. http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Why do you always change topic with foolish twirp posts?
Actually, it's pretty much the exact same top crushing bottom into dust by gravity process, except it's initiated in a more controlled manner that happened at WTC.
Your site also claims that fission only works when moderated, but you (reluctantly) admitted that fast (unmoderated) fission works too.
So that's at least 2 examples of your precious site being wrong.
Well, at my website I scientifically prove that a top C of any structure cannot crush the bottom A into dust by gravity. Just visit http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm , etc, etc. So a French demolition method where top C crushes bottom A into dust is not real. It seems bottom A is weakened beforehand to facilitate demolition, etc, etc. Anyway, the WTC skyscrapers were not demolished according French patented methods.
Re fission there is only one type of fission, which I explain at my website. The military, secret, explosive fission killing civilians and wiping out towns in nano-seconds is just pseudoscientific propaganda nonsense. Nothing to worry about.
So there is nothing wrong with my website. Only twerps like you thinks so.
There are multiple 3D finite element models that contradict you 2d finite difference analysis. Why are all of those 3d FEAs wrong?
Mike
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
Just another situation where you won't answer the question. What are you afraid of?
-
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
Just another situation where you won't answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Nothing! I think my static, dynamic, intact and damaged structural analysis models of the WTC towers are great. This is how you design structures! You put in the main elements and the main loads to see how the forces are transmitted. Detail design comes later. Why don't you study my model? MicroBrain?
-
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
Just another situation where you won't answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Nothing! I think my static, dynamic, intact and damaged structural analysis models of the WTC towers are great. This is how you design structures! You put in the main elements and the main loads to see how the forces are transmitted. Detail design comes later. Why don't you study my model? MicroBrain?
That wasn't my question. Just another tactic to avoid answering the question.
It's amazing how you tell me to be polite and civil when you engage in personal attacks and name calling. How childish are you?
-
He never admits he's wrong, freely admits he will never admit he is wrong, but still doesn't see why that makes his self judged challenges a joke. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Dumb as poop.
-
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
Just another situation where you won't answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Nothing! I think my static, dynamic, intact and damaged structural analysis models of the WTC towers are great. This is how you design structures! You put in the main elements and the main loads to see how the forces are transmitted. Detail design comes later. Why don't you study my model? MicroBrain?
That wasn't my question. Just another tactic to avoid answering the question.
It's amazing how you tell me to be polite and civil when you engage in personal attacks and name calling. How childish are you?
So the question was "Why are all of those 3d FEAs wrong"?
Well, I have done plenty 3d FEAs and they were not wrong as I put them together correctly. But you had to apply the loads correctly, etc, etc. And it is not possible to make a 3d FEA model, disconnect the top and drop it on the bottom part and all elements disconnect. FEA doesn't work like that.
First you have to load the model and see where the highest stress occurs and where it will break. So you disconnect those elements and do a new analysis, etc, etc, etc.
What has this to do with topic?
-
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
Just another situation where you won't answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Nothing! I think my static, dynamic, intact and damaged structural analysis models of the WTC towers are great. This is how you design structures! You put in the main elements and the main loads to see how the forces are transmitted. Detail design comes later. Why don't you study my model? MicroBrain?
That wasn't my question. Just another tactic to avoid answering the question.
It's amazing how you tell me to be polite and civil when you engage in personal attacks and name calling. How childish are you?
So the question was "Why are all of those 3d FEAs wrong"?
Well, I have done plenty 3d FEAs and they were not wrong as I put them together correctly. But you had to apply the loads correctly, etc, etc. And it is not possible to make a 3d FEA model, disconnect the top and drop it on the bottom part and all elements disconnect. FEA doesn't work like that.
First you have to load the model and see where the highest stress occurs and where it will break. So you disconnect those elements and do a new analysis, etc, etc, etc.
What has this to do with topic?
To quote Adam Savage...”There’s yer problem right there.”
Now choose your words carefully from here on in. You’ve seen my linkedin page so you know that I’m an ME with 20 years of experience in structural stress analysis.
One of the main purposes of 3D finite element analysis packages is to overcome the inherent limitations of 2D modeling techniques. It's not the other way around.
There isn’t a 2D model on the planet that you can’t also model as an FEA and for you to say otherwise says a lot about your understanding of stress analysis. Even bending stress in a rectangular cross section is more accurate in an FEA. Of course the results would only be within a couple of tenths of a percent of each other and an FEA is overkill when you could simply use σ=6M/bt².
It’s a stone cold fact that a French company has demonstrated and patented a method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to pre-weaken the structure. The purpose of which is to increase personnel safety. It removes the need to put people inside a weakened structure. This fact alone is proof your analysis in wrong.
Then you give yourself away by saying a three dimensional finite element model is less capable than a simplified two dimensional simplified spring and beam analysis.
That very fact that you would say such a thing shows you have no bleepin’ idea what you are talking about. Your credibility as a stress analyst is completely shot so don't even bother trying to come back with some lame comments about how you an expert in this and experienced in that followed by a few personal attacks and name calling. You're done on this subject.
Mike
-
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
Just another situation where you won't answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Nothing! I think my static, dynamic, intact and damaged structural analysis models of the WTC towers are great. This is how you design structures! You put in the main elements and the main loads to see how the forces are transmitted. Detail design comes later. Why don't you study my model? MicroBrain?
That wasn't my question. Just another tactic to avoid answering the question.
It's amazing how you tell me to be polite and civil when you engage in personal attacks and name calling. How childish are you?
So the question was "Why are all of those 3d FEAs wrong"?
Well, I have done plenty 3d FEAs and they were not wrong as I put them together correctly. But you had to apply the loads correctly, etc, etc. And it is not possible to make a 3d FEA model, disconnect the top and drop it on the bottom part and all elements disconnect. FEA doesn't work like that.
First you have to load the model and see where the highest stress occurs and where it will break. So you disconnect those elements and do a new analysis, etc, etc, etc.
What has this to do with topic?
To quote Adam Savage...”There’s yer problem right there.”
Now choose your words carefully from here on in. You’ve seen my linkedin page so you know that I’m an ME with 20 years of experience in structural stress analysis.
One of the main purposes of 3D finite element analysis packages is to overcome the inherent limitations of 2D modeling techniques. It's not the other way around.
There isn’t a 2D model on the planet that you can’t also model as an FEA and for you to say otherwise says a lot about your understanding of stress analysis. Even bending stress in a rectangular cross section is more accurate in an FEA. Of course the results would only be within a couple of tenths of a percent of each other and an FEA is overkill when you could simply use σ=6M/bt².
It’s a stone cold fact that a French company has demonstrated and patented a method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to pre-weaken the structure. The purpose of which is to increase personnel safety. It removes the need to put people inside a weakened structure. This fact alone is proof your analysis in wrong.
Then you give yourself away by saying a three dimensional finite element model is less capable than a simplified two dimensional simplified spring and beam analysis.
That very fact that you would say such a thing shows you have no bleepin’ idea what you are talking about. Your credibility as a stress analyst is completely shot so don't even bother trying to come back with some lame comments about how you an expert in this and experienced in that followed by a few personal attacks and name calling. You're done on this subject.
Mike
Sorry, I didn't know you are an ME with 20 years of experience in structural stress analysis, because I haven't visited your linkedin page. I have done plenty structural analysises 1965/80. In 3D I just used beams to see where the forces went, so in 2D I could concentrate on FEA, etc, etc. I know the limitations. In the 1960's all calculations were long hand so simplifications were required. I learnt the structural biz then.
Evidently a three dimensional finite element model is better than a simplified two dimensional spring and beam element analysis but the latter is done 100 times faster.
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Re the French company with a patent to tear down buildings by gravity, it has nothing to do with topic. I think the French patent is a joke.
-
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
Just another situation where you won't answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Nothing! I think my static, dynamic, intact and damaged structural analysis models of the WTC towers are great. This is how you design structures! You put in the main elements and the main loads to see how the forces are transmitted. Detail design comes later. Why don't you study my model? MicroBrain?
That wasn't my question. Just another tactic to avoid answering the question.
It's amazing how you tell me to be polite and civil when you engage in personal attacks and name calling. How childish are you?
So the question was "Why are all of those 3d FEAs wrong"?
Well, I have done plenty 3d FEAs and they were not wrong as I put them together correctly. But you had to apply the loads correctly, etc, etc. And it is not possible to make a 3d FEA model, disconnect the top and drop it on the bottom part and all elements disconnect. FEA doesn't work like that.
First you have to load the model and see where the highest stress occurs and where it will break. So you disconnect those elements and do a new analysis, etc, etc, etc.
What has this to do with topic?
To quote Adam Savage...”There’s yer problem right there.”
Now choose your words carefully from here on in. You’ve seen my linkedin page so you know that I’m an ME with 20 years of experience in structural stress analysis.
One of the main purposes of 3D finite element analysis packages is to overcome the inherent limitations of 2D modeling techniques. It's not the other way around.
There isn’t a 2D model on the planet that you can’t also model as an FEA and for you to say otherwise says a lot about your understanding of stress analysis. Even bending stress in a rectangular cross section is more accurate in an FEA. Of course the results would only be within a couple of tenths of a percent of each other and an FEA is overkill when you could simply use σ=6M/bt².
It’s a stone cold fact that a French company has demonstrated and patented a method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to pre-weaken the structure. The purpose of which is to increase personnel safety. It removes the need to put people inside a weakened structure. This fact alone is proof your analysis in wrong.
Then you give yourself away by saying a three dimensional finite element model is less capable than a simplified two dimensional simplified spring and beam analysis.
That very fact that you would say such a thing shows you have no bleepin’ idea what you are talking about. Your credibility as a stress analyst is completely shot so don't even bother trying to come back with some lame comments about how you an expert in this and experienced in that followed by a few personal attacks and name calling. You're done on this subject.
Mike
Sorry, I didn't know you are an ME with 20 years of experience in structural stress analysis, because I haven't visited your linkedin page. I have done plenty structural analysises 1965/80. In 3D I just used beams to see where the forces went, so in 2D I could concentrate on FEA, etc, etc. I know the limitations. In the 1960's all calculations were long hand so simplifications were required. I learnt the structural biz then.
Evidently a three dimensional finite element model is better than a simplified two dimensional spring and beam element analysis but the latter is done 100 times faster.
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
The one error I have to point is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on you 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Re the French company with a patent to tear down buildings by gravity, it has nothing to do with topic. I think the French patent is a joke.
It has everything to do with the topic. It is demonstrated proof of concept that invalidates your conclusions that it's impossible. Proof of concept for which the EU issued a patent.
The fact you think it’s a joke doesn’t matter in the least because you won’t actually accuse a company fraud and inform the EU that they issued an erroneous patent. Since won't call them out as a fraud just goes to show you don’t have the balls to support your own conclusions...if you really believed you’re right you’d call them out on it and report them to European Patent Office.
Mike
-
My 2-D model in http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is not FEM but just simple springs and point (mass) loads. I think it represents the WTC towers quite well.
If you drop the top C on the bottom A, the springs of both C and A deform, and there is a bounce. No way C can crush A.
Can you find anything wrong with it? ASCE/EMI couldn't so they had to censor it completely.
If you can present a 3-D FEM model, where C crushes A, present it!
Just another situation where you won't answer the question. What are you afraid of?
Nothing! I think my static, dynamic, intact and damaged structural analysis models of the WTC towers are great. This is how you design structures! You put in the main elements and the main loads to see how the forces are transmitted. Detail design comes later. Why don't you study my model? MicroBrain?
That wasn't my question. Just another tactic to avoid answering the question.
It's amazing how you tell me to be polite and civil when you engage in personal attacks and name calling. How childish are you?
So the question was "Why are all of those 3d FEAs wrong"?
Well, I have done plenty 3d FEAs and they were not wrong as I put them together correctly. But you had to apply the loads correctly, etc, etc. And it is not possible to make a 3d FEA model, disconnect the top and drop it on the bottom part and all elements disconnect. FEA doesn't work like that.
First you have to load the model and see where the highest stress occurs and where it will break. So you disconnect those elements and do a new analysis, etc, etc, etc.
What has this to do with topic?
To quote Adam Savage...”There’s yer problem right there.”
Now choose your words carefully from here on in. You’ve seen my linkedin page so you know that I’m an ME with 20 years of experience in structural stress analysis.
One of the main purposes of 3D finite element analysis packages is to overcome the inherent limitations of 2D modeling techniques. It's not the other way around.
There isn’t a 2D model on the planet that you can’t also model as an FEA and for you to say otherwise says a lot about your understanding of stress analysis. Even bending stress in a rectangular cross section is more accurate in an FEA. Of course the results would only be within a couple of tenths of a percent of each other and an FEA is overkill when you could simply use σ=6M/bt².
It’s a stone cold fact that a French company has demonstrated and patented a method of bringing down a building from the top down without having to pre-weaken the structure. The purpose of which is to increase personnel safety. It removes the need to put people inside a weakened structure. This fact alone is proof your analysis in wrong.
Then you give yourself away by saying a three dimensional finite element model is less capable than a simplified two dimensional simplified spring and beam analysis.
That very fact that you would say such a thing shows you have no bleepin’ idea what you are talking about. Your credibility as a stress analyst is completely shot so don't even bother trying to come back with some lame comments about how you an expert in this and experienced in that followed by a few personal attacks and name calling. You're done on this subject.
Mike
Sorry, I didn't know you are an ME with 20 years of experience in structural stress analysis, because I haven't visited your linkedin page. I have done plenty structural analysises 1965/80. In 3D I just used beams to see where the forces went, so in 2D I could concentrate on FEA, etc, etc. I know the limitations. In the 1960's all calculations were long hand so simplifications were required. I learnt the structural biz then.
Evidently a three dimensional finite element model is better than a simplified two dimensional spring and beam element analysis but the latter is done 100 times faster.
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
The one error I have to point is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on you 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Re the French company with a patent to tear down buildings by gravity, it has nothing to do with topic. I think the French patent is a joke.
It has everything to do with the topic. It is demonstrated proof of concept that invalidates your conclusions that it's impossible. Proof of concept for which the EU issued a patent.
The fact you think it’s a joke doesn’t matter in the least because you won’t actually accuse a company fraud and inform the EU that they issued an erroneous patent. Since won't call them out as a fraud just goes to show you don’t have the balls to support your own conclusions...if you really believed you’re right you’d call them out on it and report them to European Patent Office.
Mike
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
And, if you believe a 2D beam analysis is adequate then I wouldn't trust you to analyze the deck on my pool.
Mike
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
I know plenty of Estonia survivors and relatives of killed victims. If you study my website http://heiwaco.com you should know it.
I really got involved after having published an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 15 August 1996 about the incident.
I simply suggested that the ship sank due to leakage and not being seaworthy. Same day Swedish government officials announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
Imagine it was more than twenty years ago. And every day plenty people visit my website and read about it.
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
I know plenty of Estonia survivors and relatives of killed victims. If you study my website http://heiwaco.com you should know it.
I really got involved after having published an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 15 August 1996 about the incident.
I simply suggested that the ship sank due to leakage and not being seaworthy. Same day Swedish government officials announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I would contend that a dodgy bow visor would qualify as making it not seaworthy.
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
I know plenty of Estonia survivors and relatives of killed victims. If you study my website http://heiwaco.com you should know it.
I really got involved after having published an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 15 August 1996 about the incident.
I simply suggested that the ship sank due to leakage and not being seaworthy. Same day Swedish government officials announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I would contend that a dodgy bow visor would qualify as making it not seaworthy.
No, you twerp. A bow visor is just decoration to make the bow look nice. Has nothing to do with seaworthyness. Just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts.
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
I know plenty of Estonia survivors and relatives of killed victims. If you study my website http://heiwaco.com you should know it.
I really got involved after having published an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 15 August 1996 about the incident.
I simply suggested that the ship sank due to leakage and not being seaworthy. Same day Swedish government officials announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I would contend that a dodgy bow visor would qualify as making it not seaworthy.
No, you twerp. A bow visor is just decoration to make the bow look nice. Has nothing to do with seaworthyness. Just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts.
Looks like a lot more than just a decoration to me.
It is described as a type of door.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_visor
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Bow%20visor
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
I know plenty of Estonia survivors and relatives of killed victims. If you study my website http://heiwaco.com you should know it.
I really got involved after having published an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 15 August 1996 about the incident.
I simply suggested that the ship sank due to leakage and not being seaworthy. Same day Swedish government officials announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I would contend that a dodgy bow visor would qualify as making it not seaworthy.
No, you twerp. A bow visor is just decoration to make the bow look nice. Has nothing to do with seaworthyness. Just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts.
Looks like a lot more than just a decoration to me.
It is described as a type of door.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_visor
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Bow%20visor
Yes, twerps like you believe wikipedia & Co nonsense. LOL. ROTFL. Can't you just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts?
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
I know plenty of Estonia survivors and relatives of killed victims. If you study my website http://heiwaco.com you should know it.
I really got involved after having published an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 15 August 1996 about the incident.
I simply suggested that the ship sank due to leakage and not being seaworthy. Same day Swedish government officials announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I would contend that a dodgy bow visor would qualify as making it not seaworthy.
No, you twerp. A bow visor is just decoration to make the bow look nice. Has nothing to do with seaworthyness. Just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts.
Looks like a lot more than just a decoration to me.
It is described as a type of door.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_visor
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Bow%20visor
Yes, twerps like you believe wikipedia & Co nonsense. LOL. ROTFL. Can't you just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts?
Provide a reference other than your site that a bow visor is simply a decoration and not a door or retract the claim.
edit to add:
Further references that it is a door
http://www.navim.com/ships_and_products/bow-visor/
https://www.wartsila.com/encyclopedia/term/bow-doors
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-open-visor-and-bow-doors-of-a-roll-on-roll-off-ferry-ferry-boat-marco-323233.html
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
I know plenty of Estonia survivors and relatives of killed victims. If you study my website http://heiwaco.com you should know it.
I really got involved after having published an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 15 August 1996 about the incident.
I simply suggested that the ship sank due to leakage and not being seaworthy. Same day Swedish government officials announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I would contend that a dodgy bow visor would qualify as making it not seaworthy.
No, you twerp. A bow visor is just decoration to make the bow look nice. Has nothing to do with seaworthyness. Just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts.
Looks like a lot more than just a decoration to me.
It is described as a type of door.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_visor
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Bow%20visor
Yes, twerps like you believe wikipedia & Co nonsense. LOL. ROTFL. Can't you just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts?
Provide a reference other than your site that a bow visor is simply a decoration and not a door or retract the claim.
edit to add:
Further references that it is a door
http://www.navim.com/ships_and_products/bow-visor/
https://www.wartsila.com/encyclopedia/term/bow-doors
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-open-visor-and-bow-doors-of-a-roll-on-roll-off-ferry-ferry-boat-marco-323233.html
Please, a door has hinges on the side and swings sideways. You don't fit doors at the bow of a ship. The weathertight closing device of a superstructure, if required, is a ramp hinged at the lower deck.
Any extra bow visor, hinged at the upper deck, is just decoration.
I describe it in my books about the Estonia, e.g. Chapter 3 of http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm . Happy reading.
-
I think my paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm is pretty good. Why don't you point out any errors in it?
Apparently you can’t read because I’ve already answered this but since you asked so nicely I’ll repeat what I said in my previous post.
The one error in your paper is that a 2d model is inadequate and not representative of the dynamics involved. Therefore, any conclusions drawn on your 2d model are invalid and not worth discussing.
Mike
Thanks. But you are wrong. All basic structural analysis is 2-D beam analysis. I use it since >50 years.
Maybe that's why you can't figure out how bow visors can fall off RORO ships.
Why do you suggest that? Have you ever been on a ship with a bow visor in severe weather?
You are such a stupid twerp! What makes you click?
Were you on the Estonia when it went down? Did you personally examine the wreckage or interview any of the survivors?
I know plenty of Estonia survivors and relatives of killed victims. If you study my website http://heiwaco.com you should know it.
I really got involved after having published an article in Swedish daily Dagens Nyheter 15 August 1996 about the incident.
I simply suggested that the ship sank due to leakage and not being seaworthy. Same day Swedish government officials announced that I was "an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories".
I would contend that a dodgy bow visor would qualify as making it not seaworthy.
No, you twerp. A bow visor is just decoration to make the bow look nice. Has nothing to do with seaworthyness. Just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts.
Looks like a lot more than just a decoration to me.
It is described as a type of door.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_visor
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Bow%20visor
Yes, twerps like you believe wikipedia & Co nonsense. LOL. ROTFL. Can't you just study http://heiwaco.com before making stupid posts?
Provide a reference other than your site that a bow visor is simply a decoration and not a door or retract the claim.
edit to add:
Further references that it is a door
http://www.navim.com/ships_and_products/bow-visor/
https://www.wartsila.com/encyclopedia/term/bow-doors
http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-open-visor-and-bow-doors-of-a-roll-on-roll-off-ferry-ferry-boat-marco-323233.html
Please, a door has hinges on the side and swings sideways. You don't fit doors at the bow of a ship. The weathertight closing device of a superstructure, if required, is a ramp hinged at the lower deck.
Any extra bow visor, hinged at the upper deck, is just decoration.
I describe it in my books about the Estonia, e.g. Chapter 3 of http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm . Happy reading.
so you can't provide a reference then. Thought so. Meanwhile, in the real world, a bow visor is a type of door on the front of the ship and not just decoration.
-
Please, a door has hinges on the side and swings sideways. You don't fit doors at the bow of a ship. The weathertight closing device of a superstructure, if required, is a ramp hinged at the lower deck.
Any extra bow visor, hinged at the upper deck, is just decoration.
I describe it in my books about the Estonia, e.g. Chapter 3 of http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm . Happy reading.
so you can't provide a reference then. Thought so. Meanwhile, in the real world, a bow visor is a type of door on the front of the ship and not just decoration.
Just read Chapter 3 of my book about it. I am a source about bow visors. My ships had plenty of them. The public had no idea what it was so, I wrote a book about it. It sold 200O copies. Now you can download it on the Internet. It has nothing to with topic.
Why are you so impolite and obnoxious? Why can you write in a nice way? You sound like a twerp. The moderators apparently love you.
-
Please, a door has hinges on the side and swings sideways. You don't fit doors at the bow of a ship. The weathertight closing device of a superstructure, if required, is a ramp hinged at the lower deck.
Any extra bow visor, hinged at the upper deck, is just decoration.
I describe it in my books about the Estonia, e.g. Chapter 3 of http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm . Happy reading.
so you can't provide a reference then. Thought so. Meanwhile, in the real world, a bow visor is a type of door on the front of the ship and not just decoration.
Just read Chapter 3 of my book about it. I am a source about bow visors. My ships had plenty of them. The public had no idea what it was so, I wrote a book about it. It sold 200O copies. Now you can download it on the Internet. It has nothing to with topic.
Why are you so impolite and obnoxious? Why can you write in a nice way? You sound like a twerp. The moderators apparently love you.
I have been nice to you. YOU are the one calling names. I provided multiple references. YOU have pointed only to yourself.
-
Please, a door has hinges on the side and swings sideways. You don't fit doors at the bow of a ship. The weathertight closing device of a superstructure, if required, is a ramp hinged at the lower deck.
Any extra bow visor, hinged at the upper deck, is just decoration.
I describe it in my books about the Estonia, e.g. Chapter 3 of http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm . Happy reading.
so you can't provide a reference then. Thought so. Meanwhile, in the real world, a bow visor is a type of door on the front of the ship and not just decoration.
Just read Chapter 3 of my book about it. I am a source about bow visors. My ships had plenty of them. The public had no idea what it was so, I wrote a book about it. It sold 200O copies. Now you can download it on the Internet. It has nothing to with topic.
Why are you so impolite and obnoxious? Why can you write in a nice way? You sound like a twerp. The moderators apparently love you.
I have been nice to you. YOU are the one calling names. I provided multiple references. YOU have pointed only to yourself.
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
-
Please, a door has hinges on the side and swings sideways. You don't fit doors at the bow of a ship. The weathertight closing device of a superstructure, if required, is a ramp hinged at the lower deck.
Any extra bow visor, hinged at the upper deck, is just decoration.
I describe it in my books about the Estonia, e.g. Chapter 3 of http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm . Happy reading.
so you can't provide a reference then. Thought so. Meanwhile, in the real world, a bow visor is a type of door on the front of the ship and not just decoration.
Just read Chapter 3 of my book about it. I am a source about bow visors. My ships had plenty of them. The public had no idea what it was so, I wrote a book about it. It sold 200O copies. Now you can download it on the Internet. It has nothing to with topic.
Why are you so impolite and obnoxious? Why can you write in a nice way? You sound like a twerp. The moderators apparently love you.
I have been nice to you. YOU are the one calling names. I provided multiple references. YOU have pointed only to yourself.
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
-
Please, a door has hinges on the side and swings sideways. You don't fit doors at the bow of a ship. The weathertight closing device of a superstructure, if required, is a ramp hinged at the lower deck.
Any extra bow visor, hinged at the upper deck, is just decoration.
I describe it in my books about the Estonia, e.g. Chapter 3 of http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm . Happy reading.
so you can't provide a reference then. Thought so. Meanwhile, in the real world, a bow visor is a type of door on the front of the ship and not just decoration.
Just read Chapter 3 of my book about it. I am a source about bow visors. My ships had plenty of them. The public had no idea what it was so, I wrote a book about it. It sold 200O copies. Now you can download it on the Internet. It has nothing to with topic.
Why are you so impolite and obnoxious? Why can you write in a nice way? You sound like a twerp. The moderators apparently love you.
I have been nice to you. YOU are the one calling names. I provided multiple references. YOU have pointed only to yourself.
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
That would be a no. He's a moron.
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Good God Man! This is shocking.... ;D
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Good God Man! This is shocking.... ;D
Well I'm shocked. I expected more from a proven pathological liar. ::) ;D No, no I really didn't.
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Well, you have to read chapter 3 of my book where I reveal the shocking secrets of bow visors making me a source of reference.
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Well, you have to read chapter 3 of my book where I reveal the shocking secrets of bow visors making me a source of reference.
Read it, wasn't impressed, and AGAIN you have yet to show a reference other than yourself. Just stating something doesn't make it a fact. You provide no sources and meanwhile multiple sources have been shown to prove you wrong.
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Well, you have to read chapter 3 of my book where I reveal the shocking secrets of bow visors making me a source of reference.
Read it, wasn't impressed, and AGAIN you have yet to show a reference other than yourself. Just stating something doesn't make it a fact. You provide no sources and meanwhile multiple sources have been shown to prove you wrong.
So you can read! Good! The content of my book is fact. And I provide plenty references in my book. See Chapter 7.
Nobody has proven me wrong about my book. Why would I write a book full of errors of all kind?
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Well, you have to read chapter 3 of my book where I reveal the shocking secrets of bow visors making me a source of reference.
Read it, wasn't impressed, and AGAIN you have yet to show a reference other than yourself. Just stating something doesn't make it a fact. You provide no sources and meanwhile multiple sources have been shown to prove you wrong.
So you can read! Good! The content of my book is fact. And I provide plenty references in my book. See Chapter 7.
Nobody has proven me wrong about my book. Why would I write a book full of errors of all kind?
And you are apparently unable to. You have already been proven wrong with your statement that the bow visor is nothing more than decoration. Multiple references have been provided to show that and NONE appear for your OPINION in your "book". More LIES from Heiwa.
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Well, you have to read chapter 3 of my book where I reveal the shocking secrets of bow visors making me a source of reference.
Read it, wasn't impressed, and AGAIN you have yet to show a reference other than yourself. Just stating something doesn't make it a fact. You provide no sources and meanwhile multiple sources have been shown to prove you wrong.
So you can read! Good! The content of my book is fact. And I provide plenty references in my book. See Chapter 7.
Nobody has proven me wrong about my book. Why would I write a book full of errors of all kind?
And you are apparently unable to. You have already been proven wrong with your statement that the bow visor is nothing more than decoration. Multiple references have been provided to show that and NONE appear for your OPINION in your "book". More LIES from Heiwa.
Hm, did you really read my book?
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Well, you have to read chapter 3 of my book where I reveal the shocking secrets of bow visors making me a source of reference.
Read it, wasn't impressed, and AGAIN you have yet to show a reference other than yourself. Just stating something doesn't make it a fact. You provide no sources and meanwhile multiple sources have been shown to prove you wrong.
So you can read! Good! The content of my book is fact. And I provide plenty references in my book. See Chapter 7.
Nobody has proven me wrong about my book. Why would I write a book full of errors of all kind?
And you are apparently unable to. You have already been proven wrong with your statement that the bow visor is nothing more than decoration. Multiple references have been provided to show that and NONE appear for your OPINION in your "book". More LIES from Heiwa.
Hm, did you really read my book?
AGAIN, provide a reference for your opinion that the bow visor is nothing more than decoration or retract your claim. So far you've been unable to do so and multiple references have been provided to show otherwise.
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Well, you have to read chapter 3 of my book where I reveal the shocking secrets of bow visors making me a source of reference.
Read it, wasn't impressed, and AGAIN you have yet to show a reference other than yourself. Just stating something doesn't make it a fact. You provide no sources and meanwhile multiple sources have been shown to prove you wrong.
So you can read! Good! The content of my book is fact. And I provide plenty references in my book. See Chapter 7.
Nobody has proven me wrong about my book. Why would I write a book full of errors of all kind?
And you are apparently unable to. You have already been proven wrong with your statement that the bow visor is nothing more than decoration. Multiple references have been provided to show that and NONE appear for your OPINION in your "book". More LIES from Heiwa.
Hm, did you really read my book?
AGAIN, provide a reference for your opinion that the bow visor is nothing more than decoration or retract your claim. So far you've been unable to do so and multiple references have been provided to show otherwise.
Please read my book. The bow visor is nothing more than a decoration of the foward part of the ship's superstructure ... so the vessel looks smart. Behind the bow visor is a weathertight door/ramp to protect cargo in the superstructure. Many ships therefore do not have a bow visor at all.
It seems you believe the Swedish government that suggested 1994 that ship floats on bow visors and, if the bow visor is lost, the ship sinks like a stone forgetting the principle of Archimedes. It is now official history in Sweden and taught at universities and, if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.
-
So what do you think about my book? http://heiwaco.com/e7.htm
Isn't it ... good?
And still no reference. Exactly what we've all come to expect from you.
Are you capable of anything other than pimping your own site and/or book?
Well, I don't pimp anything. My book is free of charge and read frequently on the Internet. I try to enlighten people about things I know.
And still no reference. Is anyone surprised?
Well, you have to read chapter 3 of my book where I reveal the shocking secrets of bow visors making me a source of reference.
Read it, wasn't impressed, and AGAIN you have yet to show a reference other than yourself. Just stating something doesn't make it a fact. You provide no sources and meanwhile multiple sources have been shown to prove you wrong.
So you can read! Good! The content of my book is fact. And I provide plenty references in my book. See Chapter 7.
Nobody has proven me wrong about my book. Why would I write a book full of errors of all kind?
And you are apparently unable to. You have already been proven wrong with your statement that the bow visor is nothing more than decoration. Multiple references have been provided to show that and NONE appear for your OPINION in your "book". More LIES from Heiwa.
Hm, did you really read my book?
AGAIN, provide a reference for your opinion that the bow visor is nothing more than decoration or retract your claim. So far you've been unable to do so and multiple references have been provided to show otherwise.
Please read my book. The bow visor is nothing more than a decoration of the foward part of the ship's superstructure ... so the vessel looks smart. Behind the bow visor is a weathertight door/ramp to protect cargo in the superstructure/i]. Many ships therefore do not have a bow visor at all.
It seems you believe the Swedish government that suggested 1994 that ship floats on bow visors and, if the bow visor is lost, the ship sinks like a stone forgetting the principle of Archimedes. It is now official history in Sweden and taught at universities and, if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.
And AGAIN, since you are apparently unable to read, you provide NO REFERENCE for the above opinion. Meanwhile, multiple references have been presented stating the opposite. So more LIES from Heiwa.
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
No you
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
further signs of your narcissism. Your inability to admit when you are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence; check. Your constant need for validation by repeatedly trying to push people back to your website; check. Your constant need to insult others to make yourself feel superior; check.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
further signs of your narcissism. Your inability to admit when you are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence; check. Your constant need for validation by repeatedly trying to push people back to your website; check. Your constant need to insult others to make yourself feel superior; check.
Yes, you have problems. Getting upset about things you don't understand and which don't concern you.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
further signs of your narcissism. Your inability to admit when you are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence; check. Your constant need for validation by repeatedly trying to push people back to your website; check. Your constant need to insult others to make yourself feel superior; check.
Yes, you have problems. Getting upset about things you don't understand and which don't concern you.
Not upset at all. Just observing and laughing. But thanks for showing more narcissism signs. Now I realize you REALLY can't help it, can you?
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
further signs of your narcissism. Your inability to admit when you are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence; check. Your constant need for validation by repeatedly trying to push people back to your website; check. Your constant need to insult others to make yourself feel superior; check.
Yes, you have problems. Getting upset about things you don't understand and which don't concern you.
Not upset at all. Just observing and laughing. But thanks for showing more narcissism signs. Now I realize you REALLY can't help it, can you?
No, you have problems. Laughing about things you don't understand and which don't concern you.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
So you agree with me that bow visors are only decorative, etc, etc? Thanks!
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
So you agree with me that bow visors are only decorative, etc, etc? Thanks!
I think this is typical of how most of your conclusions are drawn. You read something, and take away whatever conclusion you want from it. That's why your site and arguments are so ridiculous.
In the real world the statement I made, in no way shape or form supports the conclusion you drew from it.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
So you agree with me that bow visors are only decorative, etc, etc? Thanks!
I think this is typical of how most of your conclusions are drawn. You read something, and take away whatever conclusion you want from it. That's why your site and arguments are so ridiculous.
In the real world the statement I made, in no way shape or form supports the conclusion you drew from it.
OK, so what is your opinion of a bow visor (not protecting anything) fitted on a ship? Is it a decoration or a bumper that will deform, when you collide with something?
And what about explosive fission? Does a piece of metal A coming in sudden, compressive contact with an identical piece of metal B, A+B = critical mass, with a free neutron in between produce a speed of light chain reaction lasting nanoseconds ending in a FLASH equivalent to 20 000 000 kg of TNT exploding?
Imagine a Nobel Prize winner physics suggesting to a group of house wives that explosive fission works like that.
And that it served the yellow monkies right happening to watch it from below!
-
OK, so what is your opinion of a bow visor (not protecting anything) fitted on a ship? Is it a decoration or a bumper that will deform, when you collide with something?
Well, there are a number of bow visors that are now only decorative because the ship owners had them permanently welded shut.
By the way, why do ships have locking mechanisms for the bow visors to keep them water tight if they are only decorative?
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
further signs of your narcissism. Your inability to admit when you are wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence; check. Your constant need for validation by repeatedly trying to push people back to your website; check. Your constant need to insult others to make yourself feel superior; check.
Yes, you have problems. Getting upset about things you don't understand and which don't concern you.
Not upset at all. Just observing and laughing. But thanks for showing more narcissism signs. Now I realize you REALLY can't help it, can you?
No, you have problems. Laughing about things you don't understand and which don't concern you.
Sounds like something a narcissistic pathological liar would say.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
So you agree with me that bow visors are only decorative, etc, etc? Thanks!
More LIES from Heiwa. Nobody said that and you are deliberately lying to make it look like you have support. But thanks for further proof you are a narcissistic pathological liar.
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
So you agree with me that bow visors are only decorative, etc, etc? Thanks!
More LIES from Heiwa. Nobody said that and you are deliberately lying to make it look like you have support. But thanks for further proof you are a narcissistic pathological liar.
Hm, me lying? I was just asking a polite question. OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be? Does the ship float on the bow visor?
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
So you agree with me that bow visors are only decorative, etc, etc? Thanks!
More LIES from Heiwa. Nobody said that and you are deliberately lying to make it look like you have support. But thanks for further proof you are a narcissistic pathological liar.
Hm, me lying? I was just asking a polite question. OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be? Does the ship float on the bow visor?
Learn to read. You trying to make what he wrote to mean he agrees with you when it did nothing of the sort is a LIE on your part. The reliance again on insults is yet another sign of your narcissism.
Still yet to see ANY references for your OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative while multiple references have been shown otherwise. A normal person would at least TRY to find some references to provide but we all know that doesn't apply to you, does it?
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
So you agree with me that bow visors are only decorative, etc, etc? Thanks!
More LIES from Heiwa. Nobody said that and you are deliberately lying to make it look like you have support. But thanks for further proof you are a narcissistic pathological liar.
Hm, me lying? I was just asking a polite question. OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be? Does the ship float on the bow visor?
Learn to read. You trying to make what he wrote to mean he agrees with you when it did nothing of the sort is a LIE on your part. The reliance again on insults is yet another sign of your narcissism.
Still yet to see ANY references for your OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative while multiple references have been shown otherwise. A normal person would at least TRY to find some references to provide but we all know that doesn't apply to you, does it?
Why do you post so much BS?
-
Heiwa's latest tactic in his desperate but futile attempt to keep from looking like a total fool! ;D
-
Heiwa's latest tactic in his desperate but futile attempt to keep from looking like a total fool! ;D
Why do you post so much BS?
-
Why don't you post a source to back your claim that bow visors are just for looks?
-
And now you're adding another unsupported statement. Got any reference for this? "if you query it, risk is that you suffer sudden injury or are arrested for tax evasion in Sweden, etc, etc.". I'm betting the answer is no.
Hm, you really should study my website http://heiwaco.com about not being politically correct and the risks involved.
As expected, no reference and again pimping the website. You're really just a bot, aren't you?
No, it doesn't cost anything to visit my site. All references are there.
I said nothing about cost. And AGAIN there are no references to your opinion that the bow visor is just decorative.
So what is the purpose of a bow visor?
GIYF
Or you can learn to read and read the multiple references already posted. I doubt you'll do either though.
You are right.
Of course I'm right. You're nothing but a narcissistic pathological liar. You've made that very clear.
You are wrong.
Nope. You exhibit all the signs. You could look them up yourself but everyone knows you won't Expecting others to do your work for you as if you're superior to everyone is a classic tell. Keep up the humor!
And still no references for you OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
The problem is you don't seem to be able to tell the difference between facts and your opinions. You express your opinions as though they are facts. Unprofessional and for people with a normal IQ or higher it would also be dishonest. I don't think you're dishonest though, just really stupid.
Yes, but it is your problem.
Fact remains my opinion is that bow visors are only decorative. Only twerps get upset about it. Imagine that!
But nuclear power is real and safe. Only explosive fission is ... pseudoscience.
Oh I'm not upset. Your stupid posts are mildly entertaining and give me something to do when there's nothing interesting on the boards.
So you agree with me that bow visors are only decorative, etc, etc? Thanks!
More LIES from Heiwa. Nobody said that and you are deliberately lying to make it look like you have support. But thanks for further proof you are a narcissistic pathological liar.
Hm, me lying? I was just asking a polite question. OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be? Does the ship float on the bow visor?
Learn to read. You trying to make what he wrote to mean he agrees with you when it did nothing of the sort is a LIE on your part. The reliance again on insults is yet another sign of your narcissism.
Still yet to see ANY references for your OPINION that the bow visor is only decorative while multiple references have been shown otherwise. A normal person would at least TRY to find some references to provide but we all know that doesn't apply to you, does it?
Why do you post so much BS?
Aw, is the Heiwa bot broken? Can't handle getting called on your LIES so you just post the same crap in multiple threads?
NOTHING I've posted is BS. You DO show many signs of narcissism and you HAVE been prove to LIE in this thread and others. You also have STILL not posted ANY references for your OPINION. Until you can do that, then that is all it is, an OPINION.
You really think anyone falls for your act? Everyone here and on other forums knows you are full of shit.
-
Aw, is the Heiwa bot broken? Can't handle getting called on your LIES so you just post the same crap in multiple threads?
NOTHING I've posted is BS. You DO show many signs of narcissism and you HAVE been prove to LIE in this thread and others. You also have STILL not posted ANY references for your OPINION. Until you can do that, then that is all it is, an OPINION.
You really think anyone falls for your act? Everyone here and on other forums knows you are full of shit.
What a language! You are just jealous twerp without a popular website to link to. Why don't you just shut up?
-
Aw, is the Heiwa bot broken? Can't handle getting called on your LIES so you just post the same crap in multiple threads?
NOTHING I've posted is BS. You DO show many signs of narcissism and you HAVE been prove to LIE in this thread and others. You also have STILL not posted ANY references for your OPINION. Until you can do that, then that is all it is, an OPINION.
You really think anyone falls for your act? Everyone here and on other forums knows you are full of shit.
You are right! You are I am just jealous twerp withoutpopular shit website to link to which I love to spam links to. Why don't you I should probably just shut up?
FTFY
-
Aw, is the Heiwa bot broken? Can't handle getting called on your LIES so you just post the same crap in multiple threads?
NOTHING I've posted is BS. You DO show many signs of narcissism and you HAVE been prove to LIE in this thread and others. You also have STILL not posted ANY references for your OPINION. Until you can do that, then that is all it is, an OPINION.
You really think anyone falls for your act? Everyone here and on other forums knows you are full of shit.
What a language! You are just jealous twerp without a popular website to link to. Why don't you just shut up?
You think the measly traffic to your site makes it popular? LOLOLOL!!!!
I'm not jealous of a single thing you have or think you have. I'm just laughing at how obvious it is that you are a narcissistic pathological liar. You only want me to shut up because I'm speaking the truth.
All you're doing is proving AGAIN that you are nothing but a narcissist. "Look at my website and how important that makes me!"
Do you ever get tired of sucking your own dick?
And STILL no references to back up your OPINION. Because the truth is, deep down even you know it is a LIE. if it wasn't then you would back it up but you KNOW you can't.
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
Why do you always ask stupid questions? But thanks, anyway.
Of course you must open/lift up the bow visor in order to lower the ramp on a jetty to enable roll on/off cargo operations in/out of the superstructure on this particular ship.
But you don't really need the bow visor! Many ships just have the ramp as the weathertight closure of the superstructure ... or just a door (the ramp can be fitted on the jetty). No decorative bow visor!
-
The Titanic didn't really need lifeboats either. Until they did.
-
The Titanic didn't really need lifeboats either. Until they did.
Thanks for an interesting post.
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
Why do you always ask stupid questions? But thanks, anyway.
Of course you must open/lift up the bow visor in order to lower the ramp on a jetty to enable roll on/off cargo operations in/out of the superstructure on this particular ship.
But you don't really need the bow visor! Many ships just have the ramp as the weathertight closure of the superstructure ... or just a door (the ramp can be fitted on the jetty). No decorative bow visor!
and still not a single reference of this OPINION
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
Why do you always ask stupid questions? But thanks, anyway.
Of course you must open/lift up the bow visor in order to lower the ramp on a jetty to enable roll on/off cargo operations in/out of the superstructure on this particular ship.
But you don't really need the bow visor! Many ships just have the ramp as the weathertight closure of the superstructure ... or just a door (the ramp can be fitted on the jetty). No decorative bow visor!
and still not a single reference of this OPINION
Correct. Being an expert of the subject having written several books about it, I am the source and reference.
A bow visor is just a structural decoration at the fore end of a ship's superstructure, so it looks nice. I cannot find any other expert disagreeing with me. Can you?
-
A bow visor is just a structural decoration at the fore end of a ship's superstructure, so it looks nice. I cannot find any other expert disagreeing with me. Can you?
Pointy = Goes through ocean good.
Flat = Plows like a barge.
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
Why do you always ask stupid questions? But thanks, anyway.
Of course you must open/lift up the bow visor in order to lower the ramp on a jetty to enable roll on/off cargo operations in/out of the superstructure on this particular ship.
But you don't really need the bow visor! Many ships just have the ramp as the weathertight closure of the superstructure ... or just a door (the ramp can be fitted on the jetty). No decorative bow visor!
and still not a single reference of this OPINION
Correct. Being an expert of the subject having written several books about it, I am the source and reference.
Not when multiple sources have said otherwise. It makes your OPINION worthless.
But thanks for the dash of superiority complex once again proving your narcissism.
A bow visor is just a structural decoration at the fore end of a ship's superstructure, so it looks nice. I cannot find any other expert disagreeing with me. Can you?
Learn to read. Multiple references have been posted in thread stating otherwise. More LIES from Heiwa.
-
A bow visor is just a structural decoration at the fore end of a ship's superstructure, so it looks nice. I cannot find any other expert disagreeing with me. Can you?
Learn to read. Multiple references have been posted in thread stating otherwise. More LIES from Heiwa.
What multiple references are you talking about? And how do they describe a bow visor?
And why do you always suggest LIES from Heiwa?
Why would I lie about a bow visor? It is not good for my reputation.
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
Why do you always ask stupid questions? But thanks, anyway.
Of course you must open/lift up the bow visor in order to lower the ramp on a jetty to enable roll on/off cargo operations in/out of the superstructure on this particular ship.
So you admit that the bow visor can have a useful function and is not just for decoration. Good to know. Now update your site accordingly.
By the way, how seaworthy do you suppose a ship like that would be if its bow visor fell off or its locking mechanism failed during a storm?
-
A bow visor is just a structural decoration at the fore end of a ship's superstructure, so it looks nice. I cannot find any other expert disagreeing with me. Can you?
Learn to read. Multiple references have been posted in thread stating otherwise. More LIES from Heiwa.
What multiple references are you talking about? And how do they describe a bow visor?
AGAIN, learn to read. They were posted previously in this thread. But thanks for proving you don't read replies.
And why do you always suggest LIES from Heiwa?
Because you LIE. You've been shown to be lying multiple times in this thread and others. Again, learn to read.
Why would I lie about a bow visor? It is not good for my reputation.
Because you're a narcissistic pathological liar with delusions of grandeur. I doubt you care about your real reputation as the one you've concocted in your head is all that matters to you.
If you cared at all about your real reputation then you would care that you look like a joke to the majority of those here and on every other forum you've been on. But I doubt your ego even lets you see that.
-
Why would I lie about a bow visor? It is not good for my reputation.
Denying atomic bombs and manned space flight doesn't do your reputation much good either.
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
Why do you always ask stupid questions? But thanks, anyway.
Of course you must open/lift up the bow visor in order to lower the ramp on a jetty to enable roll on/off cargo operations in/out of the superstructure on this particular ship.
So you admit that the bow visor can have a useful function and is not just for decoration. Good to know. Now update your site accordingly.
By the way, how seaworthy do you suppose a ship like that would be if its bow visor fell off or its locking mechanism failed during a storm?
No, I do not admit it is a useful function to be lifted up ... when you don't need it at all.
You are a twerp. You do not need a bow visor at sea. It is just decoration.
-
Why would I lie about a bow visor? It is not good for my reputation.
Denying atomic bombs and manned space flight doesn't do your reputation much good either.
You are just a jealous twerp. Haven't you understood that you suffer from cognitive dissonance? After all time I have wasted on your stupid questions.
-
A bow visor is just a structural decoration at the fore end of a ship's superstructure, so it looks nice. I cannot find any other expert disagreeing with me. Can you?
Learn to read. Multiple references have been posted in thread stating otherwise. More LIES from Heiwa.
What multiple references are you talking about? And how do they describe a bow visor?
AGAIN, learn to read. They were posted previously in this thread. But thanks for proving you don't read replies.
And why do you always suggest LIES from Heiwa?
Because you LIE. You've been shown to be lying multiple times in this thread and others. Again, learn to read.
Why would I lie about a bow visor? It is not good for my reputation.
Because you're a narcissistic pathological liar with delusions of grandeur. I doubt you care about your real reputation as the one you've concocted in your head is all that matters to you.
If you cared at all about your real reputation then you would care that you look like a joke to the majority of those here and on every other forum you've been on. But I doubt your ego even lets you see that.
You are SICK. I wonder why I waste time on you.
-
A bow visor is just a structural decoration at the fore end of a ship's superstructure, so it looks nice. I cannot find any other expert disagreeing with me. Can you?
Learn to read. Multiple references have been posted in thread stating otherwise. More LIES from Heiwa.
What multiple references are you talking about? And how do they describe a bow visor?
AGAIN, learn to read. They were posted previously in this thread. But thanks for proving you don't read replies.
And why do you always suggest LIES from Heiwa?
Because you LIE. You've been shown to be lying multiple times in this thread and others. Again, learn to read.
Why would I lie about a bow visor? It is not good for my reputation.
Because you're a narcissistic pathological liar with delusions of grandeur. I doubt you care about your real reputation as the one you've concocted in your head is all that matters to you.
If you cared at all about your real reputation then you would care that you look like a joke to the majority of those here and on every other forum you've been on. But I doubt your ego even lets you see that.
You are SICK. I wonder why I waste time on you.
translation: I'm not going to read about all the times I lied. Far easier to default to insulting than to do any actual work.
typical Heiwa, when faced with the truth, resorts to insults instead of actually discussing the topic.
And STILL no references for your unsupported OPINION.
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
Why do you always ask stupid questions? But thanks, anyway.
Of course you must open/lift up the bow visor in order to lower the ramp on a jetty to enable roll on/off cargo operations in/out of the superstructure on this particular ship.
So you admit that the bow visor can have a useful function and is not just for decoration. Good to know. Now update your site accordingly.
By the way, how seaworthy do you suppose a ship like that would be if its bow visor fell off or its locking mechanism failed during a storm?
No, I do not admit it is a useful function to be lifted up ... when you don't need it at all.
It sure looks like that bow visor would need to be lifted up in order to use the bow ramp.
You are a twerp. You do not need a bow visor at sea. It is just decoration.
If bow visors are not needed, then why are they such common features on RORO ships?
-
I wonder why I waste time on you.
Ego.
-
OK, only twerps think bow visors serve some purpose not just being decorations, but what can it be?
Could the purpose of a bow visor to be to open and allow the front loading ramp to extend to the dock like so?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cb/MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg/376px-MS_Mariella_Bow_visor_February_2012.jpg)
Why do you always ask stupid questions? But thanks, anyway.
Of course you must open/lift up the bow visor in order to lower the ramp on a jetty to enable roll on/off cargo operations in/out of the superstructure on this particular ship.
So you admit that the bow visor can have a useful function and is not just for decoration. Good to know. Now update your site accordingly.
By the way, how seaworthy do you suppose a ship like that would be if its bow visor fell off or its locking mechanism failed during a storm?
No, I do not admit it is a useful function to be lifted up ... when you don't need it at all.
It sure looks like that bow visor would need to be lifted up in order to use the bow ramp.
You are a twerp. You do not need a bow visor at sea. It is just decoration.
If bow visors are not needed, then why are they such common features on RORO ships?
Because all the ship designers are stupid twerps. Much stupider than Heiwa.
@Heiwa I know you probably won't catch on so I'm going to help you out and let you know that that was sarcasm. Sorry to pop your ego mid-inflation like that!
-
You are a twerp. You do not need a bow visor at sea. It is just decoration.
If bow visors are not needed, then why are they such common features on RORO ships?
As I always say: just to make the bow look nice like a normal ship. But many ropax has just a ramp/door to protect the superstructure. No bow visor. Much simpler and easier to maintain.
-
You are a twerp. You do not need a bow visor at sea. It is just decoration.
If bow visors are not needed, then why are they such common features on RORO ships?
As I always say: just to make the bow look nice like a normal ship. But many ropax has just a ramp/door to protect the superstructure. No bow visor. Much simpler and easier to maintain.
Yet that doesn't change the fact that there are ships with functional bow visors and it is within the realm of possibility for those bow visors and/or latching mechanisms to fail if they aren't maintained properly.
-
You are a twerp. You do not need a bow visor at sea. It is just decoration.
If bow visors are not needed, then why are they such common features on RORO ships?
As I always say: just to make the bow look nice like a normal ship. But many ropax has just a ramp/door to protect the superstructure. No bow visor. Much simpler and easier to maintain.
Yet that doesn't change the fact that there are ships with functional bow visors and it is within the realm of possibility for those bow visors and/or latching mechanisms to fail if they aren't maintained properly.
You are a twerp. Bow visors on ships are just decorations so that the ship superstructure looks nice. Of course the bow visors have to lifted up and closed down to enable the ship to unload/load every time in port, so intelligent shipowners/operators/designers/naval architects do not use them. Why fit something that doesn't have a purpose ... except looking nice?
The Swedish government, supported by USA/CIA, maintains that ships float on bow visors and, if you don't agree, you are in deep trouble.
It is a sad story. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com
-
You are a twerp. You do not need a bow visor at sea. It is just decoration.
If bow visors are not needed, then why are they such common features on RORO ships?
As I always say: just to make the bow look nice like a normal ship. But many ropax has just a ramp/door to protect the superstructure. No bow visor. Much simpler and easier to maintain.
Yet that doesn't change the fact that there are ships with functional bow visors and it is within the realm of possibility for those bow visors and/or latching mechanisms to fail if they aren't maintained properly.
You are a twerp. Bow visors on ships are just decorations so that the ship superstructure looks nice. Of course the bow visors have to lifted up and closed down to enable the ship to unload/load every time in port, so intelligent shipowners/operators/designers/naval architects do not use them. Why fit something that doesn't have a purpose ... except looking nice?
If true then you should have no trouble producing a reference stating suck. So why have you been avoiding it and resorting to insults instead?
The Swedish government, supported by USA/CIA, maintains that ships float on bow visors and,
A reference for this would be nice too. Though I bet you'll never produce one.
if you don't agree, you are in deep trouble.
Just like you won't produce a reference for this either.
-
Bow visors on ships are just decorations so that the ship superstructure looks nice.
So you're saying that bow visors have no effect of the hydrodynamics of a ship?
Of course the bow visors have to lifted up and closed down to enable the ship to unload/load every time in port...
That sounds like more than just a decoration to me.
...so intelligent shipowners/operators/designers/naval architects do not use them. Why fit something that doesn't have a purpose ... except looking nice?
Maybe because the bow visor helps to make ships with bow loading ramps more streamlined and efficient.
-
Bow visors on ships are just decorations so that the ship superstructure looks nice.
So you're saying that bow visors have no effect of the hydrodynamics of a ship?
Of course the bow visors have to lifted up and closed down to enable the ship to unload/load every time in port...
That sounds like more than just a decoration to me.
...so intelligent shipowners/operators/designers/naval architects do not use them. Why fit something that doesn't have a purpose ... except looking nice?
Maybe because the bow visor helps to make ships with bow loading ramps more streamlined and efficient.
Bow visors are just part of the superstructure of a ship.
The superstructure of a ship is fitted above water and only temporarily below water, when the ship pitches, heaves and roll in a seaway and may dampen the associated movements a little.
A bow visor is just a decoration that opens upwards. It has no other function than to make the superstructure look smart.
There are many different ways to arrange access to the forward part of a ship superstructure interior. One is a double door that opens sideways. Another is a ramp hinged at the bottom that opens outwards and drops on a jetty.
Don't ask me for references, etc, of above. I happen to be an expert of the subject.
-
Bow visors on ships are just decorations so that the ship superstructure looks nice.
So you're saying that bow visors have no effect of the hydrodynamics of a ship?
Of course the bow visors have to lifted up and closed down to enable the ship to unload/load every time in port...
That sounds like more than just a decoration to me.
...so intelligent shipowners/operators/designers/naval architects do not use them. Why fit something that doesn't have a purpose ... except looking nice?
Maybe because the bow visor helps to make ships with bow loading ramps more streamlined and efficient.
Bow visors are just part of the superstructure of a ship.
The superstructure of a ship is fitted above water and only temporarily below water, when the ship pitches, heaves and roll in a seaway and may dampen the associated movements a little.
A bow visor is just a decoration that opens upwards. It has no other function than to make the superstructure look smart.
There are many different ways to arrange access to the forward part of a ship superstructure interior. One is a double door that opens sideways. Another is a ramp hinged at the bottom that opens outwards and drops on a jetty.
Don't ask me for references, etc, of above. I happen to be an expert of the subject.
An actual expert would have no trouble providing a reference to support his position. You are not taking the position of an "an expert" but of "sole authority". But you are not the sole authority.
-
Bow visors on ships are just decorations so that the ship superstructure looks nice.
So you're saying that bow visors have no effect of the hydrodynamics of a ship?
Of course the bow visors have to lifted up and closed down to enable the ship to unload/load every time in port...
That sounds like more than just a decoration to me.
...so intelligent shipowners/operators/designers/naval architects do not use them. Why fit something that doesn't have a purpose ... except looking nice?
Maybe because the bow visor helps to make ships with bow loading ramps more streamlined and efficient.
Bow visors are just part of the superstructure of a ship.
The superstructure of a ship is fitted above water and only temporarily below water, when the ship pitches, heaves and roll in a seaway and may dampen the associated movements a little.
A bow visor is just a decoration that opens upwards. It has no other function than to make the superstructure look smart.
There are many different ways to arrange access to the forward part of a ship superstructure interior. One is a double door that opens sideways. Another is a ramp hinged at the bottom that opens outwards and drops on a jetty.
Don't ask me for references, etc, of above. I happen to be an expert of the subject.
An actual expert would have no trouble providing a reference to support his position. You are not taking the position of an "an expert" but of "sole authority". But you are not the sole authority.
According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_visor:
"A bow visor is a feature of some ships, in particular ferries and Roll-on/roll-off ships, that allows the bow to articulate up and down, providing access to the cargo ramp and storage deck near the water line."
That definition is a joke. The bow of a ship is the fixed part of the hull and it cannot articulate up/down. Behind the bow of a ship is the forepeak and a collision bulkhead. Behind the collision bulkhead is maybe cargo spaces.
No, I prefer my description of a bow visor - a decorative feature of the forward part of a ship superstructure.
But I know - according Swedish, Finnish and Estonian government experts and universities' scientists ships float on bow visors and, when a bow visor just disappears, the ship sinks. If you don't agree with it, you better shut up or you will be shot.
-
And somehow you remain unshot.
Should we send them your address maybe?
-
Bow visors on ships are just decorations so that the ship superstructure looks nice.
So you're saying that bow visors have no effect of the hydrodynamics of a ship?
Of course the bow visors have to lifted up and closed down to enable the ship to unload/load every time in port...
That sounds like more than just a decoration to me.
...so intelligent shipowners/operators/designers/naval architects do not use them. Why fit something that doesn't have a purpose ... except looking nice?
Maybe because the bow visor helps to make ships with bow loading ramps more streamlined and efficient.
Bow visors are just part of the superstructure of a ship.
The superstructure of a ship is fitted above water and only temporarily below water, when the ship pitches, heaves and roll in a seaway and may dampen the associated movements a little.
A bow visor is just a decoration that opens upwards. It has no other function than to make the superstructure look smart.
There are many different ways to arrange access to the forward part of a ship superstructure interior. One is a double door that opens sideways. Another is a ramp hinged at the bottom that opens outwards and drops on a jetty.
Don't ask me for references, etc, of above. I happen to be an expert of the subject.
An actual expert would have no trouble providing a reference to support his position. You are not taking the position of an "an expert" but of "sole authority". But you are not the sole authority.
According https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_visor:
"A bow visor is a feature of some ships, in particular ferries and Roll-on/roll-off ships, that allows the bow to articulate up and down, providing access to the cargo ramp and storage deck near the water line."
That definition is a joke. The bow of a ship is the fixed part of the hull and it cannot articulate up/down. Behind the bow of a ship is the forepeak and a collision bulkhead. Behind the collision bulkhead is maybe cargo spaces.
No, I prefer my description of a bow visor - a decorative feature of the forward part of a ship superstructure.
But I know - according Swedish, Finnish and Estonian government experts and universities' scientists ships float on bow visors and, when a bow visor just disappears, the ship sinks. If you don't agree with it, you better shut up or you will be shot.
So not one single outside reference? Not even one?
-
And somehow you remain unshot.
Should we send them your address maybe?
You really are a stupid twerp. I told the Swedish expert Börje Stenström already September 1994 that their fake story (the visor) would not hold. Börje was very upset. Then I wrote about the fakery in a Swedish daily August 1996 and Börje was most unhappy. Börje was supposed to write the fake official investigation report. Börje died suddenly February 1997. A fake report was published December 1997 - a complete invention. Other people got active. Björn Stenberg, a qualified engineer with means, who had lost his brother, published plenty info ... and he also died suddenly. Politicians and military clowns that knew what happened and indicated they could talk also died. This all happened in Sweden. I have written books about it. All available on the Internet.
My address is known and it is not Sweden. Who are we and them? Please clarify!
The Estonia incident is still hot 2017. Now people that were small children 1994 start to wonder what happened to their parents, etc, etc, and they contact me. I just tell them that all I know is at my website. And that it seems that the people that conspired to hide the truth of a crime sinking the M/S Estonia 28 September 1994 have won.
To keep going I have instead involved myself with a-bombs, human space travel and Arabs landing planes in skyscrapers. And other things! http://heiwaco.com .
-
Bow visors are just part of the superstructure of a ship.
The superstructure of a ship is fitted above water and only temporarily below water, when the ship pitches, heaves and roll in a seaway and may dampen the associated movements a little.
Interesting. Most of the definitions that I find for "superstructure" say that it's the part of the ship built above deck. I wonder who I should believe.
A bow visor is just a decoration that opens upwards. It has no other function than to make the superstructure look smart.
So you're saying that giving access to the bow ramp and improving hydrodynamics aren't functions? ???
There are many different ways to arrange access to the forward part of a ship superstructure interior. One is a double door that opens sideways. Another is a ramp hinged at the bottom that opens outwards and drops on a jetty.
Right, and when you have a hinged ramp at the front of the ship, a watertight, streamlined bow visor seems like a pretty useful idea.
Don't ask me for references, etc, of above. I happen to be an expert of the subject.
Ah yes, a self-proclaimed "expert". Do you even know what an "expert" is? Well, let's break it down. An "ex" is a has been and a "spert" is a drip under pressure. So I guess that makes you a has been drip under pressure.
-
I told the Swedish expert Börje Stenström already September 1994 that their fake story (the visor) would not hold. Börje was very upset. Then I wrote about the fakery in a Swedish daily August 1996 and Börje was most unhappy. Börje was supposed to write the fake official investigation report. Börje died suddenly February 1997. A fake report was published December 1997 - a complete invention. Other people got active. Björn Stenberg, a qualified engineer with means, who had lost his brother, published plenty info ... and he also died suddenly.
Are you Katsung47 ?
-
Bow visors are just part of the superstructure of a ship.
The superstructure of a ship is fitted above water and only temporarily below water, when the ship pitches, heaves and roll in a seaway and may dampen the associated movements a little.
Interesting. Most of the definitions that I find for "superstructure" say that it's the part of the ship built above deck. I wonder who I should believe.
A bow visor is just a decoration that opens upwards. It has no other function than to make the superstructure look smart.
So you're saying that giving access to the bow ramp and improving hydrodynamics aren't functions? ???
There are many different ways to arrange access to the forward part of a ship superstructure interior. One is a double door that opens sideways. Another is a ramp hinged at the bottom that opens outwards and drops on a jetty.
Right, and when you have a hinged ramp at the front of the ship, a watertight, streamlined bow visor seems like a pretty useful idea.
Don't ask me for references, etc, of above. I happen to be an expert of the subject.
Ah yes, a self-proclaimed "expert". Do you even know what an "expert" is? Well, let's break it down. An "ex" is a has been and a "spert" is a drip under pressure. So I guess that makes you a has been drip under pressure.
More stupid questions or what you can call them from my favourite twerp markjo!
Yes - a "superstructure" is the weathertight part of the ship built above the main deck of the ship's hull.
No question about it. Do you know what a ship's hull is? It is below the superstructure!
I am not saying that a bow visor is giving access to the bow ramp and is improving hydrodynamics and similar functions. Why do you invent and ask a stupid question about it?
Bow visors are not watertight. And they serve no purpose at all in front of a weathertight ramp/door at the fore end of a superstructure high above the bow ... except as a nice decoration, so the ship looks like a an old sail yacht or clipper. So it is a stupid idea.
I know what an expert is. You are not one. You are just a stupid, sick, lonely twerp. I feel sorry for you.
-
You are just a stupid, sick, lonely twerp.
Do you actually have any evidence that markjo is sick and lonely or is that just a bald assertion like most of your other statements? Or perhaps you're an expert and we can look to you as a source of evidence in this area?
-
And somehow you remain unshot.
Should we send them your address maybe?
You really are a stupid twerp. I told the Swedish expert Börje Stenström already September 1994 that their fake story (the visor) would not hold. Börje was very upset. Then I wrote about the fakery in a Swedish daily August 1996 and Börje was most unhappy. Börje was supposed to write the fake official investigation report. Börje died suddenly February 1997. A fake report was published December 1997 - a complete invention. Other people got active. Björn Stenberg, a qualified engineer with means, who had lost his brother, published plenty info ... and he also died suddenly. Politicians and military clowns that knew what happened and indicated they could talk also died. This all happened in Sweden. I have written books about it. All available on the Internet.
My address is known and it is not Sweden. Who are we and them? Please clarify!
The Estonia incident is still hot 2017. Now people that were small children 1994 start to wonder what happened to their parents, etc, etc, and they contact me. I just tell them that all I know is at my website. And that it seems that the people that conspired to hide the truth of a crime sinking the M/S Estonia 28 September 1994 have won.
To keep going I have instead involved myself with a-bombs, human space travel and Arabs landing planes in skyscrapers. And other things! http://heiwaco.com .
You are literally living proof that your claims are full of shit.
-
More stupid questions or what you can call them from my favourite twerp markjo!
Yes - a "superstructure" is the weathertight part of the ship built above the main deck of the ship's hull.
No question about it. Do you know what a ship's hull is? It is below the superstructure!
So now you're saying that the bow visor is not part of the superstructure. Will you please make up your mind?
I am not saying that a bow visor is giving access to the bow ramp and is improving hydrodynamics and similar functions. Why do you invent and ask a stupid question about it?
It's not me, that's what your industry says.
Bow visors are not watertight. And they serve no purpose at all in front of a weathertight ramp/door at the fore end of a superstructure high above the bow ... except as a nice decoration, so the ship looks like a an old sail yacht or clipper. So it is a stupid idea.
Are you sure that you're qualified to judge safety at sea? When you say silly things like that, I can't help but to wonder.
I know what an expert is. You are not one.
I never said that I was an expert. You're the one bragging about it, but can't seem to agree with the rest of the industry in which you claim expert.
You are just a stupid, sick, lonely twerp. I feel sorry for you.
And your ramblings remind me of my father when he suffered from dementia before he passed away. You really should have a family member take you to a qualified mental health facility for a screening before you become a danger to yourself or others. Hopefully the medications today are better than the ones that my father was taking.
-
So now you're saying that the bow visor is not part of the superstructure. Will you please make up your mind?
More stupid questions from the twerp markjo! Thanks! Good PR for me!
Yes. A superstructure is a weathertight compartment used only for cargo and crew fitted on top of a ship's hull.
If you for any reason fit a 'bow visor' as a decoration at the front of the superstructure, it is just an attachment to the superstructure. No cargo or crew is loaded inside the bow visor. It is just a decoration. Only twerps fit bow visors at the front of their ships.
I know Swedish, Finnish and Estonian politicians and maritime experts suggest that ships float on bow visors and, if lost, the ship sinks, but they are all corrupt people hiding serious crimes. I have written several books about it - http://heiwaco.com
-
So now you're saying that the bow visor is not part of the superstructure. Will you please make up your mind?
More stupid questions from the twerp markjo! Thanks! Good PR for me!
Yes. A superstructure is a weathertight compartment used only for cargo and crew fitted on top of a ship's hull.
If you for any reason fit a 'bow visor' as a decoration at the front of the superstructure, it is just an attachment to the superstructure.
Hmmm... I always thought that the bow was part of the hull, not the superstructure. Therefore, it would seem to make sense that the bow visor is attached to the hull, not the superstructure.
No cargo or crew is loaded inside the bow visor. It is just a decoration. Only twerps fit bow visors at the front of their ships.
Are you saying that bow visors can't be both decorative and functional? That sounds like something that an incompetent engineer would say.
-
So now you're saying that the bow visor is not part of the superstructure. Will you please make up your mind?
More stupid questions from the twerp markjo! Thanks! Good PR for me!
Yes. A superstructure is a weathertight compartment used only for cargo and crew fitted on top of a ship's hull.
If you for any reason fit a 'bow visor' as a decoration at the front of the superstructure, it is just an attachment to the superstructure.
Hmmm... I always thought that the bow was part of the hull, not the superstructure. Therefore, it would seem to make sense that the bow visor is attached to the hull, not the superstructure.
No cargo or crew is loaded inside the bow visor. It is just a decoration. Only twerps fit bow visors at the front of their ships.
Are you saying that bow visors can't be both decorative and functional? That sounds like something that an incompetent engineer would say.
More stupid questions from twerp markjo:
Yes, you are correct that only the watertight hull of a ship has a bow, which extends below and above water and that the weathertight superstructure of a ship may have a forward end.
It is correct that movable bow visors, they can be lifted upd/down, are fitted on ships/superstructures and that they do not serve any other purpose than to make the thing look nice or ugly. On my ships, and I have operated many, we never used them at all even if provided, for the simple reason we always loaded/unloaded via the stern.
The stern is the aft end of a ship and the superstructure extends between the fore and the aft ends. Many experts do not understand this. They think the ship floats on the superstructure, the deck house and the funnel and that the Master of the ship is responsible for everything incl. the floating. I explain more at my website http://heiwaco.com .
If you have a question, e-mail me and I always reply. Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
-
Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Heiwa! Really?! You are the king of publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Maybe you were just joking around. Yeah, that's probably it. As you were.
-
Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Heiwa! Really?! You are the king of publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Maybe you were just joking around. Yeah, that's probably it. As you were.
No, you are wrong as usual. I always post true, distinct, intelligent, logical, clear posts everywhere. Of course twerps do not understand satire or jokes, but noone is perfect.
-
Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Heiwa! Really?! You are the king of publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Maybe you were just joking around. Yeah, that's probably it. As you were.
No, you are wrong as usual. I always post true, distinct, intelligent, logical, clear posts everywhere. Of course twerps do not understand satire or jokes, but noone is perfect.
And, you've been banned from just about every other forum you ever posted on. You posts couldn't have been that "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
Mike
-
Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Heiwa! Really?! You are the king of publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Maybe you were just joking around. Yeah, that's probably it. As you were.
No, you are wrong as usual. I always post true, distinct, intelligent, logical, clear posts everywhere. Of course twerps do not understand satire or jokes, but noone is perfect.
And, you've been banned from just about every other forum you ever posted on. You posts couldn't have been that "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
Mike
Hm, I have no idea why I was banned from all these nonsense fora, but it could not have been due to my posts not being "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
My website shows I always publish true, distinct, intelligent, logical and clear info since 20 years. Why should I do anything else?
As I recall it, I was mentioned unfavourably at some forum and was asked to reply. To reply I had to join the forum, then I replied and soon I was banned. It has happened many times. Do some research and find out why! There are plenty sick fora on the Internet. Like this on.
-
Of course it is NEVER Heiwa's fault when he is banned. ::) Just yet more proof of his narcissism.
-
Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Heiwa! Really?! You are the king of publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Maybe you were just joking around. Yeah, that's probably it. As you were.
No, you are wrong as usual. I always post true, distinct, intelligent, logical, clear posts everywhere. Of course twerps do not understand satire or jokes, but noone is perfect.
Oh we understand. It's just that your attempts at satire and jokes are very, very lame.
-
More stupid questions from twerp markjo:
I ask stupid questions because you're so good at providing stupid answers.
Yes, you are correct that only the watertight hull of a ship has a bow, which extends below and above water and that the weathertight superstructure of a ship may have a forward end.
Hmmm... If I'm correct, then maybe I'm not so stupid after all. :P
It is correct that movable bow visors, they can be lifted upd/down, are fitted on ships/superstructures and that they do not serve any other purpose than to make the thing look nice or ugly.
So you're saying that bow visors can't be used to make watertight seals on ships that don't have watertight bow ramps?
On my ships, and I have operated many, we never used them at all even if provided, for the simple reason we always loaded/unloaded via the stern.
How is that the least bit relevant to the ships operators, and evidently there are many, that do use the bow ramp to load/unload from the front as well as the back? ???
-
Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Heiwa! Really?! You are the king of publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Maybe you were just joking around. Yeah, that's probably it. As you were.
No, you are wrong as usual. I always post true, distinct, intelligent, logical, clear posts everywhere. Of course twerps do not understand satire or jokes, but noone is perfect.
And, you've been banned from just about every other forum you ever posted on. You posts couldn't have been that "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
Mike
Hm, I have no idea why I was banned from all these nonsense fora, but it could not have been due to my posts not being "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
My website shows I always publish true, distinct, intelligent, logical and clear info since 20 years. Why should I do anything else?
As I recall it, I was mentioned unfavourably at some forum and was asked to reply. To reply I had to join the forum, then I replied and soon I was banned. It has happened many times. Do some research and find out why! There are plenty sick fora on the Internet. Like this on.
I'm a moderator or admin on a few forums so I know for a fact that you get notified when you get banned.
You know exactly why you were banned.
Mike
-
Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Heiwa! Really?! You are the king of publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Maybe you were just joking around. Yeah, that's probably it. As you were.
No, you are wrong as usual. I always post true, distinct, intelligent, logical, clear posts everywhere. Of course twerps do not understand satire or jokes, but noone is perfect.
And, you've been banned from just about every other forum you ever posted on. You posts couldn't have been that "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
Mike
Hm, I have no idea why I was banned from all these nonsense fora, but it could not have been due to my posts not being "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
My website shows I always publish true, distinct, intelligent, logical and clear info since 20 years. Why should I do anything else?
As I recall it, I was mentioned unfavourably at some forum and was asked to reply. To reply I had to join the forum, then I replied and soon I was banned. It has happened many times. Do some research and find out why! There are plenty sick fora on the Internet. Like this on.
I'm a moderator or admin on a few forums so I know for a fact that you get notified when you get banned.
You know exactly why you were banned.
Mike
? No! I was banned from some fora. I was not notified. Could not post. Could not contact any moderator. No problem for me! I was busy with other things then. I am my own web master of my own site since almost 20 years. I reply to all letters about my site.
Mike, you must be sick, a paid clown/shill or something stupid or worse. What keeps you going?
-
Avoid publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Heiwa! Really?! You are the king of publishing stupid posts on various internet fora.
Maybe you were just joking around. Yeah, that's probably it. As you were.
No, you are wrong as usual. I always post true, distinct, intelligent, logical, clear posts everywhere. Of course twerps do not understand satire or jokes, but noone is perfect.
And, you've been banned from just about every other forum you ever posted on. You posts couldn't have been that "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
Mike
Hm, I have no idea why I was banned from all these nonsense fora, but it could not have been due to my posts not being "true, distinct, intelligent, logical, [and] clear".
My website shows I always publish true, distinct, intelligent, logical and clear info since 20 years. Why should I do anything else?
As I recall it, I was mentioned unfavourably at some forum and was asked to reply. To reply I had to join the forum, then I replied and soon I was banned. It has happened many times. Do some research and find out why! There are plenty sick fora on the Internet. Like this on.
I'm a moderator or admin on a few forums so I know for a fact that you get notified when you get banned.
You know exactly why you were banned.
Mike
? No! I was banned from some fora. I was not notified. Could not post. Could not contact any moderator. No problem for me! I was busy with other things then. I am my own web master of my own site since almost 20 years. I reply to all letters about my site.
Mike, you must be sick, a paid clown/shill or something stupid or worse. What keeps you going?
You just can't be civil can you?
several times you have told posters they have to be polite and civil to you, yet you continually do the opposite to us. I've tried being civil. I've tried attacking you back. Nothing gets you to see the double standard.
You can be such a mean spirited person. You either don't see it or you don't care.
Mike
-
Note that a 20 megaton bomb would completely destroy buildings within 6.4 km, destroy most buildings within 17 km and damage all buildings within 47 km. The largest ever tested nuclear weapon had a yield of over 50 megaton, and that was in 1961. Do you think that nuclear technology has improved since then, or stayed the same?
...
The US will not carpet bomb Iran and certainly would never drop a nuclear weapon on that country. Iran is a country with a GDPof less than 2 years of the US military budget, and the US military budget accounts for 3.2% of the total US GDP. Such actions would be considered grievous war crimes, both internationally and within the US. Unless you're expecting the US to turn into a genuine totalitarian dictatorship within the near future, have no doubt that the action of killing 70 million innocent people would be held to account by the American public, American law, American politicians, and that of the world as well. Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), source (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_per_of_gdp-military-expenditures-percent-of-gdp).
In fact in the current political climate, it is very hard to see a genuine war breaking out with the US and Iran. Given the political and military disasters that are Afghanistan and Iraq, and the fact that, despite counter claims by irrational ignorant political hacks, the US is still a democracy, it is very hard to see any serious support in the US for more serious military action against another Middle Eastern nation. At best we will see more serious sanctions and possibly air bombing at the extreme. Beyond that, it is impossible to see the Democratic senate or the next president supporting ground troops in the US, at least until Afghanistan and Iraq have been better dealt with.
This claim that carpet bombing Iran would lead to mass terrorist attacks in the US is also completely bogus. Do you have any evidence to support that claim? Of course you don't, because all you post is bullshit. If you don't believe that the Islamic Middle East has all the motivation and belief to carry out terrorist attacks against you already, you really need to take a look at reality. Iraq is in ruins, Afghanistan is run by warlords, Iran is oppressed by sanctions and threats, as is Syria. It's estimated that over 57,000 civilians have been killed so far in the Iraq war alone. There is no reason to believe that terrorist attacks will significantly increase because of carpet bombing Iran. Terrorists, fuelled by their irrational beliefs and a disgusting religion, already want to kill you, but they can't, and they're focusing on more practical goals - like building insecurity and hatred in their region. Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/)
The politicial bias of beast's statement is so obvious and has been dealt with so much already, the focus here will exclusively be upon nuclear weapons propaganda.
First, wikipedia (which beast has elsewhere quoted in his defense of the reality of "nuclear" weapons) does not hardly have the final word on truth.
Second, the principle verifiable evidence for the existence of nuclear weapons is the bombing of two cities in Japan in 1945 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The chief inspector of the US Secretary of War for these cities in the aftermath of the bombings was US Army Major Alexander de Seversky. He investigated many bombed cities throughout Japan. On each occasion, he first conducted an aerial survey followed by a through investigation on the ground, and he detected a similar pattern in every city evidently due to the methods of the bombers as well as the nature of the targets bombed. He was prepared for and anticipated quite a shock in Hiroshima yet found it to be completely the same as the rest of the cities he had surveyed. There was no bald spot at the centre of the blast. The metal framework of buildings standing in the middle epicentre of the bomb blast were intact. Some bricks had been blown out of those in the very centre, but the Hiroshima hospital only a mile away from the center of the blast suffered nothing more than having its windows blown out and no people in the building were even hurt. The greatest damage was NOT done by the blast but by fire as an after effect which accounted for at least 60,000 of the 200,000 persons who perished according to his report. Ratty wooden houses of which there were many constituted the main structural damage. Seversky concluded that the bomb had the effect of a large incendiary as most of the damage was caused by fire alone and not by the blast. He also stated that a great deal of wood remained in the rubble of the main area of the blast indicating that those buildings had not been incinerated by the heat of a blast but were destroyed afterwards by the fire that resulted from the bomb. He stated that a fleet of 200 B-29's which each dropped a routine load of incendiaries would have accomplished the same thing.
The same applies to Nagasaki. As a matter of fact, the Nagasaki bomb was alleged to have been more powerful. However, the principle area affected in Hiroshima constituted roughly a four square mile area with the blast in the centre (i.e. roughly a one mile radius around the centre of huts toppled by fires) yet the principle area affected in Nagasaki's allegedly more powerful bomb was only one solitary square mile.
Seversky wondered at why Nagasaki and especally Hiroshima had even been chosen as targets since they had no military value. They would very easily be destroyed by fire as the majoity of the structures in these two cities were rickety termite eaten poor Japanese wooden houses. However, they would easily serve the purpose of someone planning to elicit maximum propaganda value for the amount of destruction caused as such structures are easily destroyed by fire. (By the way, as far as propaganda goes one should also be careful of quoting the figures of the Bomb MUseum in Hiroshima as it admittedly derives its figure for the number of dead from the bomb from the deaths of anyone who was within the affected area within two weeks after the bombing including rescue workers, reporters, etc. REGUARDLESS OF WHEN THEY DIE AND IS STILL COUNTING THESE DEATHS EVEN TODAY.)
Major Seversky stated that the effect of one of these so-called atomic bombs dropped on New York City would affect an area much smaller than one of the five main buroughs.
As far as the retort to Seversky's article in the May 1946 issue of Reader's Digest, NONE OF THE AUTHORITIES INTERVIEWED CONTESTED SEVERSKY'S DESCRIPTION OF HIROSHIMA OR NAGASAKI OR THE FACTS HE STATED. They only argued his opinions such as his comparison with New York City and his allegation that the incendiaries of 200 B-29's would have accomplished the same effect.
I invite beast to visit for himself a library and read the results of of Seversky's investigation in the February 1946 issue of Reader's Digest in an article entitled 'Atomic Hysteria' which received a mountain of protest by so-called experts in america who never came any closer than 5000 miles away from Japan and who yet insisted that Seversky's opinions were unfounded. Do see their reply three months later in the May issue in which the author interviewed many military and scientific authorities in an effort to refute Seversky's article. Note: these articles were apparently censored from the British edition, but they do appear in the American editions of Reader's Digest for February and May 1946.
Beast may take course to cite diverse alleged nuclear tests (below ground, above ground, et cetera) throughout the Cold War in a number of large countries. However, these tests including their precise location and especiallt timing were always military secrets.
We are supposed to believe the propaganda that we were racing the Germans to build the bomb, and miraculously developed it at the end of the War as opposed to having it ready to use throughout the War. The more a weapon is used, the more it is open to investigation and expose of the ruse - the same reason the alleged Moon missions stopped.
Radiation fallout? What a load of rot.
As part of the synthetically manufactured atomic hysteria In 1947, twenty-six young men came who worked with these allegedly WMD nuclear weapons came into bodily contact with plutonium. In 1980, a medical survey was conducted of these twenty-six men who lived with plutonium inside them for 32 years and concluded that they had all lived normal lives and only two of them had died - one was run over by a truck and the other for a similarly irrelevant reason.
(EDIT: This information appeared in the Financial Times in 1980.)
And do not tell me that I am not qualified to write about this as my sources speaks for themselves. You can begin with Major de Seversky. And incidentally, I am myself a US Navy submarine veteran who was assigend to an SSBN.
What would be the point of such propaganda?
Observe how the US garners what little support it has for invading and manipulating those countries it does not control already or choose not to follow its belligerant imperialism.
And while we are talking about Iran (this goes for cheesejof as well), why do you focus on Iran? Do you let Bush choose your enemies? What makes him your mind?
What about Turkey for example? Since beast hates islam so much, why don't we read something from beast talking about racism and terrorism by the Grey Wolves or a similar group? They easily have far more ambitious plans than the Iranians who comparatively keep to the themselves.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story33.html
http://www.rozanehmagazine.com/NoveDec05/aazariINDEX.HTML
[/quote]
This thread should get back on topic. Today 9 August 2017 it is 72 years since Nagasaki, Japan, was not vaporized by a an atomic FLASH. I summarize the matter at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
This thread should get back on topic. Today 9 August 2017 it is 72 years since Nagasaki, Japan, was not vaporized by a an atomic FLASH. I summarize the matter at
This thread goes in circles. You post bullshit. Others show why it's bullshit. You call anyone who disagrees with you (everyone) twerps. You then pretend they didn't say anything and re-announce your bullshit as though it hasn't just been debunked. This cycle's been going for ages of pages. Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
-
This thread goes in circles.
(https://s28.postimg.org/vkz3p9zzh/images-22.jpg)
It's nearly like he does it on purpose.
Also this.
(https://s28.postimg.org/48ydv0urx/Detroit_Hiroshima.jpg)
-
This thread goes in circles.
(https://s28.postimg.org/vkz3p9zzh/images-22.jpg)
It's nearly like he does it on purpose.
Also this.
(https://s28.postimg.org/48ydv0urx/Detroit_Hiroshima.jpg)
I know you think that. I personally disagree. I truly think Heiwa is too stupid to be a troll. He actually believes the shit he posts.
Either way, I like poking him when I'm bored. You don't ever have to worry about coming off as the bad guy with Heiwa. No matter how rude, arrogant or stupid your post, you can be assured that Heiwa will top it.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
I'm willing to pay you €1M to prove you know what the hell you're talking about.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
I'm willing to pay you €1M to prove you know what the hell you're talking about.
Thanks. Provide me your full style and I will.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
I'm willing to pay you €1M to prove you know what the hell you're talking about.
Thanks. Provide me your full style and I will.
What? You're supposed to be providing me with proof you know what you're talking about. Heiwa loses another round!
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
I'm willing to pay you €1M to prove you know what the hell you're talking about.
Thanks. Provide me your full style and I will.
What? You're supposed to be providing me with proof you know what you're talking about. Heiwa loses another round!
You sound like a troll. Please provide your full style and you will get the required info.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
I'm willing to pay you €1M to prove you know what the hell you're talking about.
Thanks. Provide me your full style and I will.
What? You're supposed to be providing me with proof you know what you're talking about. Heiwa loses another round!
You sound like a troll. Please provide your full style and you will get the required info.
Please provide proof.
-
Either way, I like poking him when I'm bored. You don't ever have to worry about coming off as the bad guy with Heiwa. No matter how rude, arrogant or stupid your post, you can be assured that Heiwa will top it.
Just my opinion but I think you are wholly too concerned with "not coming off as the bad guy."
It's just the internet dude. At the end of the day we all answer to the person in the mirror and no one else.
-
Everyone who has ever dealt with Heiwa has tried all the approaches you can think of: reasonable, pointing out errors calmly, providing evidence and links to material, appealing to reason. In the end all you have left is to call a lying fraudulent troll just that.
-
Everyone who has ever dealt with Heiwa has tried all the approaches you can think of: reasonable, pointing out errors calmly, providing evidence and links to material, appealing to reason. In the end all you have left is to call a lying fraudulent troll just that.
ROTFL. Noone has tried to show any errors at my website. I pay people €1M since 7+ years to show that they are right (and I am wrong) about a-bombs, human space travel, basic safety at sea, structural design of skyscrapers, etc, and there are no takers.
Just poor twerps moaning and groaning. It is disgusting.
-
Everyone who has ever dealt with Heiwa has tried all the approaches you can think of: reasonable, pointing out errors calmly, providing evidence and links to material, appealing to reason. In the end all you have left is to call a lying fraudulent troll just that.
ROTFL. Noone has tried to show any errors at my website. I pay people €1M since 7+ years to show that they are right (and I am wrong) about a-bombs, human space travel, basic safety at sea, structural design of skyscrapers, etc, and there are no takers.
Just poor twerps moaning and groaning. It is disgusting.
O they have! And they've succeeded many times. You are just too stupid to comprehend it. Anything that contradicts your current understanding is automatically deemed incorrect. It's why you don't learn anything and it's also why your stupid contests are a joke. Everyone knows this.
-
Everyone who has ever dealt with Heiwa has tried all the approaches you can think of: reasonable, pointing out errors calmly, providing evidence and links to material, appealing to reason. In the end all you have left is to call a lying fraudulent troll just that.
ROTFL. Noone has tried to show any errors at my website. I pay people €1M since 7+ years to show that they are right (and I am wrong) about a-bombs, human space travel, basic safety at sea, structural design of skyscrapers, etc, and there are no takers.
Just poor twerps moaning and groaning. It is disgusting.
O they have! And they've succeeded many times. You are just too stupid to comprehend it. Anything that contradicts your current understanding is automatically deemed incorrect. It's why you don't learn anything and it's also why your stupid contests are a joke. Everyone knows this.
Yes, if it makes you happy to post this BS, do it.
As it is beginning August 1 000's of people visit my website to learn about fake a-bombs 1945. Same thing will happen beginning September when people recall 911 and end September when people recall a 1 000 dead at the M/S Estonia sinking 1994. It seems most visitors appreciate my writings. You really should visit my site. I try to add some humour too.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
-
Last I looked the dumb muppet was still claiming that someone popped out during Trans-Lunar Coast to take photos, and he still thinks Aldrin did the landing.
Heiwa tells yet more lies when claiming no-one has pointed out his basic schoolboy errors. People have, he just pretends he hasn't seen them.
-
Last I looked the dumb muppet was still claiming that someone popped out during Trans-Lunar Coast to take photos, and he still thinks Aldrin did the landing.
Heiwa tells yet more lies when claiming no-one has pointed out his basic schoolboy errors. People have, he just pretends he hasn't seen them.
All part of being a narcissist. His ego does not allow him to admit fault.
-
Last I looked the dumb muppet was still claiming that someone popped out during Trans-Lunar Coast to take photos, and he still thinks Aldrin did the landing.
Actually, Apollo 15, 16 and 17 astronauts did conduct deep-space EVAs to retrieve film canisters from the SIM bay in the service module on the way back to earth.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
As always this is just you making unsupported claims. And before you say I have been to your terrible website and you offer no more evidence there. Just you saying it can't work.
You really should seek professional help, you clearly have some kind of severe disorder.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away.
Then you should fix your web page because that isn't how fission works.
U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's just plain wrong.
The atoms are split into smaller atoms (which are usually also radioactive) and in the process release a few extra neutrons, some gamma rays and energy.
Here's a more detailed breakdown of the energy released:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/U235chn.html#c3
That's how fission works in a nuclear power plant and that's how fission works in an atomic bomb.
-
Everyone who has ever dealt with Heiwa has tried all the approaches you can think of: reasonable, pointing out errors calmly, providing evidence and links to material, appealing to reason. In the end all you have left is to call a lying fraudulent troll just that.
ROTFL. Noone has tried to show any errors at my website. I pay people €1M since 7+ years to show that they are right (and I am wrong) about a-bombs, human space travel, basic safety at sea, structural design of skyscrapers, etc, and there are no takers.
Just poor twerps moaning and groaning. It is disgusting.
O they have! And they've succeeded many times. You are just too stupid to comprehend it. Anything that contradicts your current understanding is automatically deemed incorrect. It's why you don't learn anything and it's also why your stupid contests are a joke. Everyone knows this.
Yes, if it makes you happy to post this BS, do it.
As it is beginning August 1 000's of people bots and web-crawlers visit my website to learn about fake a-bombs 1945. gather information for various search engines.
ftfy
It seems most visitors appreciate my writings. You really should visit my site. I try to add some humour too.
They don't, I won't and you're not funny.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away.
Then you should fix your web page because that isn't how fission works.
U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission. I don't know where you got that idea, but it's just plain wrong.
The atoms are split into smaller atoms (which are usually also radioactive) and in the process release a few extra neutrons, some gamma rays and energy.
Here's a more detailed breakdown of the energy released:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/U235chn.html#c3
That's how fission works in a nuclear power plant and that's how fission works in an atomic bomb.
It is not. Fission doesn't work in a-bombs. A-bombs are just pseudoscience propaganda to scare.
Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people 1945. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
-
Last I looked the dumb muppet was still claiming that someone popped out during Trans-Lunar Coast to take photos, and he still thinks Aldrin did the landing.
Actually, Apollo 15, 16 and 17 astronauts did conduct deep-space EVAs to retrieve film canisters from the SIM bay in the service module on the way back to earth.
That's why I was specific about Trans-Lunar Coast ;)
-
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away.
No.
-
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away.
No.
Yes, they are. It was discovered 1938 and fairly well explained 1939. I describe it at my website. I do it in a popular way to make people understand the basic principles. Fission is just certain atoms splitting assisted by neutrons.
-
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away.
No.
Yes, they are. It was discovered 1938 and fairly well explained 1939. I describe it at my website. I do it in a popular way to make people understand the basic principles. Fission is just certain atoms splitting assisted by neutrons.
U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission.
U235 atoms are split into smaller atoms and energy is released.
How can you not understand the difference?
-
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away.
No.
Yes, they are. It was discovered 1938 and fairly well explained 1939. I describe it at my website. I do it in a popular way to make people understand the basic principles. Fission is just certain atoms splitting assisted by neutrons.
U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission.
U235 atoms are split into smaller atoms and energy is released.
How can you not understand the difference?
He doesn't understand and never will.
-
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away.
No.
Yes, they are. It was discovered 1938 and fairly well explained 1939. I describe it at my website. I do it in a popular way to make people understand the basic principles. Fission is just certain atoms splitting assisted by neutrons.
U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission.
U235 atoms are split into smaller atoms and energy is released.
How can you not understand the difference?
My description of fission is at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm and http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm . I understand it very well.
You are perfectly right that U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission; they are just transformed into energy, when they split into nuclei fractions that fly away, kinetic energy of which then heats up the environment, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with Einstein and his mass that can become energy, bla, bla. When fission occurs the total mass of the fuel remains virtually the same.
I also explain why such fission cannot be used to explode an a-bomb.
Why do you always quote me incorrectly? Aha, because you are a twerp.
-
You are perfectly right that U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission;
Then stop saying that they are.
... they are just transformed into energy...
No. We just agreed that doesn't happen. >:(
...when they split into nuclei fractions that fly away, kinetic energy of which then heats up the environment, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with Einstein and his mass that can become energy, bla, bla. When fission occurs the total mass of the fuel remains virtually the same.
No. The total mass gets lighter by about 2.15 MeV per fission.
I also explain why such fission cannot be used to explode an a-bomb.
Of course fission doesn't work in atom bombs the way you explain it, because the way that you explain fission is wrong.
Why do you always quote me incorrectly? Aha, because you are a twerp.
I am quoting you accurately. It's not my fault that the things you say are incorrect.
-
Nuclear is so powerful, why can't we use it? We have 1000s of them, but we do not use it. The world laughs about us. It's not a war crime, when America does it.
-
You are perfectly right that U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission;
Then stop saying that they are.
... they are just transformed into energy...
No. We just agreed that doesn't happen. >:(
...when they split into nuclei fractions that fly away, kinetic energy of which then heats up the environment, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with Einstein and his mass that can become energy, bla, bla. When fission occurs the total mass of the fuel remains virtually the same.
No. The total mass gets lighter by about 2.15 MeV per fission.
I also explain why such fission cannot be used to explode an a-bomb.
Of course fission doesn't work in atom bombs the way you explain it, because the way that you explain fission is wrong.
Why do you always quote me incorrectly? Aha, because you are a twerp.
I am quoting you accurately. It's not my fault that the things you say are incorrect.
LOL markjo. You forgot that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
Actually I am a proud a-bomb denier. I explain why at my site.
Please quote me correctly. Do not make things up, you twerp.
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
-
You are perfectly right that U235 atoms are not transformed into pure energy during fission;
Then stop saying that they are.
... they are just transformed into energy...
No. We just agreed that doesn't happen. >:(
...when they split into nuclei fractions that fly away, kinetic energy of which then heats up the environment, etc, etc. It has nothing to do with Einstein and his mass that can become energy, bla, bla. When fission occurs the total mass of the fuel remains virtually the same.
No. The total mass gets lighter by about 2.15 MeV per fission.
I also explain why such fission cannot be used to explode an a-bomb.
Of course fission doesn't work in atom bombs the way you explain it, because the way that you explain fission is wrong.
Why do you always quote me incorrectly? Aha, because you are a twerp.
I am quoting you accurately. It's not my fault that the things you say are incorrect.
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
Actually I am a proud a-bomb denier. I explain why at my site.
Please quote me correctly. Do not make things up, you twerp.
Learn to read. He did NOT call you a Holocaust denier. He said
Why would it not surprise me if Anders turned out to be a Holocaust denier too?
that is NOT the same. Though the irony of you saying "please quote me correctly" when he did and then in the same post getting what he said wrong is hilarious.
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
It seems you did call him a holocaust denier. Some idiots are trying to claim otherwise. Plenty of stupid twerps claim that. It's a good laugh. Read all about it at his website. Also he'll give you 1M € if you can prove you never called him a holocaust denier.
-
heiwa, do you like snakes on the Apollo 11 superstructure bow ramp CGI U238 plutonium?
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
After reading some of your contributions to this discussion, I don't think that questioning your ability to comprehend the English language is stupid.
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
This post really adds to the topic of discussion.
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
This post really adds to the topic of discussion.
Right back at ya.
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
This post really adds to the topic of discussion.
That's kinda funny coming from you. Every time you get cornered and don't have an answer you start talking about ships visors, your CV, or anything other than the topic at hand.
Mike
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
This post really adds to the topic of discussion.
That's kinda funny coming from you. Every time you get cornered and don't have an answer you start talking about ships visors, your CV, or anything other than the topic at hand.
Mike
Thanks, you are right. I always focus on the topic at hand from my point of view. With a little humour. You sound like a boring, dull, American twerp. Are you married? If yes, to what? A bag of potatoes? You are not alone!
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
This post really adds to the topic of discussion.
That's kinda funny coming from you. Every time you get cornered and don't have an answer you start talking about ships visors, your CV, or anything other than the topic at hand.
Mike
Thanks, you are right. I always focus on the topic at hand from my point of view. With a little humour. You sound like a boring, dull, American twerp. Are you married? If yes, to what? A bag of potatoes? You are not alone!
You are not funny and you switch topics anytime you are in a corner. In the event that we are laughing you can be assured that we are laughing at you, not with you!
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
This post really adds to the topic of discussion.
That's kinda funny coming from you. Every time you get cornered and don't have an answer you start talking about ships visors, your CV, or anything other than the topic at hand.
Mike
Thanks, you are right. I always focus on the topic at hand from my point of view. With a little humour. You sound like a boring, dull, American twerp. Are you married? If yes, to what? A bag of potatoes? You are not alone!
Nothing but personal attacks and now on my wife. You really don't have any scruples do you?
Mike
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
This post really adds to the topic of discussion.
That's kinda funny coming from you. Every time you get cornered and don't have an answer you start talking about ships visors, your CV, or anything other than the topic at hand.
Mike
Thanks, you are right. I always focus on the topic at hand from my point of view. With a little humour. You sound like a boring, dull, American twerp. Are you married? If yes, to what? A bag of potatoes? You are not alone!
Nothing but personal attacks and now on my wife. You really don't have any scruples do you?
Mike
No, I just asked, if you were married. If you are, I feel sorry for her, being married to a twerp.
-
LOL markjo. You for got that I am a Holocaust denier according you.
No, I did not say that you are a Holocaust denier. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if you were one. Are you sure that you understand English as well as you think you do?
Markjo - you always destroy any discussion with your stupid questions. You really are a twerp.
You only feel that way because you can't answe them. That's because you are a delusional moron. Not your fault really, you are simply too stupid and too much of a failure to see how stupid you are. As they say, ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest person in the world.
This post really adds to the topic of discussion.
That's kinda funny coming from you. Every time you get cornered and don't have an answer you start talking about ships visors, your CV, or anything other than the topic at hand.
Mike
Thanks, you are right. I always focus on the topic at hand from my point of view. With a little humour. You sound like a boring, dull, American twerp. Are you married? If yes, to what? A bag of potatoes? You are not alone!
Nothing but personal attacks and now on my wife. You really don't have any scruples do you?
Mike
No, I just asked, if you were married. If you are, I feel sorry for her, being married to a twerp.
I used to think you were lying but now I realize that you're just too stupid to even comprehend your own writing let alone anyone else's.
For your review:
Are you married? If yes, to what? A bag of potatoes?
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
The next time Mr Kim wants to detonate another nuclear device can we PLEASE send this guy into the chamber? He is so convinced and self assured that no harm could possibly come to him lets just put the matter to rest once and for all. If he walks out alive, we can believe him. If he has evaporated, well......
Who knows, maybe he'll turn into a superhero like 'Radioactive Man!' Afterall, according to him, even ionising radiation is harmless ::)
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
The next time Mr Kim wants to detonate another nuclear device can we PLEASE send this guy into the chamber? He is so convinced and self assured that no harm could possibly come to him lets just put the matter to rest once and for all. If he walks out alive, we can believe him. If he has evaporated, well......
Who knows, maybe he'll turn into a superhero like 'Radioactive Man!' Afterall, according to him, even ionising radiation is harmless ::)
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
The next time Mr Kim wants to detonate another nuclear device can we PLEASE send this guy into the chamber? He is so convinced and self assured that no harm could possibly come to him lets just put the matter to rest once and for all. If he walks out alive, we can believe him. If he has evaporated, well......
Who knows, maybe he'll turn into a superhero like 'Radioactive Man!' Afterall, according to him, even ionising radiation is harmless ::)
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
And, you have zero proof of that.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
The next time Mr Kim wants to detonate another nuclear device can we PLEASE send this guy into the chamber? He is so convinced and self assured that no harm could possibly come to him lets just put the matter to rest once and for all. If he walks out alive, we can believe him. If he has evaporated, well......
Who knows, maybe he'll turn into a superhero like 'Radioactive Man!' Afterall, according to him, even ionising radiation is harmless ::)
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
And, you have zero proof of that.
No, no, you twerp! I have plenty, solid evidence - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm - that President Kim-zero has no a-bombs whatsoever.
Isn't it good news?
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
The next time Mr Kim wants to detonate another nuclear device can we PLEASE send this guy into the chamber? He is so convinced and self assured that no harm could possibly come to him lets just put the matter to rest once and for all. If he walks out alive, we can believe him. If he has evaporated, well......
Who knows, maybe he'll turn into a superhero like 'Radioactive Man!' Afterall, according to him, even ionising radiation is harmless ::)
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
And, you have zero proof of that.
No, no, you twerp! I have plenty, solid evidence - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm - that President Kim-zero has no a-bombs whatsoever.
Isn't it good news?
WRONG! You're a liar, your conclusions are crap, and everybody knows it. That's why you've been banned from more forums than most people are registered for.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
The next time Mr Kim wants to detonate another nuclear device can we PLEASE send this guy into the chamber? He is so convinced and self assured that no harm could possibly come to him lets just put the matter to rest once and for all. If he walks out alive, we can believe him. If he has evaporated, well......
Who knows, maybe he'll turn into a superhero like 'Radioactive Man!' Afterall, according to him, even ionising radiation is harmless ::)
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
And, you have zero proof of that.
No, no, you twerp! I have plenty, solid evidence - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm - that President Kim-zero has no a-bombs whatsoever.
Isn't it good news?
WRONG! You're a liar, your conclusions are crap, and everybody knows it. That's why you've been banned from more forums than most people are registered for.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
Are you working for this Northkorean monkey Kim il ZERO sending fantasy ICBMs towards USA? You sound like a terrorist. Watch out. Terrorists are not popular in USA.
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
The next time Mr Kim wants to detonate another nuclear device can we PLEASE send this guy into the chamber? He is so convinced and self assured that no harm could possibly come to him lets just put the matter to rest once and for all. If he walks out alive, we can believe him. If he has evaporated, well......
Who knows, maybe he'll turn into a superhero like 'Radioactive Man!' Afterall, according to him, even ionising radiation is harmless ::)
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
And, you have zero proof of that.
No, no, you twerp! I have plenty, solid evidence - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm - that President Kim-zero has no a-bombs whatsoever.
Isn't it good news?
WRONG! You're a liar, your conclusions are crap, and everybody knows it. That's why you've been banned from more forums than most people are registered for.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
Are you working for this Northkorean monkey Kim il ZERO sending fantasy ICBMs towards USA? You sound like a terrorist. Watch out. Terrorists are not popular in USA.
Say what you will but everybody know the truth about you. You have zero credibility, you're a liar, and even other engineers what nothing to do you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
-
Why do suddenly feel we are off topic?
Topic is nuclear power. It is suggested that a critical mass of nuclear fuel can be transformed inte pure energy in a FLASH lasting nano-seconds and that this nuclear energy FLASH vaporizes people. I consider it BS and is willing to pay anyone €1M explaining how it is done.
How's this for starters: The "nuclear fuel" is not transformed into pure energy. Please stop saying that it is, because that's just plain wrong.
The fission process in an atomic bomb is pretty much the same fission process used in peaceful nuclear power plants. A neutron strikes a U235 atom causing it to split into smaller atoms (which may continue to decay even further) while giving off 3 extra neutrons and some of the binding energy that was holding the atom together. The main difference is that the purity of the "fuel" means that the neutrons released have a much higher chance of hitting other U235 atoms that split, give off more neutrons and energy, leading to an uncontrolled chain reaction and release of a great deal of energy.
OK! Read http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm again, where I explain:
When fission occurs, the nuclear fuel atoms are transformed into pure energy (heat) in the form of kinetic energy of the fission fractions flying away. It can only take place in a nuclear power plant or pile under moderated conditions. The heat is recovered by the water or similar cooling the plant. There is no radiation of any kind except that some free neutrons may transform some fission fractions into radioactive atoms.
The secret, military, explosive fission producing an a-bomb FLASH lasting nanoseconds spreading radioactive radiation is pure propaganda and cannot take place. It was invented by FDR and Stalin to scare people. Actually most radiation is therefore pretty harmless.
Only contemptible persons, silly fools and terrorists believe otherwise.
The next time Mr Kim wants to detonate another nuclear device can we PLEASE send this guy into the chamber? He is so convinced and self assured that no harm could possibly come to him lets just put the matter to rest once and for all. If he walks out alive, we can believe him. If he has evaporated, well......
Who knows, maybe he'll turn into a superhero like 'Radioactive Man!' Afterall, according to him, even ionising radiation is harmless ::)
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
And, you have zero proof of that.
No, no, you twerp! I have plenty, solid evidence - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm - that President Kim-zero has no a-bombs whatsoever.
Isn't it good news?
WRONG! You're a liar, your conclusions are crap, and everybody knows it. That's why you've been banned from more forums than most people are registered for.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
Are you working for this Northkorean monkey Kim il ZERO sending fantasy ICBMs towards USA? You sound like a terrorist. Watch out. Terrorists are not popular in USA.
Say what you will but everybody know the truth about you. You have zero credibility, you're a liar, and even other engineers what nothing to do you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
Hm, my credibility is good.
Yours is 0.
-
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
And, you have zero proof of that.
No, no, you twerp! I have plenty, solid evidence - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm - that President Kim-zero has no a-bombs whatsoever.
Isn't it good news?
WRONG! You're a liar, your conclusions are crap, and everybody knows it. That's why you've been banned from more forums than most people are registered for.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
Are you working for this Northkorean monkey Kim il ZERO sending fantasy ICBMs towards USA? You sound like a terrorist. Watch out. Terrorists are not popular in USA.
Say what you will but everybody know the truth about you. You have zero credibility, you're a liar, and even other engineers what nothing to do you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
Hm, my credibility is good.
Yours is 0.
I’ve linked to sites that prove you have zero credibility. And, I can link to sites where you’ve lied and been caught, where you’ve had your ass handed to you by the other posters, where you’ve been proven wrong, and where you’ve been banned because of your trolling and whack job conspiracy theories.
That’s proof positive that you have zero credibility on any other website, with any other engineers, and certainly not here. There’s not a site on the web that takes you seriously, including AE911Truth. Even your peers want nothing to do with you and your crackpot theories.
I’ve proved you’re a liar and you have lost all credibility everywhere you’ve posted. Not just me either. Others here have proved it all before I even got here.
You’re a laughing stock and everyone on the web knows it.
Mike
-
Mr. Kim is just another clown not having an a-bomb to play with. Look at him and his bombs. A joke!
And, you have zero proof of that.
No, no, you twerp! I have plenty, solid evidence - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm - that President Kim-zero has no a-bombs whatsoever.
Isn't it good news?
WRONG! You're a liar, your conclusions are crap, and everybody knows it. That's why you've been banned from more forums than most people are registered for.
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
Are you working for this Northkorean monkey Kim il ZERO sending fantasy ICBMs towards USA? You sound like a terrorist. Watch out. Terrorists are not popular in USA.
Say what you will but everybody know the truth about you. You have zero credibility, you're a liar, and even other engineers what nothing to do you.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
Mike
Hm, my credibility is good.
Yours is 0.
I’ve linked to sites that prove you have zero credibility. And, I can link to sites where you’ve lied and been caught, where you’ve had your ass handed to you by the other posters, where you’ve been proven wrong, and where you’ve been banned because of your trolling and whack job conspiracy theories.
That’s proof positive that you have zero credibility on any other website, with any other engineers, and certainly not here. There’s not a site on the web that takes you seriously, including AE911Truth. Even your peers want nothing to do with you and your crackpot theories.
I’ve proved you’re a liar and you have lost all credibility everywhere you’ve posted. Not just me either. Others here have proved it all before I even got here.
You’re a laughing stock and everyone on the web knows it.
Mike
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me. Your twerp comments are just as expected. You sound like the Americans having seen a photo of a fat North Korean boy with two rice cookers believing they are one hydrogen bomb.
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
I would not take that as an endorsement of your site's accuracy. Look at the number hits some of the worst lat earth YouTube videos.
I assume that your signature is a description of yourself?
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
-
Well, as a fact my website <> is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Why don't you stay there then? With all your friends? I think we'd all be better off.
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
I would not take that as an endorsement of your site's accuracy. Look at the number hits some of the worst lat earth YouTube videos.
I assume that your signature is a description of yourself?
"an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories"
There's very little there that accurate. Even including bots, his site gets in ten years what most sites get in a month. Take out the bots and it's apparent that nobody reads his site. He's been caught in lies over and over again. Even his peers in engineering want nothing to do with his tinfoil hat, crackpot claims and have distanced themselves from him.
Does anyone really believe he has €5,000,000 laying around to pay for all those challenges? I think not.
Mike
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me. Your twerp comments are just as expected. You sound like the Americans having seen a photo of a fat North Korean boy with two rice cookers believing they are one hydrogen bomb.
Nobody believes you. Your traffic is mostly bots and hits from here. You’re delusional if you think anyone actually cares your crackpot ideas. Your site is ridiculed by every forum you’ve ever posted on and a few you haven’t.
The site where I’m a Mod gets over 20,000 visits a day with >120,000 page views a day. Those are very low numbers compared the averages on the internet. Take out the search bots, and you wouldn’t get that many visits in ten years so stop telling us how popular your site is because it’s not.
And, stop talking about your stupid challenges. You don't have €5,000,000 to just give way.
Mike
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me. Your twerp comments are just as expected. You sound like the Americans having seen a photo of a fat North Korean boy with two rice cookers believing they are one hydrogen bomb.
Nobody believes you. Your traffic is mostly bots and hits from here. You’re delusional if you think anyone actually cares your crackpot ideas. Your site is ridiculed by every forum you’ve ever posted on and a few you haven’t.
The site where I’m a Mod gets over 20,000 visits a day with >120,000 page views a day. Those are very low numbers compared the averages on the internet. Take out the search bots, and you wouldn’t get that many visits in ten years so stop telling us how popular your site is because it’s not.
And, stop talking about your stupid challenges. You don't have €5,000,000 to just give way.
Mike
You sound like a twerp. Go away.
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me. Your twerp comments are just as expected. You sound like the Americans having seen a photo of a fat North Korean boy with two rice cookers believing they are one hydrogen bomb.
Nobody believes you. Your traffic is mostly bots and hits from here. You’re delusional if you think anyone actually cares your crackpot ideas. Your site is ridiculed by every forum you’ve ever posted on and a few you haven’t.
The site where I’m a Mod gets over 20,000 visits a day with >120,000 page views a day. Those are very low numbers compared the averages on the internet. Take out the search bots, and you wouldn’t get that many visits in ten years so stop telling us how popular your site is because it’s not.
And, stop talking about your stupid challenges. You don't have €5,000,000 to just give way.
Mike
You sound like a twerp. Go away.
Stellar defense!
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me. Your twerp comments are just as expected. You sound like the Americans having seen a photo of a fat North Korean boy with two rice cookers believing they are one hydrogen bomb.
Nobody believes you. Your traffic is mostly bots and hits from here. You’re delusional if you think anyone actually cares your crackpot ideas. Your site is ridiculed by every forum you’ve ever posted on and a few you haven’t.
The site where I’m a Mod gets over 20,000 visits a day with >120,000 page views a day. Those are very low numbers compared the averages on the internet. Take out the search bots, and you wouldn’t get that many visits in ten years so stop telling us how popular your site is because it’s not.
And, stop talking about your stupid challenges. You don't have €5,000,000 to just give way.
Mike
You sound like a twerp. Go away.
I'm not going anywhere so deal with it.
Mike
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me. Your twerp comments are just as expected. You sound like the Americans having seen a photo of a fat North Korean boy with two rice cookers believing they are one hydrogen bomb.
Nobody believes you. Your traffic is mostly bots and hits from here. You’re delusional if you think anyone actually cares your crackpot ideas. Your site is ridiculed by every forum you’ve ever posted on and a few you haven’t.
The site where I’m a Mod gets over 20,000 visits a day with >120,000 page views a day. Those are very low numbers compared the averages on the internet. Take out the search bots, and you wouldn’t get that many visits in ten years so stop telling us how popular your site is because it’s not.
And, stop talking about your stupid challenges. You don't have €5,000,000 to just give way.
Mike
You sound like a twerp. Go away.
Stellar defense!
you are wrong!
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me. Your twerp comments are just as expected. You sound like the Americans having seen a photo of a fat North Korean boy with two rice cookers believing they are one hydrogen bomb.
Nobody believes you. Your traffic is mostly bots and hits from here. You’re delusional if you think anyone actually cares your crackpot ideas. Your site is ridiculed by every forum you’ve ever posted on and a few you haven’t.
The site where I’m a Mod gets over 20,000 visits a day with >120,000 page views a day. Those are very low numbers compared the averages on the internet. Take out the search bots, and you wouldn’t get that many visits in ten years so stop telling us how popular your site is because it’s not.
And, stop talking about your stupid challenges. You don't have €5,000,000 to just give way.
Mike
You sound like a twerp. Go away.
Stellar defense!
you are wrong!
LOL. I was being sarcastic! There was nothing stellar about your post whatsoever!
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
He wouldn't have a clue how to run a forum...however, he does have €5,000,000 laying around so he could pay someone to run it.
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
Because no one here cares about your "popular" website or your unwinnable challenges except for you.
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
Because no one here cares about your "popular" website or your unwinnable challenges except for you.
You are right. My website visitors do not come from FE forum. But I care about my Challenge. Why don't you try to win it and collect €1M? http://heiwaco.com.chall.htm . I assume you are not intelligent enough. Or ?
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
Because no one here cares about your "popular" website or your unwinnable challenges except for you.
You are right. My website visitors do not come from FE forum. But I care about my Challenge. Why don't you try to win it and collect €1M? http://heiwaco.com.chall.htm . I assume you are not intelligent enough. Or ?
There you go hawking that stupid challenge again. NOBODY CARES!
Nobody believes you'll pay so let it go already.
Mike
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
Because no one here cares about your "popular" website or your unwinnable challenges except for you.
You are right. My website visitors do not come from FE forum. But I care about my Challenge. Why don't you try to win it and collect €1M? http://heiwaco.com.chall.htm . I assume you are not intelligent enough. Or ?
What part of "NO ONE HERE CARES" did you not understand? ???
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
Because no one here cares about your "popular" website or your unwinnable challenges except for you.
You are right. My website visitors do not come from FE forum. But I care about my Challenge. Why don't you try to win it and collect €1M? http://heiwaco.com.chall.htm . I assume you are not intelligent enough. Or ?
What part of "NO ONE HERE CARES" did you not understand? ???
As a fact plenty twerps incl. you get very upset about my findings at http://heiwaco.com, e.g. nuclear bombs are propaganda, human space travel is a hoax, skyscrapers do not collapse from top down, ships do not float on bow visors and fusion is very hot and cannot take place on Earth.
But you just ask stupid questions all the time. I cannot understand why you don't use your time better, like me!
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
Because no one here cares about your "popular" website or your unwinnable challenges except for you.
You are right. My website visitors do not come from FE forum. But I care about my Challenge. Why don't you try to win it and collect €1M? http://heiwaco.com.chall.htm . I assume you are not intelligent enough. Or ?
What part of "NO ONE HERE CARES" did you not understand? ???
As a fact plenty twerps incl. you get very upset about my findings at http://heiwaco.com, e.g. nuclear bombs are propaganda, human space travel is a hoax, skyscrapers do not collapse from top down, ships do not float on bow visors and fusion is very hot and cannot take place on Earth.
But you just ask stupid questions all the time. I cannot understand why you don't use your time better, like me!
There are no findings on your site. Just a lot of made up nonsense and lies.
Yes sometimes people do get upset at your lies. And yes there are better ways to spend time then paying any attention at all to you and your proven lies.
But also people don't want your outrageous lied to go unchallenged. That's why they give you any attention at all.
Aside from that everyone can see you are just a sad, sick little man who cannot face the truth.
-
Well, as a fact my website http://heiwaco.com is more popular than ever and that's what counts for me.
Then why don't you have your own discussion forum on your site so that you can discuss your impossible challenges there instead of shitting up this forum?
More twerp questions from markjo. Why?
Because no one here cares about your "popular" website or your unwinnable challenges except for you.
You are right. My website visitors do not come from FE forum. But I care about my Challenge. Why don't you try to win it and collect €1M? http://heiwaco.com.chall.htm . I assume you are not intelligent enough. Or ?
What part of "NO ONE HERE CARES" did you not understand? ???
As a fact plenty twerps incl. you get very upset about my findings at http://heiwaco.com, e.g. nuclear bombs are propaganda, human space travel is a hoax, skyscrapers do not collapse from top down, ships do not float on bow visors and fusion is very hot and cannot take place on Earth.
But you just ask stupid questions all the time. I cannot understand why you don't use your time better, like me!
There are no findings on your site. Just a lot of made up nonsense and lies.
Yes sometimes people do get upset at your lies. And yes there are better ways to spend time then paying any attention at all to you and your proven lies.
But also people don't want your outrageous lied to go unchallenged. That's why they give you any attention at all.
Aside from that everyone can see you are just a sad, sick little man who cannot face the truth.
You sound like a guttersnipe.
-
Like a guttersnipe you sound.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4vkYHu.jpg)
-
Like a guttersnipe you sound.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4vkYHu.jpg)
That's some funny shit right there...and they're both probably the same age. ;D
-
Like a guttersnipe you sound.
(https://i.imgur.com/Z4vkYHu.jpg)
That's some funny shit right there...and they're both probably the same age. ;D
Throw a headband on him and they're practically identical! ;D
-
Guttersnipe? The extinct bird?
-
The bird's the word.
-
Are US guttersnipes extinct?
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
No. I just have a science degree and a friend who's mother died of cancer from radiation positing from building nuclear bombs.
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
Well, you didn't prove anything and I didn't agree to anything. You must have misunderstood. You sound like a supporter of this North Korean Rocket man upsettiing your man with a Tower at NY.
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
Well, you didn't prove anything and I didn't agree to anything. You must have misunderstood. You sound like a supporter of this North Korean Rocket man upsettiing your man with a Tower at NY.
Fast fission. I guess since you're so old you tend to forget things rather easily.
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
Well, you didn't prove anything and I didn't agree to anything. You must have misunderstood. You sound like a supporter of this North Korean Rocket man upsettiing your man with a Tower at NY.
Fast fission. I guess since you're so old you tend to forget things rather easily.
Explosive, military fission is just pseudoscience ... and a military secret. Only twerps believe in it.
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
Well, you didn't prove anything and I didn't agree to anything. You must have misunderstood. You sound like a supporter of this North Korean Rocket man upsettiing your man with a Tower at NY.
I've been waiting for you to lie about that and you didn't disappoint.
You claimed there is only one type of fission and you go so far on your website to claim that “here is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion.”
Re fast fission there is only one type of fission. It is moderated and used in power plants.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924520;topicseen#msg1924520
In this next post you fast fission doesn’t exist because you can’t start it. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924057#msg1924057
These links are further examples of your lies.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924479#msg1924479
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1923059#msg1923059
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1868776#msg1868776
Here is where you finally admitted you were wrong.
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and -FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
And yet you refuse to fix your website.
All scientists in the world? Only a small handful military scientists design a-bombs in secrecy! Wellerstein carefully avoids referring to the dumb exponential chain reaction of a critical mass causing an atomic explosion during nano-seconds theory, and talks about fast nuclear fission in enriched materials, which is something completely different. There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion. Evidently I do not suggest that all scientists in the world are dupes or fools and part of a conspiracy. Why would I do that? Lack of understanding? We all agree that slow nuclear fission is real. Only an exponential nuclear chain reaction/fission of a critical mass lasting nano-seconds set off by some mysterious means producing an explosion is fantasy, as Manne Siegbahn indicated to me in the 1960s. All full scale tests of nuclear explosions are faked. There is no way to set them off safely.
You do shoddy research and you lie to make your point. You’re an incompetent engineer, a liar, a troll, and a crackpot conspiracy theorist shunned by engineering community.
Mike
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
Well, you didn't prove anything and I didn't agree to anything. You must have misunderstood. You sound like a supporter of this North Korean Rocket man upsettiing your man with a Tower at NY.
I've been waiting for you to lie about that and you didn't disappoint.
You claimed there is only one type of fission and you go so far on your website to claim that “here is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion.”
Re fast fission there is only one type of fission. It is moderated and used in power plants.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924520;topicseen#msg1924520
In this next post you fast fission doesn’t exist because you can’t start it. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924057#msg1924057
These links are further examples of your lies.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924479#msg1924479
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1923059#msg1923059
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1868776#msg1868776
Here is where you finally admitted you were wrong.
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and -FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
And yet you refuse to fix your website.
All scientists in the world? Only a small handful military scientists design a-bombs in secrecy! Wellerstein carefully avoids referring to the dumb exponential chain reaction of a critical mass causing an atomic explosion during nano-seconds theory, and talks about fast nuclear fission in enriched materials, which is something completely different. There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion. Evidently I do not suggest that all scientists in the world are dupes or fools and part of a conspiracy. Why would I do that? Lack of understanding? We all agree that slow nuclear fission is real. Only an exponential nuclear chain reaction/fission of a critical mass lasting nano-seconds set off by some mysterious means producing an explosion is fantasy, as Manne Siegbahn indicated to me in the 1960s. All full scale tests of nuclear explosions are faked. There is no way to set them off safely.
You do shoddy research and you lie to make your point. You’re an incompetent engineer, a liar, a troll, and a crackpot conspiracy theorist shunned by engineering community.
Mike
Hm, why do you get so upset? Everything at my web site is correct. Why would I publish incorrect information?
I have of course travelled the world since early 1960's and met many interesting people guiding me in the right direction to conclude, i.a., that
1. Atomic bombs are a hoax since 1945 and
2. No humans have ever been in space since 1961.
So I just feel sorry for Donald Trump when he babbles about his nuclear weapons and missiles and his problems with North Korea. All useless stuff. Just to scare people.
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
Well, you didn't prove anything and I didn't agree to anything. You must have misunderstood. You sound like a supporter of this North Korean Rocket man upsettiing your man with a Tower at NY.
I've been waiting for you to lie about that and you didn't disappoint.
You claimed there is only one type of fission and you go so far on your website to claim that “here is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion.”
Re fast fission there is only one type of fission. It is moderated and used in power plants.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924520;topicseen#msg1924520
In this next post you fast fission doesn’t exist because you can’t start it. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924057#msg1924057
These links are further examples of your lies.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924479#msg1924479
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1923059#msg1923059
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1868776#msg1868776
Here is where you finally admitted you were wrong.
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and -FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
And yet you refuse to fix your website.
All scientists in the world? Only a small handful military scientists design a-bombs in secrecy! Wellerstein carefully avoids referring to the dumb exponential chain reaction of a critical mass causing an atomic explosion during nano-seconds theory, and talks about fast nuclear fission in enriched materials, which is something completely different. There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion. Evidently I do not suggest that all scientists in the world are dupes or fools and part of a conspiracy. Why would I do that? Lack of understanding? We all agree that slow nuclear fission is real. Only an exponential nuclear chain reaction/fission of a critical mass lasting nano-seconds set off by some mysterious means producing an explosion is fantasy, as Manne Siegbahn indicated to me in the 1960s. All full scale tests of nuclear explosions are faked. There is no way to set them off safely.
You do shoddy research and you lie to make your point. You’re an incompetent engineer, a liar, a troll, and a crackpot conspiracy theorist shunned by engineering community.
Mike
Hm, why do you get so upset? Everything at my web site is correct. Why would I publish incorrect information?
I have of course travelled the world since early 1960's and met many interesting people guiding me in the right direction to conclude, i.a., that
1. Atomic bombs are a hoax since 1945 and
2. No humans have ever been in space since 1961.
So I just feel sorry for Donald Trump when he babbles about his nuclear weapons and missiles and his problems with North Korea. All useless stuff. Just to scare people.
Poor attempt at a straw man. Stop lying.
You admitted you were wrong which makes your website wrong and your conclusions wrong.
These are facts not in dispute.
If you had done proper research in the first place you'd already have known that all fission produces fast neutrons...even in commercial power plants. Since you do shoddy research you didn't realize that's the reason commercial plants are moderated...to slow down the neutrons.
If you did proper research you wouldn't claim fast fission is impossible. ALL FISSION PRODUCES FAST NEUTRONS YOU IDIOT!
Mike
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
Well, you didn't prove anything and I didn't agree to anything. You must have misunderstood. You sound like a supporter of this North Korean Rocket man upsettiing your man with a Tower at NY.
I've been waiting for you to lie about that and you didn't disappoint.
You claimed there is only one type of fission and you go so far on your website to claim that “here is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion.”
Re fast fission there is only one type of fission. It is moderated and used in power plants.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924520;topicseen#msg1924520
In this next post you fast fission doesn’t exist because you can’t start it. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924057#msg1924057
These links are further examples of your lies.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924479#msg1924479
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1923059#msg1923059
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1868776#msg1868776
Here is where you finally admitted you were wrong.
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and -FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
And yet you refuse to fix your website.
All scientists in the world? Only a small handful military scientists design a-bombs in secrecy! Wellerstein carefully avoids referring to the dumb exponential chain reaction of a critical mass causing an atomic explosion during nano-seconds theory, and talks about fast nuclear fission in enriched materials, which is something completely different. There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion. Evidently I do not suggest that all scientists in the world are dupes or fools and part of a conspiracy. Why would I do that? Lack of understanding? We all agree that slow nuclear fission is real. Only an exponential nuclear chain reaction/fission of a critical mass lasting nano-seconds set off by some mysterious means producing an explosion is fantasy, as Manne Siegbahn indicated to me in the 1960s. All full scale tests of nuclear explosions are faked. There is no way to set them off safely.
You do shoddy research and you lie to make your point. You’re an incompetent engineer, a liar, a troll, and a crackpot conspiracy theorist shunned by engineering community.
Mike
Hm, why do you get so upset? Everything at my web site is correct. Why would I publish incorrect information?
I have of course travelled the world since early 1960's and met many interesting people guiding me in the right direction to conclude, i.a., that
1. Atomic bombs are a hoax since 1945 and
2. No humans have ever been in space since 1961.
So I just feel sorry for Donald Trump when he babbles about his nuclear weapons and missiles and his problems with North Korea. All useless stuff. Just to scare people.
Poor attempt at a straw man. Stop lying.
You admitted you were wrong which makes your website wrong and your conclusions wrong.
These are facts not in dispute.
If you had done proper research in the first place you'd already have known that all fission produces fast neutrons...even in commercial power plants. Since you do shoddy research you didn't realize that's the reason commercial plants are moderated...to slow down the neutrons.
If you did proper research you wouldn't claim fast fission is impossible. ALL FISSION PRODUCES FAST NEUTRONS YOU IDIOT!
Mike
Yes, fission needs fast neutrons to work. Neutrons are always very fast. But the fission doesn't get any faster for it. I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com . You sound like suffering from cognitive dissonance. Ever heard about it?
-
http://kdvr.com/2017/10/02/rocky-flats-nuclear-plant-375-million-settlement-money-on-the-way-to-residents/
-
The Snipe is. I have since figured out that you are still retarded and just made something up.
Please tell me more. I explain/make up my position at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for everyone to study.
Do you have a web site?
We've already proved your site is wrong. You agreed that it's wrong and refuse to change it. No challenge to be had.
Well, you didn't prove anything and I didn't agree to anything. You must have misunderstood. You sound like a supporter of this North Korean Rocket man upsettiing your man with a Tower at NY.
I've been waiting for you to lie about that and you didn't disappoint.
You claimed there is only one type of fission and you go so far on your website to claim that “here is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion.”
Re fast fission there is only one type of fission. It is moderated and used in power plants.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924520;topicseen#msg1924520
In this next post you fast fission doesn’t exist because you can’t start it. https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924057#msg1924057
These links are further examples of your lies.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1924479#msg1924479
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1923059#msg1923059
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11293.msg1868776#msg1868776
Here is where you finally admitted you were wrong.
It's amazing how you never answer a question
So what question haven't I now answered?
It's amazing how thick you are. The question is, why fast fission won't work? Your only answers so far have been, "there is no fast fission" and "911." These are not answers.
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
But it is not how a-bombs work or do not work. A-bombs are supposed to consist of two pieces of metal that are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between and -FLASH - people are vaporized.
Sorry, fission does not produce FLASHES!
And yet you refuse to fix your website.
All scientists in the world? Only a small handful military scientists design a-bombs in secrecy! Wellerstein carefully avoids referring to the dumb exponential chain reaction of a critical mass causing an atomic explosion during nano-seconds theory, and talks about fast nuclear fission in enriched materials, which is something completely different. There is no such thing as "fast fission nuclear chain reaction" or an exponential chain reaction causing an explosion. Evidently I do not suggest that all scientists in the world are dupes or fools and part of a conspiracy. Why would I do that? Lack of understanding? We all agree that slow nuclear fission is real. Only an exponential nuclear chain reaction/fission of a critical mass lasting nano-seconds set off by some mysterious means producing an explosion is fantasy, as Manne Siegbahn indicated to me in the 1960s. All full scale tests of nuclear explosions are faked. There is no way to set them off safely.
You do shoddy research and you lie to make your point. You’re an incompetent engineer, a liar, a troll, and a crackpot conspiracy theorist shunned by engineering community.
Mike
Hm, why do you get so upset? Everything at my web site is correct. Why would I publish incorrect information?
I have of course travelled the world since early 1960's and met many interesting people guiding me in the right direction to conclude, i.a., that
1. Atomic bombs are a hoax since 1945 and
2. No humans have ever been in space since 1961.
So I just feel sorry for Donald Trump when he babbles about his nuclear weapons and missiles and his problems with North Korea. All useless stuff. Just to scare people.
Poor attempt at a straw man. Stop lying.
You admitted you were wrong which makes your website wrong and your conclusions wrong.
These are facts not in dispute.
If you had done proper research in the first place you'd already have known that all fission produces fast neutrons...even in commercial power plants. Since you do shoddy research you didn't realize that's the reason commercial plants are moderated...to slow down the neutrons.
If you did proper research you wouldn't claim fast fission is impossible. ALL FISSION PRODUCES FAST NEUTRONS YOU IDIOT!
Mike
Yes, fission needs fast neutrons to work. Neutrons are always very fast. But the fission doesn't get any faster for it. I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com . You sound like suffering from cognitive dissonance. Ever heard about it?
See. This shows that you have no idea how nuclear reactions work...and you have no idea what cognitive dissonance is because you're not using it correctly.
Fission does NOT need fast neutrons to work you idiot. Fission yields fast neutrons.
You are so clueless. How fast additional fission happen, the reaction rate, has nothing the do with the neutron energy levels. The reaction rate is proportional to neutron flux density...neutrons per volume
The fact that you don't know that is just another example your shoddy research and proof positive that you have no idea how a nuclear weapon works.
Mike
-
Yes, fission needs fast neutrons to work. Neutrons are always very fast. But the fission doesn't get any faster for it. I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com . You sound like suffering from cognitive dissonance. Ever heard about it?
See. This shows that you have no idea how nuclear reactions work...and you have no idea what cognitive dissonance is because you're not using it correctly.
Fission does NOT need fast neutrons to work you idiot. Fission yields fast neutrons.
You are so clueless. How fast additional fission happen, the reaction rate, has nothing the do with the neutron energy levels. The reaction rate is proportional to neutron flux density...neutrons per volume
The fact that you don't know that is just another example your shoddy research and proof positive that you have no idea how a nuclear weapon works.
Mike
You just have to realise that if Heiwa can't understand something, then it's impossible.
And since Heiwa understands very little, then very little of what we see is possible.
Maybe Heiwa would believe (for a microsecond) if he were at ground zero of:[youtube][/youtube]
TSAR BOMB RUSSIAN BIGGEST NUCLEAR WEAPON 57,000,000 TONS
-
Yes, fission needs fast neutrons to work. Neutrons are always very fast. But the fission doesn't get any faster for it. I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com . You sound like suffering from cognitive dissonance. Ever heard about it?
See. This shows that you have no idea how nuclear reactions work...and you have no idea what cognitive dissonance is because you're not using it correctly.
Fission does NOT need fast neutrons to work you idiot. Fission yields fast neutrons.
You are so clueless. How fast additional fission happen, the reaction rate, has nothing the do with the neutron energy levels. The reaction rate is proportional to neutron flux density...neutrons per volume
The fact that you don't know that is just another example your shoddy research and proof positive that you have no idea how a nuclear weapon works.
Mike
You just have to realise that if Heiwa can't understand something, then it's impossible.
And since Heiwa understands very little, then very little of what we see is possible.
Maybe i]Heiwa[/i] wound believe (for a microsecond) if he were at ground zero of:[youtube][/youtube]
TSAR BOMB RUSSIAN BIGGEST NUCLEAR WEAPON 57,000,000 TONS
I realize that but I just can't let him get away with calling my family and friends liars. He tells lies left and right and has the gall to call someone who was there a liar because they saw the plane.
His a-bomb website is a joke and fundamentally incorrect. Of course that means little because his challenge is to prove the bombs exist and not prove him wrong...which has been done over and over again long before I got here.
Mike
-
Yes, fission needs fast neutrons to work. Neutrons are always very fast. But the fission doesn't get any faster for it. I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com . You sound like suffering from cognitive dissonance. Ever heard about it?
See. This shows that you have no idea how nuclear reactions work...and you have no idea what cognitive dissonance is because you're not using it correctly.
Fission does NOT need fast neutrons to work you idiot. Fission yields fast neutrons.
You are so clueless. How fast additional fission happen, the reaction rate, has nothing the do with the neutron energy levels. The reaction rate is proportional to neutron flux density...neutrons per volume
The fact that you don't know that is just another example your shoddy research and proof positive that you have no idea how a nuclear weapon works.
Mike
You just have to realise that if Heiwa can't understand something, then it's impossible.
And since Heiwa understands very little, then very little of what we see is possible.
Maybe Heiwa would believe (for a microsecond) if he were at ground zero of:[youtube][/youtube]
TSAR BOMB RUSSIAN BIGGEST NUCLEAR WEAPON 57,000,000 TONS
The photo is simple fakery! Why do you post such nonsense?
-
Why do you post such nonsense?
You're one to talk - we could say the same thing about each and every one of your posts!
-
Why do you post such nonsense?
You're one to talk - we could say the same thing about each and every one of your posts!
But I do not post fake photos of smoky hydrogen bomb explosions! Only twerps do!
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
-
Why do you post such nonsense?
You're one to talk - we could say the same thing about each and every one of your posts!
But I do not post fake photos of smoky hydrogen bomb explosions! Only twerps do!
All you do is lie about knowing anything about nuclear physics. We’ve already established you’re wrong about how fission works. We’ve already established you are lying about ionizing radiation to support your unfounded conclusions.
It amazes me that you can actually believe you know more about nuclear physics than nuclear physicists.
Mike
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
? Why would I do it?
I just know for certain that bow visors do not fall off ships 1994 or ever.
And that US a-bombs do not work since 1945, i.e. secret, military, explosive fission is pseudoscience.
And that US/NASA human space travel is a simple Hollywood show since 1962.
And that 911 was a great show 'live on TV' with no Arabs flying any planes.
And that fusion on Earth isn't possible.
I actually pay anyone €1M proving me wrong! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Have a try!
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
? Why would I do it?
I just know for certain that bow visors do not fall off ships 1994 or ever.
And that US a-bombs do not work since 1945, i.e. secret, military, explosive fission is pseudoscience.
And that US/NASA human space travel is a simple Hollywood show since 1962.
And that 911 was a great show 'live on TV' with no Arabs flying any planes.
And that fusion on Earth isn't possible.
I actually pay anyone €1M proving me wrong! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Have a try!
You don't actually know any of that for certain. Most of it is just conjecture based on junk science so no, you don’t know all of that for certain.
Mike
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
? Why would I do it?
I just know for certain that bow visors do not fall off ships 1994 or ever.
And that US a-bombs do not work since 1945, i.e. secret, military, explosive fission is pseudoscience.
And that US/NASA human space travel is a simple Hollywood show since 1962.
And that 911 was a great show 'live on TV' with no Arabs flying any planes.
And that fusion on Earth isn't possible.
I actually pay anyone €1M proving me wrong! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Have a try!
You don't actually know any of that for certain. Most of it is just conjecture based on junk science so no, you don’t know all of that for certain.
Mike
Of course I know for certain that I am right. You are just an unusual twerp loser that cannot accept it. Why do you post shit all the time?
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
? Why would I do it?
I just know for certain that bow visors do not fall off ships 1994 or ever.
And that US a-bombs do not work since 1945, i.e. secret, military, explosive fission is pseudoscience.
And that US/NASA human space travel is a simple Hollywood show since 1962.
And that 911 was a great show 'live on TV' with no Arabs flying any planes.
And that fusion on Earth isn't possible.
I actually pay anyone €1M proving me wrong! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Have a try!
You don't actually know any of that for certain. Most of it is just conjecture based on junk science so no, you don’t know all of that for certain.
Mike
Of course I know for certain that I am right. You are just an unusual twerp loser that cannot accept it. Why do you post shit all the time?
You're the shitty poster. You hawking your ignorant site, lie about the information you site contains, you do crappy shoddy research, and put forth baseless conjecture as fact. Yup, your posts smell like shit to me.
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
? Why would I do it?
I just know for certain that bow visors do not fall off ships 1994 or ever.
And that US a-bombs do not work since 1945, i.e. secret, military, explosive fission is pseudoscience.
And that US/NASA human space travel is a simple Hollywood show since 1962.
And that 911 was a great show 'live on TV' with no Arabs flying any planes.
And that fusion on Earth isn't possible.
I actually pay anyone €1M proving me wrong! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Have a try!
You don't actually know any of that for certain. Most of it is just conjecture based on junk science so no, you don’t know all of that for certain.
Mike
Of course I know for certain that I am right. You are just an unusual twerp loser that cannot accept it. Why do you post shit all the time?
You're the shitty poster. You hawking your ignorant site, lie about the information you site contains, you do crappy shoddy research, and put forth baseless conjecture as fact. Yup, your posts smell like shit to me.
My posts smell like roses to me.
-
Heiwa.....
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0z3UPWcIAIc/UVH8DSuPZeI/AAAAAAAAAro/9o-eOTpDBwo/s1600/gtfo.png)
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
? Why would I do it?
I just know for certain that bow visors do not fall off ships 1994 or ever.
And that US a-bombs do not work since 1945, i.e. secret, military, explosive fission is pseudoscience.
And that US/NASA human space travel is a simple Hollywood show since 1962.
And that 911 was a great show 'live on TV' with no Arabs flying any planes.
And that fusion on Earth isn't possible.
I actually pay anyone €1M proving me wrong! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Have a try!
You don't actually know any of that for certain. Most of it is just conjecture based on junk science so no, you don’t know all of that for certain.
Mike
Of course I know for certain that I am right. You are just an unusual twerp loser that cannot accept it. Why do you post shit all the time?
You're the shitty poster. You hawking your ignorant site, lie about the information you site contains, you do crappy shoddy research, and put forth baseless conjecture as fact. Yup, your posts smell like shit to me.
My posts smell like roses to me.
Yes. Very similar to half composted roses.
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
? Why would I do it?
I just know for certain that bow visors do not fall off ships 1994 or ever.
And that US a-bombs do not work since 1945, i.e. secret, military, explosive fission is pseudoscience.
And that US/NASA human space travel is a simple Hollywood show since 1962.
And that 911 was a great show 'live on TV' with no Arabs flying any planes.
And that fusion on Earth isn't possible.
I actually pay anyone €1M proving me wrong! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Have a try!
You don't actually know any of that for certain. Most of it is just conjecture based on junk science so no, you don’t know all of that for certain.
Mike
Of course I know for certain that I am right. You are just an unusual twerp loser that cannot accept it. Why do you post shit all the time?
You're the shitty poster. You hawking your ignorant site, lie about the information you site contains, you do crappy shoddy research, and put forth baseless conjecture as fact. Yup, your posts smell like shit to me.
My posts smell like roses to me.
Yes. Very similar to half composted roses.
No, my posts smell like roses to me.
-
Wow this post has an insane amount of responses! I'm not going to say I read every post. It's hard to imagine that the event could even be a subject of discussion.
-
Wow this post has an insane amount of responses! I'm not going to say I read every post. It's hard to imagine that the event could even be a subject of discussion.
The longer they get, the more derailed the get...
-
No you just poke fake bullshit theories from your own arse, pass them off as fact when they have no basis in reality. Good one
? Why would I do it?
I just know for certain that bow visors do not fall off ships 1994 or ever.
And that US a-bombs do not work since 1945, i.e. secret, military, explosive fission is pseudoscience.
And that US/NASA human space travel is a simple Hollywood show since 1962.
And that 911 was a great show 'live on TV' with no Arabs flying any planes.
And that fusion on Earth isn't possible.
I actually pay anyone €1M proving me wrong! http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Have a try!
You don't actually know any of that for certain. Most of it is just conjecture based on junk science so no, you don’t know all of that for certain.
Mike
Of course I know for certain that I am right. You are just an unusual twerp loser that cannot accept it. Why do you post shit all the time?
You're the shitty poster. You hawking your ignorant site, lie about the information you site contains, you do crappy shoddy research, and put forth baseless conjecture as fact. Yup, your posts smell like shit to me.
My posts smell like roses to me.
Yes. Very similar to half composted roses.
No, my posts smell like roses to me.
So we're in agreement then. Half composted roses! Eew!
-
Have you guys seen this mad-man?
It's a very interesting watch.
-
Have you guys seen this mad-man?
It's a very interesting watch.
Play right into his delusion with another nut-job-on-a-stick. We're never gonna hear the end of this one.
-
Have you guys seen this mad-man?
It's a very interesting watch.
Hm, eating metal!
This is much more interesting -
Only 72 years old shit!
-
delusion
nut-job-on-a-stick.
Chill man it was just a declassified FBI video.
-
delusion
nut-job-on-a-stick.
Chill man it was just a declassified FBI video.
He's still a nut-job-on-a-stick and has no idea what he's doing by eating that material. However, he's not the delusional one I was talking about.
-
delusion
nut-job-on-a-stick.
Chill man it was just a declassified FBI video.
He's still a nut-job-on-a-stick and has no idea what he's doing by eating that material. However, he's not the delusional one I was talking about.
To be fair, nobody knew what they were doing with radiation for a long time.
(http://bh-s2.azureedge.net/bh-uploads/2015/12/radium-suppositories.jpg)
-
I'm more interested in how Element 115 is used to power UFO's
-
You know Area 51 has always been a blackops Aircraft test facility right?
-
You know Area 51 has always been a blackops Aircraft test facility right?
What ops would be blacker than testing alien spacecraft?
-
Precisely.
-
My posts smell like roses to me.
You probably think your farts smell like roses also.
Here is something you will never understand . . .
-
As if you undertand it Bullwinkle.
Go pick on some primary school kids to feel tough and smart next time.
-
My posts smell like roses to me.
You probably think your farts smell like roses also.
Here is something you will never understand . . .
Sorry, military, secret, fission works much, much faster.
You have only two parts!
Each is a subcritical, safe mass of uranium metal.
Then you bring them violently together in a collision!
And then they become one critical, unsafe mass ... that explodes in nano-seconds.
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Only twerps like D. Trump, S. Abe, Kim and Xi believe it.
Good news is that they are all stupid and can only cause local failures, that doesn't concern me.
-
My posts smell like roses to me.
You probably think your farts smell like roses also.
Here is something you will never understand . . .
Sorry, military, secret, fission works much, much faster.
You have only two parts!
Each is a subcritical, safe mass of uranium metal.
Then you bring them violently together in a collision!
And then they become one critical, unsafe mass ... that explodes in nano-seconds.
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Only twerps like D. Trump, S. Abe, Kim and Xi believe it.
Good news is that they are all stupid and can only cause local failures, that doesn't concern me.
If you understood the concepts of critical mass, critical geometry, and understood the six factor formula you would know why it releases so much energy. It's obvious you just plain can't understand how these are related.
Mike
-
As if you undertand it Bullwinkle.
Go pick on some primary school kids to feel tough and smart next time.
I expected that.
-
My posts smell like roses to me.
You probably think your farts smell like roses also.
Here is something you will never understand . . .
Sorry, military, secret, fission works much, much faster.
You have only two parts!
Each is a subcritical, safe mass of uranium metal.
Then you bring them violently together in a collision!
And then they become one critical, unsafe mass ... that explodes in nano-seconds.
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Only twerps like D. Trump, S. Abe, Kim and Xi believe it.
Good news is that they are all stupid and can only cause local failures, that doesn't concern me.
If you understood the concepts of critical mass, critical geometry, and understood the six factor formula you would know why it releases so much energy. It's obvious you just plain can't understand how these are related.
Mike
But I understand the concepts of critical mass.
A critical mass (kg) ignites by itself in a FLASH and becomes energy (J) according to the nuclear experts
Half a critical mass does not ignite because it is not critical, but if you put two halves of critical mass together, they become one critical mass that ignites, bla, bla, bla.
It is not very difficult to understand.
Of course it doesn't work. It is pseudo science.
I explain it fully at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
My posts smell like roses to me.
You probably think your farts smell like roses also.
Here is something you will never understand . . .
Sorry, military, secret, fission works much, much faster.
You have only two parts!
Each is a subcritical, safe mass of uranium metal.
Then you bring them violently together in a collision!
And then they become one critical, unsafe mass ... that explodes in nano-seconds.
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Only twerps like D. Trump, S. Abe, Kim and Xi believe it.
Good news is that they are all stupid and can only cause local failures, that doesn't concern me.
If you understood the concepts of critical mass, critical geometry, and understood the six factor formula you would know why it releases so much energy. It's obvious you just plain can't understand how these are related.
Mike
But I understand the concepts of critical mass.
A critical mass (kg) ignites by itself in a FLASH and becomes energy (J) according to the nuclear experts
Half a critical mass does not ignite because it is not critical, but if you put two halves of critical mass together, they become one critical mass that ignites, bla, bla, bla.
It is not very difficult to understand.
Of course it doesn't work. It is pseudo science.
I explain it fully at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
So critical mass and critical geometry are pseudo-science? Really?
Mike
-
My posts smell like roses to me.
You probably think your farts smell like roses also.
Here is something you will never understand . . .
Sorry, military, secret, fission works much, much faster.
You have only two parts!
Each is a subcritical, safe mass of uranium metal.
Then you bring them violently together in a collision!
And then they become one critical, unsafe mass ... that explodes in nano-seconds.
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Only twerps like D. Trump, S. Abe, Kim and Xi believe it.
Good news is that they are all stupid and can only cause local failures, that doesn't concern me.
If you understood the concepts of critical mass, critical geometry, and understood the six factor formula you would know why it releases so much energy. It's obvious you just plain can't understand how these are related.
Mike
But I understand the concepts of critical mass.
A critical mass (kg) ignites by itself in a FLASH and becomes energy (J) according to the nuclear experts
Half a critical mass does not ignite because it is not critical, but if you put two halves of critical mass together, they become one critical mass that ignites, bla, bla, bla.
It is not very difficult to understand.
Of course it doesn't work. It is pseudo science.
I explain it fully at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
So critical mass and critical geometry are pseudo-science? Really?
Mike
Yes.
-
If you understood the concepts of critical mass, critical geometry, and understood the six factor formula you would know why it releases so much energy. It's obvious you just plain can't understand how these are related.
Mike
But I understand the concepts of critical mass.
A critical mass (kg) ignites by itself in a FLASH and becomes energy (J) according to the nuclear experts
Half a critical mass does not ignite because it is not critical, but if you put two halves of critical mass together, they become one critical mass that ignites, bla, bla, bla.
It is not very difficult to understand.
Of course it doesn't work. It is pseudo science.
I explain it fully at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
So critical mass and critical geometry are pseudo-science? Really?
Mike
Yes.
Interesting. You know what they are but you obviously do NOT understand the concepts because critical mass, critical geometry, and the six factor formula and a few of the most basic concepts behind how reactors work.
You are again showing your lack of comprehension of the basics of nuclear reactions. How can you have any credibility when you can’t even get the basics correct.
Mike
-
But I understand the concepts of critical mass.
A critical mass (kg) ignites by itself in a FLASH and becomes energy (J) according to the nuclear experts.
Not quite. Critical mass is the mass required for nuclear material to achieve a self-sustained chain reaction. Peaceful nuclear power plants require critical mass in order to heat the water to generate electricity. The main difference between peaceful nuclear power plants and military atomic bombs is the difference between a controlled chain reaction (control rods) in power plants and an uncontrolled chain reaction in an atomic bomb.
-
But I understand the concepts of critical mass.
A critical mass (kg) ignites by itself in a FLASH and becomes energy (J) according to the nuclear experts.
Not quite. Critical mass is the mass required for nuclear material to achieve a self-sustained chain reaction. Peaceful nuclear power plants require critical mass in order to heat the water to generate electricity. The main difference between peaceful nuclear power plants and military atomic bombs is the difference between a controlled chain reaction (control rods) in power plants and an uncontrolled chain reaction in an atomic bomb.
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
The military, secret, destructive fission that produces a FLASH vaporizing people and wiping out cities in microseconds is just propaganda. Japan 1945 is a clear example. Nobody died in Japan due to nuclear weapons.
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
We are such gullible people to believe this sort of propaganda!
The World's Biggest Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped - Tsar Bomba
Don't you feel so sorry for us?
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
You sound like a twerp. I pay you €1M if you can show I am wrong.
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
You sound like a twerp. I pay you €1M if you can show I am wrong.
We've been through this before. You cannot have fission without sufficient fissionable material for a given volume...critical mass and critical geometry.
You cannot change the physics of how a reactor works to suite your agenda. Learn how reactors work before you make unfounded claims about nuclear weapons.
Mike
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
You sound like a twerp. I pay you €1M if you can show I am wrong.
We've been through this before. You cannot have fission without sufficient fissionable material for a given volume...critical mass and critical geometry.
You cannot change the physics of how a reactor works to suite your agenda. Learn how reactors work before you make unfounded claims about nuclear weapons.
Mike
Yes, yes, according military secrets an a-bomb fission is very simple: You just suddenly combine two bits of 30 kg Uranium 235, so they become 60 kg Uranium 235, which is a critical mass, and it fission/explodes in nano-seconds FLASH. No moderation. Only idiots believe in it. US nuclear submarines are said to carry such a-bombs around, that are delivered by missiles, when required. Only twerps sail on such monsters.
A nuclear power plant on land has on the other hand, say 200 000 kg of yellow cake uranium oxide inside the reactor as fuel and it fissions slowly during several years producing heat, steam, electricty under moderated conditions. No critical mass at all. A nuclear submarine at sea has a small reactor with say 5 000 kg yellow cake as fuel that can produce steam during several years. It cannot explode.
I explain the difference at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
60 kg Uranium 235 in an a-bomb is completely different from 200 000 or 5 000 kg yellow cake in a nuclear reactor.
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938.
How do you moderate a sustained chain reaction in a sub-critical mass of fissile material?
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938.
How do you moderate a sustained chain reaction in a sub-critical mass of fissile material?
Thanks for asking. There are no such things as critical and sub-critical masses of fissile material. Uranium is fissile. In a nuclear power plant reactor you can moderate the fission of the fuel so it slowly produces energy. Just Google about it.
Crazy people invented explosive fission 1939 and corrupt politicians bought the concept 1942 and invented/faked the a-bombs 1945 - explosive, fission FLASH destroying towns/people in nano-seconds. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Google cannot explain it! How to start the FLASH!
Try yourself. FLASH fission is big business. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Don't blame me.
-
If you actually did any research you would find yellow cake is not used as nuclear fuel. Please note this.
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938.
How do you moderate a sustained chain reaction in a sub-critical mass of fissile material?
Thanks for asking. There are no such things as critical and sub-critical masses of fissile material. Uranium is fissile. In a nuclear power plant reactor you can moderate the fission of the fuel so it slowly produces energy. Just Google about it.
Google says that you need a critical mass of fissile material to get a nuclear reactor to produce power.
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938.
How do you moderate a sustained chain reaction in a sub-critical mass of fissile material?
Thanks for asking. There are no such things as critical and sub-critical masses of fissile material. Uranium is fissile. In a nuclear power plant reactor you can moderate the fission of the fuel so it slowly produces energy. Just Google about it.
<snip>
And this is why nobody takes you seriously. Of course, there are such things as critical and sub-critical masses of fissile material. It’s how reactors work.
I’m amazed at how clueless you are about nuclear reactions and how reactors work. No wonder you believe there’s no such things as nuclear weapons. It’s because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938.
How do you moderate a sustained chain reaction in a sub-critical mass of fissile material?
Thanks for asking. There are no such things as critical and sub-critical masses of fissile material. Uranium is fissile. In a nuclear power plant reactor you can moderate the fission of the fuel so it slowly produces energy. Just Google about it.
Google says that you need a critical mass of fissile material to get a nuclear reactor to produce power.
No, only fantasy nuclear weapons need two small, non-critical masses of fissile material to explode when brought together to become one (LOL) critical mass that produce the famous FLASH and mushroom cloud.
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass. Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Only twerps believe in critical masses and FLASHES and mushroom clouds.
Why not study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Albuquerque, NM) and their ridiculous a-bomb museums to laugh at their nonsense.
-
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant.
But moderated fission still requires a critical mass of material so that there can be a sustained chain reaction.
No, moderated fission in a nuclear power plant just requires nuclear fuel that can be fissioned. It was discovered 1938.
How do you moderate a sustained chain reaction in a sub-critical mass of fissile material?
Thanks for asking. There are no such things as critical and sub-critical masses of fissile material. Uranium is fissile. In a nuclear power plant reactor you can moderate the fission of the fuel so it slowly produces energy. Just Google about it.
Google says that you need a critical mass of fissile material to get a nuclear reactor to produce power.
No, only fantasy nuclear weapons need two small, non-critical masses of fissile material to explode when brought together to become one (LOL) critical mass that produce the famous FLASH and mushroom cloud.
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass. Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Only twerps believe in critical masses and FLASHES and mushroom clouds.
Why not study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki (or Albuquerque, NM) and their ridiculous a-bomb museums to laugh at their nonsense.
We've been over this...and over....and over...apparently you are too stupid to understand how reactors and by extension nuclear weapons work. You keep trying though. You'll get it someday.
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
I explain fission and radiation at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
There is only one type of fission and it takes place in a laboratory or nuclear power plant. Fission takes place when neutrons splits atoms into other atoms releasing energy that can be used to heat water to become steam that produces electricity in a steam turbine generator. Some split atoms can cause radiation but most of it is not dangerous.
Military, destructive fission by suddenly compressing two bits of uranium or plutonium together into one critical mass that ignites, radiates and kills children is just a fairy tale to scare people. But it is against a US law to say so.
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
I explain fission and radiation at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
There is only one type of fission and it takes place in a laboratory or nuclear power plant. Fission takes place when neutrons splits atoms into other atoms releasing energy that can be used to heat water to become steam that produces electricity in a steam turbine generator. Some split atoms can cause radiation but most of it is not dangerous.
Military, destructive fission by suddenly compressing two bits of uranium or plutonium together into one critical mass that ignites, radiates and kills children is just a fairy tale to scare people. But it is against a US law to say so.
What you can't seem to comprehend is that both nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons are the exact same reaction. One is controlled and one is not. There's a reason they call them control rods.
Keep trying. Maybe someday you'll figure it out.
Mike
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
I explain fission and radiation at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
There is only one type of fission and it takes place in a laboratory or nuclear power plant. Fission takes place when neutrons splits atoms into other atoms releasing energy that can be used to heat water to become steam that produces electricity in a steam turbine generator. Some split atoms can cause radiation but most of it is not dangerous.
Military, destructive fission by suddenly compressing two bits of uranium or plutonium together into one critical mass that ignites, radiates and kills children is just a fairy tale to scare people. But it is against a US law to say so.
What you can't seem to comprehend is that both nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons are the exact same reaction. One is controlled and one is not. There's a reason they call them control rods.
Keep trying. Maybe someday you'll figure it out.
Mike
Nuclear reactors are OK. They work. I own plenty via EDF.
Nuclear weapons of FLASH mass destruction are just shit, US propaganda.
Plenty people realize this after reading http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
I explain fission and radiation at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
There is only one type of fission and it takes place in a laboratory or nuclear power plant. Fission takes place when neutrons splits atoms into other atoms releasing energy that can be used to heat water to become steam that produces electricity in a steam turbine generator. Some split atoms can cause radiation but most of it is not dangerous.
Military, destructive fission by suddenly compressing two bits of uranium or plutonium together into one critical mass that ignites, radiates and kills children is just a fairy tale to scare people. But it is against a US law to say so.
What you can't seem to comprehend is that both nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons are the exact same reaction. One is controlled and one is not. There's a reason they call them control rods.
Keep trying. Maybe someday you'll figure it out.
Mike
Nuclear reactors are OK. They work. I own plenty via EDF.
Nuclear weapons of FLASH mass destruction are just shit, US propaganda.
Plenty people realize this after reading http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
And yet, you still don't get why nuclear reactors and weapons work exactly the same way. It's just sad.
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
I explain fission and radiation at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
There is only one type of fission and it takes place in a laboratory or nuclear power plant. Fission takes place when neutrons splits atoms into other atoms releasing energy that can be used to heat water to become steam that produces electricity in a steam turbine generator. Some split atoms can cause radiation but most of it is not dangerous.
Military, destructive fission by suddenly compressing two bits of uranium or plutonium together into one critical mass that ignites, radiates and kills children is just a fairy tale to scare people. But it is against a US law to say so.
What you can't seem to comprehend is that both nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons are the exact same reaction. One is controlled and one is not. There's a reason they call them control rods.
Keep trying. Maybe someday you'll figure it out.
Mike
Nuclear reactors are OK. They work. I own plenty via EDF.
Nuclear weapons of FLASH mass destruction are just shit, US propaganda.
Plenty people realize this after reading http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
And yet, you still don't get why nuclear reactors and weapons work exactly the same way. It's just sad.
You really should study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . You have been locked up in a US nuclear sub for four years and you should try to recover from it.
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
I explain fission and radiation at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Why can't you answer those questions here?
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
I explain fission and radiation at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Why can't you answer those questions here?
Why repeat myself? But OK.
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
That high concentrations of solid, fissile metal in a ring or sphere can suddenly explode like TNT is not possible under any circumstances. Only crazy scientists working for corrupt politicians and miltary people invent things like it to scare people. To help them it is illegal to suggest otherwise in the USA! You are sentenced to death, if you do!
In the USSR/East Germany it was different. As I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm a friend of mine helped Stalin to build the USSR fantasy a- and h-bombs 1946/58 with uranium ore from Wismut AG. Wismut AG used slaves to mine the ore, but my friend suggested it was better to pay real salaries to get the ore out from the mines. Higher productivity, you knew! And the slaves were used to be paid for their labour, when Hitler was in charge. Stalin's a-bomb was just a copy of the US a-bomb = total fakery. It was tough times, as my friend used to say. He was very lucky to survive torture to tell me. In the USSR they just killed people disagreeing with Stalin. You know about torture? The US president GWB is a strong supporter of it. He thinks people tells the truth under torture. 60 minutes of water boarding is all that is required. Have you ever been water boarded?
-
In a nuclear power plant fission takes place all the time, no FLASH, no smoke, no critical mass.
Do you agree that power plant fission is the result of a controlled chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on?
Electricity is produced all the time as required by moderating the fission. The nuclear fuel is 100's of tons of uranium oxide that slowly is transformed by fission.
Do you agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission?
I explain fission and radiation at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Why can't you answer those questions here?
Why repeat myself? But OK.
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
I hope he doesn't quote you because then you'd both be wrong. Fission only takes place slowly if it's properly controlled. Thus the reason reactors use control rods. Without those control rods, fission reaction rates will increase in an exponential rate.
That high concentrations of solid, fissile metal in a ring or sphere can suddenly explode like TNT is not possible under any circumstances. Only crazy scientists working for corrupt politicians and miltary people invent things like it to scare people. To help them it is illegal to suggest otherwise in the USA! You are sentenced to death, if you do!
Everything in the paragraph is just plain wrong. Try again.
Mike
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Fast fission reactors don't use a moderator.
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Far fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Far fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
What makes you right and everyone else in the field of nuclear physics wrong?
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Far fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
This is what I do for a living. You're just making shit up for your website. Your claims about moderation are not only wrong but show your complete lack of understanding of how reactors work. You don't even know the basics of reactor operation which is why you don't have a clue how a nuclear weapon works.
If I'm wrong about what moderation is then prove it. Don't send us to your stupid website actually prove it here. I'm betting you won't even try.
Mike
-
But I understand the concepts of critical mass.
A critical mass (kg) ignites by itself in a FLASH and becomes energy (J) according to the nuclear experts.
Not quite. Critical mass is the mass required for nuclear material to achieve a self-sustained chain reaction. Peaceful nuclear power plants require critical mass in order to heat the water to generate electricity. The main difference between peaceful nuclear power plants and military atomic bombs is the difference between a controlled chain reaction (control rods) in power plants and an uncontrolled chain reaction in an atomic bomb.
There is only one type of fission and it must be moderated to, e.g. heat water to produce steam/electricity in a nuclear power plant. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
The military, secret, destructive fission that produces a FLASH vaporizing people and wiping out cities in microseconds is just propaganda. Japan 1945 is a clear example. Nobody died in Japan due to nuclear weapons.
That is some creative propaganda...
(http://cdn8.openculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/16002957/human-shadow-fb.png)
Does this not exist, or did America come in and and lay down a card board cutout and power wash everything else around it?
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Far fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
What makes you right and everyone else in the field of nuclear physics wrong?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Two friends of mine were in the false a-bomb business. One was asked to build a false Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed subject to all info becoming public. The other worked for Wismut AG producing uranium or just nothing for Stalin's false a-bomb. The first told me 1964 to avoid physics as a career - too much politics - and the second told me 2000 how Stalin's thugs almost killed him when he found out about the fakery.
Two other friends of mine were boys at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and later worked in the shipbuilding industry, where we met 1972/6. They indicated that the towns were simply burnt down by napalm exactly like 60 other Japanese towns.
Why do you support the a-bomb fear propaganda? Brain wash?
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Far fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
What makes you right and everyone else in the field of nuclear physics wrong?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Two friends of mine were in the false a-bomb business. One was asked to build a false Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed subject to all info becoming public. The other worked for Wismut AG producing uranium or just nothing for Stalin's false a-bomb. The first told me 1964 to avoid physics as a career - too much politics - and the second told me 2000 how Stalin's thugs almost killed him when he found out about the fakery.
Two other friends of mine were boys at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and later worked in the shipbuilding industry, where we met 1972/6. They indicated that the towns were simply burnt down by napalm exactly like 60 other Japanese towns.
Why do you support the a-bomb fear propaganda? Brain wash?
Why do you support the idea that ships sink? Aren't you happy they don't sink and that the Titanic is just a hoax?
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Far fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
What makes you right and everyone else in the field of nuclear physics wrong?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Two friends of mine were in the false a-bomb business. One was asked to build a false Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed subject to all info becoming public. The other worked for Wismut AG producing uranium or just nothing for Stalin's false a-bomb. The first told me 1964 to avoid physics as a career - too much politics - and the second told me 2000 how Stalin's thugs almost killed him when he found out about the fakery.
Two other friends of mine were boys at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and later worked in the shipbuilding industry, where we met 1972/6. They indicated that the towns were simply burnt down by napalm exactly like 60 other Japanese towns.
Why do you support the a-bomb fear propaganda? Brain wash?
So you're saying that your argument against nuclear physics has nothing to do with nuclear physics? Good to know.
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Far fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
What makes you right and everyone else in the field of nuclear physics wrong?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Two friends of mine were in the false a-bomb business. One was asked to build a false Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed subject to all info becoming public. The other worked for Wismut AG producing uranium or just nothing for Stalin's false a-bomb. The first told me 1964 to avoid physics as a career - too much politics - and the second told me 2000 how Stalin's thugs almost killed him when he found out about the fakery.
Two other friends of mine were boys at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and later worked in the shipbuilding industry, where we met 1972/6. They indicated that the towns were simply burnt down by napalm exactly like 60 other Japanese towns.
Why do you support the a-bomb fear propaganda? Brain wash?
So you're saying that your argument against nuclear physics has nothing to do with nuclear physics? Good to know.
No, my argument is that there is only one type of fission, i.e. the one used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc.
This secret, military, critical mass, FLASH, mushroom cloud, bla, bla, fission is nonsens. Has nothing to do with real nuclear physics.
Only twerps believe in the latter. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Fast fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
What makes you right and everyone else in the field of nuclear physics wrong?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Two friends of mine were in the false a-bomb business. One was asked to build a false Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed subject to all info becoming public. The other worked for Wismut AG producing uranium or just nothing for Stalin's false a-bomb. The first told me 1964 to avoid physics as a career - too much politics - and the second told me 2000 how Stalin's thugs almost killed him when he found out about the fakery.
Two other friends of mine were boys at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and later worked in the shipbuilding industry, where we met 1972/6. They indicated that the towns were simply burnt down by napalm exactly like 60 other Japanese towns.
Why do you support the a-bomb fear propaganda? Brain wash?
So you're saying that your argument against nuclear physics has nothing to do with nuclear physics? Good to know.
No, my argument is that there is only one type of fission, i.e. the one used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc.
This secret, military, critical mass, FLASH, mushroom cloud, bla, bla, fission is nonsens. Has nothing to do with real nuclear physics.
Only twerps believe in the latter. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I knew you would ignore my post just as I said you would. Have the balls back up your comment and prove my comment wrong.
Just to refresh your memory so we don’t have to wait for the stalling post of “what comment are you talking about”. I’m talking about this comment where you said we were wrong about moderation. I said that the moderator does NOT control the reaction rate. Proof of this is that fast fission reactors don’t have a moderator. You said that’s wrong. Prove it or admit you don't know how nuclear reactions work. And, don't send us to your website because it doesn't have any proof for this particular question so don't even go there.
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Fast fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
-
1. Yes, I agree that nuclear power plant fission is the result of a controlled, moderated chain reaction of neutrons splitting atoms releasing more neutrons to split more atoms and so on. It is what fission is all about. You can quote me!
Yes, I agree that different concentrations of fissile material has an effect on the rate of fission. Actually only certain material, i.e. atoms, can fission at all, and it always takes place at a slow rate in a laboratory or power plant. You can quote me again.
How do you suppose that the fission is kept at a slow rate?
It is moderated. Study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm !
Fission is only possible if you keep it a a slow rate.
Only twerps think you can speed it up.
You sound like one. Why do you carry on? Do you have a name? Style? Or are you CIA?
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Fast fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
What makes you right and everyone else in the field of nuclear physics wrong?
I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Two friends of mine were in the false a-bomb business. One was asked to build a false Swedish a-bomb 1945 and agreed subject to all info becoming public. The other worked for Wismut AG producing uranium or just nothing for Stalin's false a-bomb. The first told me 1964 to avoid physics as a career - too much politics - and the second told me 2000 how Stalin's thugs almost killed him when he found out about the fakery.
Two other friends of mine were boys at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and later worked in the shipbuilding industry, where we met 1972/6. They indicated that the towns were simply burnt down by napalm exactly like 60 other Japanese towns.
Why do you support the a-bomb fear propaganda? Brain wash?
So you're saying that your argument against nuclear physics has nothing to do with nuclear physics? Good to know.
No, my argument is that there is only one type of fission, i.e. the one used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc.
This secret, military, critical mass, FLASH, mushroom cloud, bla, bla, fission is nonsens. Has nothing to do with real nuclear physics.
Only twerps believe in the latter. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I knew you would ignore my post just as I said you would. Have the balls back up your comment and prove my comment wrong.
Just to refresh your memory so we don’t have to wait for the stalling post of “what comment are you talking about”. I’m talking about this comment where you said we were wrong about moderation. I said that the moderator does NOT control the reaction rate. Proof of this is that fast fission reactors don’t have a moderator. You said that’s wrong. Prove it or admit you don't know how nuclear reactions work. And, don't send us to your website because it doesn't have any proof for this particular question so don't even go there.
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Fast fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.
I know how nuclear reactors work. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Study it again!
I also know that nuclear weapons fission does not work.
Reason? Two solid bits of non-critical masses of fissionable matter cannot suddenly ignite and explode, when you compress them together. No FLASH, no mushroom cloud, no people vaporized!
Only a sick twerp like you think so. I assume you were brain washed when locked up in a nuclear sub for many years.
-
I knew you would ignore my post just as I said you would. Have the balls back up your comment and prove my comment wrong.
Just to refresh your memory so we don’t have to wait for the stalling post of “what comment are you talking about”. I’m talking about this comment where you said we were wrong about moderation. I said that the moderator does NOT control the reaction rate. Proof of this is that fast fission reactors don’t have a moderator. You said that’s wrong. Prove it or admit you don't know how nuclear reactions work. And, don't send us to your website because it doesn't have any proof for this particular question so don't even go there.
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Fast fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.
I know how nuclear reactors work. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Study it again!
I also know that nuclear weapons fission does not work.
Reason? Two solid bits of non-critical masses of fissionable matter cannot suddenly ignite and explode, when you compress them together. No FLASH, no mushroom cloud, no people vaporized!
Only a sick twerp like you think so. I assume you were brain washed when locked up in a nuclear sub for many years.
The very fact that you think the moderator controls the reaction rate is proof you don’t know how reactors and weapons work.
Let me make this clear for you. I said the moderator does NOT control the reaction rate and the control rods do. You said I was wrong. Prove it. Tell us how the moderator controls the reaction rate and what the control rods do?
I bet my freakin’ paycheck that you can’t provide the correct answer to this question.
Mike
-
I knew you would ignore my post just as I said you would. Have the balls back up your comment and prove my comment wrong.
Just to refresh your memory so we don’t have to wait for the stalling post of “what comment are you talking about”. I’m talking about this comment where you said we were wrong about moderation. I said that the moderator does NOT control the reaction rate. Proof of this is that fast fission reactors don’t have a moderator. You said that’s wrong. Prove it or admit you don't know how nuclear reactions work. And, don't send us to your website because it doesn't have any proof for this particular question so don't even go there.
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Fast fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.
I know how nuclear reactors work. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Study it again!
I also know that nuclear weapons fission does not work.
Reason? Two solid bits of non-critical masses of fissionable matter cannot suddenly ignite and explode, when you compress them together. No FLASH, no mushroom cloud, no people vaporized!
Only a sick twerp like you think so. I assume you were brain washed when locked up in a nuclear sub for many years.
The very fact that you think the moderator controls the reaction rate is proof you don’t know how reactors and weapons work.
Let me make this clear for you. I said the moderator does NOT control the reaction rate and the control rods do. You said I was wrong. Prove it. Tell us how the moderator controls the reaction rate and what the control rods do?
I bet my freakin’ paycheck that you can’t provide the correct answer to this question.
Mike
I describe it at my web site.
Water is the moderator. It slows down the neutrons in a nuclear power plant. if not the neutrons would just fly away.
The control rods are used to adjust the reaction/fission rate, so the whole thing doesn't melt/stop. Pretty basic!
Nuclear weapons have neither water as moderator nor control rods to adjust the reaction. Nuclear weapons are just nonsense.
-
I knew you would ignore my post just as I said you would. Have the balls back up your comment and prove my comment wrong.
Just to refresh your memory so we don’t have to wait for the stalling post of “what comment are you talking about”. I’m talking about this comment where you said we were wrong about moderation. I said that the moderator does NOT control the reaction rate. Proof of this is that fast fission reactors don’t have a moderator. You said that’s wrong. Prove it or admit you don't know how nuclear reactions work. And, don't send us to your website because it doesn't have any proof for this particular question so don't even go there.
Moderation does NOT control the reaction rate. Moderation reduces neutron energy levels so the can be captured by fuel atoms. Fast fission reactors don't use a moderator.
You and markjo are wrong ... as usual. You spent too much time in a US nuclear submarine ... for sure.
Thanks for refreshing my memory.
I know how nuclear reactors work. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . Study it again!
I also know that nuclear weapons fission does not work.
Reason? Two solid bits of non-critical masses of fissionable matter cannot suddenly ignite and explode, when you compress them together. No FLASH, no mushroom cloud, no people vaporized!
Only a sick twerp like you think so. I assume you were brain washed when locked up in a nuclear sub for many years.
The very fact that you think the moderator controls the reaction rate is proof you don’t know how reactors and weapons work.
Let me make this clear for you. I said the moderator does NOT control the reaction rate and the control rods do. You said I was wrong. Prove it. Tell us how the moderator controls the reaction rate and what the control rods do?
I bet my freakin’ paycheck that you can’t provide the correct answer to this question.
Mike
But he already proved it Mike. He told you it was impossible. What more proof do you need?
-
No, my argument is that there is only one type of fission, i.e. the one used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc.
And your argument is wrong. You know good and well that there are two types of fission used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc. There is the moderated thermal fission using slow neutrons that you keep going on about, and there is fast fission using unmoderated fast neutrons in breeder reactors, etc. You have admitted several times that these fast neutron reactors exist and are real, so I don't know why you keep ignoring them. Perhaps you're so senile that you keep forgetting about them.
-
I describe it at my web site.
Water is the moderator. It slows down the neutrons in a nuclear power plant. if not the neutrons would just fly away.
The control rods are used to adjust the reaction/fission rate, so the whole thing doesn't melt/stop. Pretty basic!
Nuclear weapons have neither water as moderator nor control rods to adjust the reaction. Nuclear weapons are just nonsense.
Well of course nuclear weapons have neither a moderator nor control rods. The weapons uses fissile material that requires fast neutrons so no need for a moderator. It doesn’t need control rods because we’re not interested in controlling the reaction. I wonder. What would happen if fissile material had plenty of neutrons with not control over reaction rates? Hmmmm....
BTW, you’ve just contradicted yourself. You said we were wrong about what the moderator does and now you agree with us. If it's so basic why did you say we were wrong? Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Mike
-
No, my argument is that there is only one type of fission, i.e. the one used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc.
And your argument is wrong. You know good and well that there are two types of fission used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc. There is the moderated thermal fission using slow neutrons that you keep going on about, and there is fast fission using unmoderated fast neutrons in breeder reactors, etc. You have admitted several times that these fast neutron reactors exist and are real, so I don't know why you keep ignoring them. Perhaps you're so senile that you keep forgetting about them.
He already admitted that he was wrong and fast fission exists so he knows. He just ignores it and pretends it doesn’t exist because it shoots down his whole claim that nuclear weapons are fake.
He just keeps lying and hopes nobody notices.
Mike
-
hewia is scepit's alt account
-
No, my argument is that there is only one type of fission, i.e. the one used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc.
And your argument is wrong. You know good and well that there are two types of fission used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc. There is the moderated thermal fission using slow neutrons that you keep going on about, and there is fast fission using unmoderated fast neutrons in breeder reactors, etc. You have admitted several times that these fast neutron reactors exist and are real, so I don't know why you keep ignoring them. Perhaps you're so senile that you keep forgetting about them.
The question remains what type of fission is used in an atomic bomb and how to start/ignite it. Suddenly knocking two metal pieces together with a neutron in between, so the whole thing becomes a FLASH in nano-seconds? ROTFL. And why is the mushroom cloud BLACK?
And how to ignite a hydrogene bomb? By igniting a small atomic bomb?
Everyone knows how to start, operate and stop a peaceful nuclear power plant. But how to ignite a nuclear weapon? Nobody knows! It is secret! National security, you know!
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
-
No, my argument is that there is only one type of fission, i.e. the one used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc.
And your argument is wrong. You know good and well that there are two types of fission used in civil, nuclear power plants, etc. There is the moderated thermal fission using slow neutrons that you keep going on about, and there is fast fission using unmoderated fast neutrons in breeder reactors, etc. You have admitted several times that these fast neutron reactors exist and are real, so I don't know why you keep ignoring them. Perhaps you're so senile that you keep forgetting about them.
The question remains what type of fission is used in an atomic bomb...
Fast neutron fission like the kind used in fast neutron breeder reactors. The main difference is that the fission rate is not controlled (for, hopefully, obvious reasons).
... and how to start/ignite it. Suddenly knocking two metal pieces together with a neutron in between, so the whole thing becomes a FLASH in nano-seconds?
That's one way for some fissile materials. For others, implosion works nicely.
ROTFL. And why is the mushroom cloud BLACK?
Actually, it usually gray. What color do you think that mushroom cloud should be?
And how to ignite a hydrogene bomb? By igniting a small atomic bomb?
How else would you propose to generate enough heat and pressure to fuse Hydrogen?
Everyone knows how to start, operate and stop a peaceful nuclear power plant. But how to ignite a nuclear weapon? Nobody knows! It is secret! National security, you know!
People with appropriate security clearance know. Most everyone else is probably better off not knowing.
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
-
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
Yes, twerps think so. I really feel sorry for you.
-
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
Yes, twerps think so. I really feel sorry for you.
0.01% of 1,000,000 tons of ore is still 100 tons of Uranium.
By the way, the early Russian atomic bombs were implosion devices that use Plutonium 239, which is made relatively easily in breeder reactors from the more common Uranium 238 isotope.
-
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
Yes, twerps think so. I really feel sorry for you.
0.01% of 1,000,000 tons of ore is still 100 tons of Uranium.
By the way, the early Russian atomic bombs were implosion devices that use Plutonium 239, which is made relatively easily in breeder reactors from the more common Uranium 238 isotope.
ROTFL! No breeder reactors in USSR 1945/9. No nothing! You sound like a fascist converted to stalinism then. But don't worry. Adolf and Stalin are dead since long.
-
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
Yes, twerps think so. I really feel sorry for you.
0.01% of 1,000,000 tons of ore is still 100 tons of Uranium.
By the way, the early Russian atomic bombs were implosion devices that use Plutonium 239, which is made relatively easily in breeder reactors from the more common Uranium 238 isotope.
ROTFL! No breeder reactors in USSR 1945/9. No nothing! You sound like a fascist converted to stalinism then. But don't worry. Adolf and Stalin are dead since long.
And you sound like a senile old man who makes up stories as he goes along.
The Mayak Production Association (Russian: Производственное объединение «Маяк», from Маяк 'lighthouse') is one of the biggest nuclear facilities in the Russian Federation, housing plutonium production reactors and a reprocessing plant. The closest city is Ozyorsk.
The Mayak plant was built between 1945–48, in a great hurry and in total secrecy as part of the Soviet Union's atomic bomb project. Five nuclear reactors were built to make, refine, and machine plutonium for weapons.
Plutonium for weapons was produced at three sites - the Mayak Production Association in Ozersk (formerly Chelyabinsk-65), the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk (Tomsk-7), and the Mining and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26). The first plutonium production reactor, Reactor A at Mayak, began operation in June 1948. The last production reactor, ADE-2 in Zheleznogorsk, was shut down in April 2010.
-
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
Yes, twerps think so. I really feel sorry for you.
0.01% of 1,000,000 tons of ore is still 100 tons of Uranium.
By the way, the early Russian atomic bombs were implosion devices that use Plutonium 239, which is made relatively easily in breeder reactors from the more common Uranium 238 isotope.
ROTFL! No breeder reactors in USSR 1945/9. No nothing! You sound like a fascist converted to stalinism then. But don't worry. Adolf and Stalin are dead since long.
And you sound like a senile old man who makes up stories as he goes along.
The Mayak Production Association (Russian: Производственное объединение «Маяк», from Маяк 'lighthouse') is one of the biggest nuclear facilities in the Russian Federation, housing plutonium production reactors and a reprocessing plant. The closest city is Ozyorsk.
The Mayak plant was built between 1945–48, in a great hurry and in total secrecy as part of the Soviet Union's atomic bomb project. Five nuclear reactors were built to make, refine, and machine plutonium for weapons.
Plutonium for weapons was produced at three sites - the Mayak Production Association in Ozersk (formerly Chelyabinsk-65), the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk (Tomsk-7), and the Mining and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26). The first plutonium production reactor, Reactor A at Mayak, began operation in June 1948. The last production reactor, ADE-2 in Zheleznogorsk, was shut down in April 2010.
I mention the false Mayak plant at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#28 . It was built as you suggest 1945/8 to make a false Stalin a-bomb with false uranium from Wismut AG, East Germany using soviet slave labour, that you are so fond of.
Why do you love slave labour?
-
Why do you love slave labour?
Why won't you agree with me that boats don't sink? Why do you love the idea of people drowning?
-
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
Yes, twerps think so. I really feel sorry for you.
0.01% of 1,000,000 tons of ore is still 100 tons of Uranium.
By the way, the early Russian atomic bombs were implosion devices that use Plutonium 239, which is made relatively easily in breeder reactors from the more common Uranium 238 isotope.
ROTFL! No breeder reactors in USSR 1945/9. No nothing! You sound like a fascist converted to stalinism then. But don't worry. Adolf and Stalin are dead since long.
And you sound like a senile old man who makes up stories as he goes along.
The Mayak Production Association (Russian: Производственное объединение «Маяк», from Маяк 'lighthouse') is one of the biggest nuclear facilities in the Russian Federation, housing plutonium production reactors and a reprocessing plant. The closest city is Ozyorsk.
The Mayak plant was built between 1945–48, in a great hurry and in total secrecy as part of the Soviet Union's atomic bomb project. Five nuclear reactors were built to make, refine, and machine plutonium for weapons.
Plutonium for weapons was produced at three sites - the Mayak Production Association in Ozersk (formerly Chelyabinsk-65), the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk (Tomsk-7), and the Mining and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26). The first plutonium production reactor, Reactor A at Mayak, began operation in June 1948. The last production reactor, ADE-2 in Zheleznogorsk, was shut down in April 2010.
I mention the false Mayak plant at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#28 . It was built as you suggest 1945/8 to make a false Stalin a-bomb with false uranium from Wismut AG, East Germany using soviet slave labour, that you are so fond of.
Why do you love slave labour?
You lie so much. First you say there was no such reactor now you say you have it on your website. You’ve told so many lies you can’t keep track of them anymore. You’re pathetic.
Mike
-
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
Yes, twerps think so. I really feel sorry for you.
0.01% of 1,000,000 tons of ore is still 100 tons of Uranium.
By the way, the early Russian atomic bombs were implosion devices that use Plutonium 239, which is made relatively easily in breeder reactors from the more common Uranium 238 isotope.
ROTFL! No breeder reactors in USSR 1945/9. No nothing! You sound like a fascist converted to stalinism then. But don't worry. Adolf and Stalin are dead since long.
And you sound like a senile old man who makes up stories as he goes along.
The Mayak Production Association (Russian: Производственное объединение «Маяк», from Маяк 'lighthouse') is one of the biggest nuclear facilities in the Russian Federation, housing plutonium production reactors and a reprocessing plant. The closest city is Ozyorsk.
The Mayak plant was built between 1945–48, in a great hurry and in total secrecy as part of the Soviet Union's atomic bomb project. Five nuclear reactors were built to make, refine, and machine plutonium for weapons.
Plutonium for weapons was produced at three sites - the Mayak Production Association in Ozersk (formerly Chelyabinsk-65), the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk (Tomsk-7), and the Mining and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26). The first plutonium production reactor, Reactor A at Mayak, began operation in June 1948. The last production reactor, ADE-2 in Zheleznogorsk, was shut down in April 2010.
I mention the false Mayak plant at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#28 . It was built as you suggest 1945/8 to make a false Stalin a-bomb with false uranium from Wismut AG, East Germany using soviet slave labour, that you are so fond of.
Why do you love slave labour?
You lie so much. First you say there was no such reactor now you say you have it on your website. You’ve told so many lies you can’t keep track of them anymore. You’re pathetic.
Mike
You really should study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The Mayak plant was just a Gulag slave labour camp. No nuclear research was ever done at Mayek.
-
And how on earth could Stalin build his a-bombs 1945/9 and h-bombs with uranium from Wismut AG, DDR? There was no uranium in DDR. Only pechblende with 0.01% uranium in it!
I think that you'd be surprised how much Uranium you can get with virtually unlimited slave labor and several million tons of low grade ore.
Yes, twerps think so. I really feel sorry for you.
0.01% of 1,000,000 tons of ore is still 100 tons of Uranium.
By the way, the early Russian atomic bombs were implosion devices that use Plutonium 239, which is made relatively easily in breeder reactors from the more common Uranium 238 isotope.
ROTFL! No breeder reactors in USSR 1945/9. No nothing! You sound like a fascist converted to stalinism then. But don't worry. Adolf and Stalin are dead since long.
And you sound like a senile old man who makes up stories as he goes along.
The Mayak Production Association (Russian: Производственное объединение «Маяк», from Маяк 'lighthouse') is one of the biggest nuclear facilities in the Russian Federation, housing plutonium production reactors and a reprocessing plant. The closest city is Ozyorsk.
The Mayak plant was built between 1945–48, in a great hurry and in total secrecy as part of the Soviet Union's atomic bomb project. Five nuclear reactors were built to make, refine, and machine plutonium for weapons.
Plutonium for weapons was produced at three sites - the Mayak Production Association in Ozersk (formerly Chelyabinsk-65), the Siberian Chemical Combine in Seversk (Tomsk-7), and the Mining and Chemical Combine in Zheleznogorsk (Krasnoyarsk-26). The first plutonium production reactor, Reactor A at Mayak, began operation in June 1948. The last production reactor, ADE-2 in Zheleznogorsk, was shut down in April 2010.
I mention the false Mayak plant at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#28 . It was built as you suggest 1945/8 to make a false Stalin a-bomb with false uranium from Wismut AG, East Germany using soviet slave labour, that you are so fond of.
Why do you love slave labour?
You lie so much. First you say there was no such reactor now you say you have it on your website. You’ve told so many lies you can’t keep track of them anymore. You’re pathetic.
Mike
You really should study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The Mayak plant was just a Gulag slave labour camp. No nuclear research was ever done at Mayek.
I read it and it's crap.
-
The Stalin Mayak nuclear weapons research camp hidden in Siberia was similar to the Roosevelt/Einstein Los Alamos' camp up at the end of the road in the New Mexico mountains. The latter was just a 3* hotel where 'scientists' could secretly compose their 'fictions' in the evenings, while skiing in the winter days or camping in summer, for a couple of years, while at Mayak the work was just to copy/paste Los Alamos' work.
Nuclear weapons science is just a holiday for the people involved. The problem remains how to ignite it. This 'critical' mass and 'mushroom' cloud nonsense do not convince anyone today, except twerps of all kinds.
-
The only reason I scroll this thread is to see if Mike posted... I get hopeful, and then I get sad... Mike, Dude... Bail...
-
The only reason I scroll this thread is to see if Mike posted... I get hopeful, and then I get sad... Mike, Dude... Bail...
Why does it matter so much to you if I'm posting?
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
No, I stay.
Hiroshima was never destroyed by an atomic bomb August 6, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed by napalm carpet bombing and it took place in June/July 1945. Reason is that military, secret, FLASH mushroom cloud fission doesn't work.
Only normal fission used in nuclear power plants work.
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
No, I stay.
Hiroshima was never destroyed by an atomic bomb August 6, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed by napalm carpet bombing and it took place in June/July 1945. Reason is that military, secret, FLASH mushroom cloud fission doesn't work.
Only normal fission used in nuclear power plants work.
It is true that there is considerable difficulty in achieving critical mass without a sub-critical reaction blowing the pieces apart.
This is especially true of the Plutonium-239 weapons (as was Fat Man) where traces of Plutonium-240 can initiate a premature fission.
Little Boy simply had two sub-critical pieces of uranium-235 in a gun-barrel type structure, along with an igniter etc, etc.
It had about 63.5 kg of U-235 of which about 1.38% actually fissioned - very poor efficiency.
Fat Man, on the other hand, had the Pu-239 surrounded by 5,300 lbs of high explosives and a
complex arrangement of "lenses" to focus the shock wave. The plutonium core was compressed
to about half its normal volume around a polonium-beryllium initiator.
As a result, it needed only about 6.2 kg of Pu-239, of which about 1 kg fissioned.
I guess this is fortunate, because it means that any Tom, Dick or Harry (like suseuser, you or I) could not build a successful bomb, though they might manage a very dirty low-yield one.
But your claim is total rubbish, just because you or I don't have the brains to understand how something works, does not make it impossible.
In any case napalm cannot under any circumstances cause these infra-red radiation shadows:(http://nowiknow.com/wp-content/uploads/hiroshima_shadow_2.png)
You might read more in: The shadows of Hiroshima: Haunting imprints of people killed by the blast (https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/news/155844/the-shadows-of-hiroshima-haunting-imprints-of-people-killed-by-the-blast/)
It's only a media release, but that information is available from plenty of sources.
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
I think that building an efficient nuclear weapon is not as simple as you make out, though a "dirty bomb" with a very poor yield might be possible.
There is much more to a Uranium or Plutonium bomb than just jamming a couple of hunks of fissile material together.
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
No, I stay.
Hiroshima was never destroyed by an atomic bomb August 6, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed by napalm carpet bombing and it took place in June/July 1945. Reason is that military, secret, FLASH mushroom cloud fission doesn't work.
Only normal fission used in nuclear power plants work.
You can't prove any of that. We've already established you don't know shit about how nuclear reactions work so you have zero credibility there. ..so you're wrong.
Mike
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
No, I stay.
Hiroshima was never destroyed by an atomic bomb August 6, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed by napalm carpet bombing and it took place in June/July 1945. Reason is that military, secret, FLASH mushroom cloud fission doesn't work.
Only normal fission used in nuclear power plants work.
You can't prove any of that. We've already established you don't know shit about how nuclear reactions work so you have zero credibility there. ..so you're wrong.
Mike
It is very easy to prove that nuclear weapons do not work. I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Examples:
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret. MS didn't recommend a nuclear weapons design career for me 1964!
WM worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 producing uranium so that Stalin could build his atomic bomb. A Stalin atomic bomb exploded already 1949 but ... Wismut AG hadn't produced any uranium then ... or ever. The Stalin bomb was just propaganda. If you didn't agree the Stalin secret police would ensure you did. WM told me about it 1999.
-
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret.
Why do you want terrorists to know how to build atomic bombs?
-
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret.
Why do you want terrorists to know how to build atomic bombs?
Because he's actually a terrorist. That's why he is always saying no terrorists attacked the towers. He is constantly trying to convince people it wasn't terrorists.
Exactly what a terrorist and their sympathizers would say.
-
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret.
Why do you want terrorists to know how to build atomic bombs?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? Only stoopid tewwowist use nukes.
-
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret.
Why do you want terrorists to know how to build atomic bombs?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? Only stoopid tewwowist use nukes.
I hope to God that terrorists never use nukes, and so should you.
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
No, I stay.
Hiroshima was never destroyed by an atomic bomb August 6, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed by napalm carpet bombing and it took place in June/July 1945. Reason is that military, secret, FLASH mushroom cloud fission doesn't work.
Only normal fission used in nuclear power plants work.
You can't prove any of that. We've already established you don't know shit about how nuclear reactions work so you have zero credibility there. ..so you're wrong.
Mike
It is very easy to prove that nuclear weapons do not work. I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Examples:
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret. MS didn't recommend a nuclear weapons design career for me 1964!
WM worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 producing uranium so that Stalin could build his atomic bomb. A Stalin atomic bomb exploded already 1949 but ... Wismut AG hadn't produced any uranium then ... or ever. The Stalin bomb was just propaganda. If you didn't agree the Stalin secret police would ensure you did. WM told me about it 1999.
I've read you site...as I've said before. You say you know how a reactor works and yet don't have a clue how a nuclear weapon works. You're wrong and everyone knows it.
-
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret.
Why do you want terrorists to know how to build atomic bombs?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? Only stoopid tewwowist use nukes.
I hope to God that terrorists never use nukes, and so should you.
I don't believe in God but I know that nukes do not work. Thanks for not asking a question.
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
No, I stay.
Hiroshima was never destroyed by an atomic bomb August 6, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed by napalm carpet bombing and it took place in June/July 1945. Reason is that military, secret, FLASH mushroom cloud fission doesn't work.
Only normal fission used in nuclear power plants work.
You can't prove any of that. We've already established you don't know shit about how nuclear reactions work so you have zero credibility there. ..so you're wrong.
Mike
It is very easy to prove that nuclear weapons do not work. I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Examples:
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret. MS didn't recommend a nuclear weapons design career for me 1964!
WM worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 producing uranium so that Stalin could build his atomic bomb. A Stalin atomic bomb exploded already 1949 but ... Wismut AG hadn't produced any uranium then ... or ever. The Stalin bomb was just propaganda. If you didn't agree the Stalin secret police would ensure you did. WM told me about it 1999.
I've read you site...as I've said before. You say you know how a reactor works and yet don't have a clue how a nuclear weapon works. You're wrong and everyone knows it.
Thanks for reading my site. Yes, I know how nuclear reactors work. It is fission!
Nuclear weapons of mass destruction are just stupid, military propaganda. Military FLASH fission does not exist.
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
No, I stay.
Hiroshima was never destroyed by an atomic bomb August 6, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed by napalm carpet bombing and it took place in June/July 1945. Reason is that military, secret, FLASH mushroom cloud fission doesn't work.
Only normal fission used in nuclear power plants work.
You can't prove any of that. We've already established you don't know shit about how nuclear reactions work so you have zero credibility there. ..so you're wrong.
Mike
It is very easy to prove that nuclear weapons do not work. I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Examples:
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret. MS didn't recommend a nuclear weapons design career for me 1964!
WM worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 producing uranium so that Stalin could build his atomic bomb. A Stalin atomic bomb exploded already 1949 but ... Wismut AG hadn't produced any uranium then ... or ever. The Stalin bomb was just propaganda. If you didn't agree the Stalin secret police would ensure you did. WM told me about it 1999.
I've read you site...as I've said before. You say you know how a reactor works and yet don't have a clue how a nuclear weapon works. You're wrong and everyone knows it.
Thanks for reading my site. Yes, I know how nuclear reactors work. It is fission!
Nuclear weapons of mass destruction are just stupid, military propaganda. Military FLASH fission does not exist.
So you've said but you're wrong so nobody cares.
-
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret.
Why do you want terrorists to know how to build atomic bombs?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? Only stoopid tewwowist use nukes.
I hope to God that terrorists never use nukes, and so should you.
I don't believe in God but I know that nukes do not work. Thanks for not asking a question.
Heiwa, the Dunning Kruger poster child.
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
Try this for
IS Nuclear Power Exaggerated?
(https://media.definition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RPFH_BlindChildAtomicBomb.jpg)
This startling and heartbreaking image shows a young girl who survived
but was blinded by the atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan,
on Aug. 6, 1945. |
Run away, Heiwa, and never show your face here again!
No, I stay.
Hiroshima was never destroyed by an atomic bomb August 6, 1945. Hiroshima was destroyed by napalm carpet bombing and it took place in June/July 1945. Reason is that military, secret, FLASH mushroom cloud fission doesn't work.
Only normal fission used in nuclear power plants work.
You can't prove any of that. We've already established you don't know shit about how nuclear reactions work so you have zero credibility there. ..so you're wrong.
Mike
It is very easy to prove that nuclear weapons do not work. I do it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Examples:
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret. MS didn't recommend a nuclear weapons design career for me 1964!
WM worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 producing uranium so that Stalin could build his atomic bomb. A Stalin atomic bomb exploded already 1949 but ... Wismut AG hadn't produced any uranium then ... or ever. The Stalin bomb was just propaganda. If you didn't agree the Stalin secret police would ensure you did. WM told me about it 1999.
I've read you site...as I've said before. You say you know how a reactor works and yet don't have a clue how a nuclear weapon works. You're wrong and everyone knows it.
Thanks for reading my site. Yes, I know how nuclear reactors work. It is fission!
Nuclear weapons of mass destruction are just stupid, military propaganda. Military FLASH fission does not exist.
So you've said but you're wrong so nobody cares.
You seem to care. Maybe you are brain damaged after four years in a nuclear submarine?
-
Yes, I know how nuclear reactors work. It is fission!
Nuclear weapons of mass destruction are just stupid, military propaganda. Military FLASH fission does not exist.
Yes, I totally agree that:Nuclear weapons of mass destruction are just stupid,
and you are as just stupid to deny their existence against such masive evidence.
But then “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.”
― Albert Einstein
Some people seem to insist on proving Einstein correct!
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
I think that building an efficient nuclear weapon is not as simple as you make out, though a "dirty bomb" with a very poor yield might be possible.
There is much more to a Uranium or Plutonium bomb than just jamming a couple of hunks of fissile material together.
I won’t derail the topic. Sure it’s more than throwing some fissionable material together. It takes a whole lot of uranium and you would be an idiot to attempt it. If you study the history of the Manhattan Project. One of the most difficult parts of the program was securing the material. And most of that 23 billion dollars (in today’s currency) went to getting the material. Anyway this nothing to do with the subject.
-
I scanned through the posts. 117 pages. Yikes! Any time I see words like, lie, scam, and conspiracy it always makes me wonder about the validity of the source. It then becomes a matter of speculation on the part of the conspiracy theorist. You no longer need facts. And why does everyone seem to think that building a nuke is particularly difficult? It’s not cutting edge technology. The hard part is getting the uranium.
I think that building an efficient nuclear weapon is not as simple as you make out, though a "dirty bomb" with a very poor yield might be possible.
There is much more to a Uranium or Plutonium bomb than just jamming a couple of hunks of fissile material together.
I won’t derail the topic. Sure it’s more than throwing some fissionable material together. It takes a whole lot of uranium and you would be an idiot to attempt it. If you study the history of the Manhattan Project. One of the most difficult parts of the program was securing the material. And most of that 23 billion dollars (in today’s currency) went to getting the material. Anyway this nothing to do with the subject.
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
-
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
Just out of curiosity, where did Russia get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear reactors? Or are Russian peaceful nuclear reactors a hoax too?
-
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
Just out of curiosity, where did Russia get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear reactors? Or are Russian peaceful nuclear reactors a hoax too?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? The USSR peaceful, nuclear power plants were all built in the 1970/80's using Uranium from Kazakhstan. USSR had earlier built, small 'research' reactors in secret, military locations but how real they were is not clear to me. They also built the first nuclear powered ice breaker. A friend of mine was working on it adjusting the reactor for more power. Anyway, Wismut AG did not provide any Uranium ore to Stalin so that Stalin could ignite his bomb 1949. It was just propagaganda.
-
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
Just out of curiosity, where did Russia get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear reactors? Or are Russian peaceful nuclear reactors a hoax too?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? The USSR peaceful, nuclear power plants were all built in the 1970/80's using Uranium from Kazakhstan. USSR had earlier built, small 'research' reactors in secret, military locations but how real they were is not clear to me. They also built the first nuclear powered ice breaker. A friend of mine was working on it adjusting the reactor for more power. Anyway, Wismut AG did not provide any Uranium ore to Stalin so that Stalin could ignite his bomb 1949. It was just propagaganda.
The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was the worlds first nuclear power plant. It was a built in 1954 and ran for 48 years. It was a propaganda coup for the Soviets and they made sure everyone knew it. In the early 1960s they built several commercial power plants that ran for twenty plus years. Not to mention they continued to build plants through the '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s with the latest being built in 2011 and have the most operating commercial plants of any country.
Once again you provide us with a stellar example or your shoddy research skills.
Mike
-
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
Just out of curiosity, where did Russia get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear reactors? Or are Russian peaceful nuclear reactors a hoax too?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? The USSR peaceful, nuclear power plants were all built in the 1970/80's using Uranium from Kazakhstan. USSR had earlier built, small 'research' reactors in secret, military locations but how real they were is not clear to me. They also built the first nuclear powered ice breaker. A friend of mine was working on it adjusting the reactor for more power. Anyway, Wismut AG did not provide any Uranium ore to Stalin so that Stalin could ignite his bomb 1949. It was just propagaganda.
The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was the worlds first nuclear power plant. It was a built in 1954 and ran for 48 years. It was a propaganda coup for the Soviets and they made sure everyone knew it. In the early 1960s they built several commercial power plants that ran for twenty plus years. Not to mention they continued to build plants through the '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s with the latest being built in 2011 and have the most operating commercial plants of any country.
Once again you provide us with a stellar example or your shoddy research skills.
Mike
Hm, but where did the uranium come from, if this Obnisk plant ever existed? Wismut AG? Wismut AG was a GULAG slave labour camp at the start. And then it became an East German company falsifying everything it did. Sad story.
And please. USSR stopped to exist 1992 and stopped building nuclear power plants then. But the care takers continued the nuclear weapons hoax. Why? It does not cost them a kopek!
-
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
Just out of curiosity, where did Russia get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear reactors? Or are Russian peaceful nuclear reactors a hoax too?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? The USSR peaceful, nuclear power plants were all built in the 1970/80's using Uranium from Kazakhstan. USSR had earlier built, small 'research' reactors in secret, military locations but how real they were is not clear to me. They also built the first nuclear powered ice breaker. A friend of mine was working on it adjusting the reactor for more power. Anyway, Wismut AG did not provide any Uranium ore to Stalin so that Stalin could ignite his bomb 1949. It was just propagaganda.
The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was the worlds first nuclear power plant. It was a built in 1954 and ran for 48 years. It was a propaganda coup for the Soviets and they made sure everyone knew it. In the early 1960s they built several commercial power plants that ran for twenty plus years. Not to mention they continued to build plants through the '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s with the latest being built in 2011 and have the most operating commercial plants of any country.
Once again you provide us with a stellar example or your shoddy research skills.
Mike
Hm, but where did the uranium come from, if this Obnisk plant ever existed? Wismut AG? Wismut AG was a GULAG slave labour camp at the start. And then it became an East German company falsifying everything it did. Sad story.
And please. USSR stopped to exist 1992 and stopped building nuclear power plants then. But the care takers continued the nuclear weapons hoax. Why? It does not cost them a kopek!
What does any of this have to do with your shoddy research and the fact that you were wrong yet again? Poor attempt at misdirection.
Mike
-
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
Just out of curiosity, where did Russia get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear reactors? Or are Russian peaceful nuclear reactors a hoax too?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? The USSR peaceful, nuclear power plants were all built in the 1970/80's using Uranium from Kazakhstan. USSR had earlier built, small 'research' reactors in secret, military locations but how real they were is not clear to me. They also built the first nuclear powered ice breaker. A friend of mine was working on it adjusting the reactor for more power. Anyway, Wismut AG did not provide any Uranium ore to Stalin so that Stalin could ignite his bomb 1949. It was just propagaganda.
The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was the worlds first nuclear power plant. It was a built in 1954 and ran for 48 years. It was a propaganda coup for the Soviets and they made sure everyone knew it. In the early 1960s they built several commercial power plants that ran for twenty plus years. Not to mention they continued to build plants through the '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s with the latest being built in 2011 and have the most operating commercial plants of any country.
Once again you provide us with a stellar example or your shoddy research skills.
Mike
Hm, but where did the uranium come from, if this Obnisk plant ever existed? Wismut AG? Wismut AG was a GULAG slave labour camp at the start. And then it became an East German company falsifying everything it did. Sad story.
Perhaps your source was wrong and Wismut AG really did produce Uranium ore like they said that they did. Have you ever considered that possibility?
And please. USSR stopped to exist 1992 and stopped building nuclear power plants then. But the care takers continued the nuclear weapons hoax. Why? It does not cost them a kopek!
Perhaps because Russia does still exist and their agenda isn't that much different from that of the former USSR.
-
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
Just out of curiosity, where did Russia get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear reactors? Or are Russian peaceful nuclear reactors a hoax too?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? The USSR peaceful, nuclear power plants were all built in the 1970/80's using Uranium from Kazakhstan. USSR had earlier built, small 'research' reactors in secret, military locations but how real they were is not clear to me. They also built the first nuclear powered ice breaker. A friend of mine was working on it adjusting the reactor for more power. Anyway, Wismut AG did not provide any Uranium ore to Stalin so that Stalin could ignite his bomb 1949. It was just propagaganda.
The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was the worlds first nuclear power plant. It was a built in 1954 and ran for 48 years. It was a propaganda coup for the Soviets and they made sure everyone knew it. In the early 1960s they built several commercial power plants that ran for twenty plus years. Not to mention they continued to build plants through the '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s with the latest being built in 2011 and have the most operating commercial plants of any country.
Once again you provide us with a stellar example or your shoddy research skills.
Mike
Hm, but where did the uranium come from, if this Obnisk plant ever existed? Wismut AG? Wismut AG was a GULAG slave labour camp at the start. And then it became an East German company falsifying everything it did. Sad story.
Perhaps your source was wrong and Wismut AG really did produce Uranium ore like they said that they did. Have you ever considered that possibility?
And please. USSR stopped to exist 1992 and stopped building nuclear power plants then. But the care takers continued the nuclear weapons hoax. Why? It does not cost them a kopek!
Perhaps because Russia does still exist and their agenda isn't that much different from that of the former USSR.
Yes, Russia exists today and has taken over legal responsibilities left over by USSR 1992. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It seems US Congress wants to hit Russia hard today 2017! Trump will not be allowed to do deals with Russia.
Re Wismut AG - it didn't produce any any uranium at all 1945-1991. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
-
FDR who started the Manhattan Project hoax 1942 was a great friend of Stalin, so it was ensured that Stalin was on the list of cc. But Stalin had no fissionable material so it had to be invented, too. Wismut AG! False uranium for a false peace. What a show.
Just out of curiosity, where did Russia get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear reactors? Or are Russian peaceful nuclear reactors a hoax too?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? The USSR peaceful, nuclear power plants were all built in the 1970/80's using Uranium from Kazakhstan. USSR had earlier built, small 'research' reactors in secret, military locations but how real they were is not clear to me. They also built the first nuclear powered ice breaker. A friend of mine was working on it adjusting the reactor for more power. Anyway, Wismut AG did not provide any Uranium ore to Stalin so that Stalin could ignite his bomb 1949. It was just propagaganda.
The Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant was the worlds first nuclear power plant. It was a built in 1954 and ran for 48 years. It was a propaganda coup for the Soviets and they made sure everyone knew it. In the early 1960s they built several commercial power plants that ran for twenty plus years. Not to mention they continued to build plants through the '70s, '80s, '90s, 2000s with the latest being built in 2011 and have the most operating commercial plants of any country.
Once again you provide us with a stellar example or your shoddy research skills.
Mike
Hm, but where did the uranium come from, if this Obnisk plant ever existed? Wismut AG? Wismut AG was a GULAG slave labour camp at the start. And then it became an East German company falsifying everything it did. Sad story.
Perhaps your source was wrong and Wismut AG really did produce Uranium ore like they said that they did. Have you ever considered that possibility?
And please. USSR stopped to exist 1992 and stopped building nuclear power plants then. But the care takers continued the nuclear weapons hoax. Why? It does not cost them a kopek!
Perhaps because Russia does still exist and their agenda isn't that much different from that of the former USSR.
Yes, Russia exists today and has taken over legal responsibilities left over by USSR 1992. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It seems US Congress wants to hit Russia hard today 2017! Trump will not be allowed to do deals with Russia.
Re Wismut AG - it didn't produce any any uranium at all 1945-1991. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
YOU ARE WRONG. Russia did build nuclear plants after the fall of the USSR. There have been ten built since 1990 including one that went on line earlier this year. You really need to research information before you post.
Mike
-
Re Wismut AG - it didn't produce any any uranium at all 1945-1991.
There are a lot of people who worked there that would disagree with you,
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
So you aren't a twerp if you think that Uranium metal can magically heat itself enough to boil water?
-
Re Wismut AG - it didn't produce any any uranium at all 1945-1991.
There are a lot of people who worked there that would disagree with you,
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
So you aren't a twerp if you think that Uranium metal can magically heat itself enough to boil water?
There are a lot of people who worked at Wismut AG that would disagree with me!
Of course there are. But they are all paid by ex Stasi/KGB comrades to keep the hoax going. Fact remains Wismut AG never delivered any real uranium ore during 45 years.
-
Re Wismut AG - it didn't produce any any uranium at all 1945-1991.
There are a lot of people who worked there that would disagree with you,
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
So you aren't a twerp if you think that Uranium metal can magically heat itself enough to boil water?
There are a lot of people who worked at Wismut AG that would disagree with me!
So why are they all wrong and you're right?
Of course there are. But they are all paid by ex Stasi/KGB comrades to keep the hoax going. Fact remains Wismut AG never delivered any real uranium ore during 45 years.
Then where did they get the Uranium for their peaceful nuclear power plants?
-
Re Wismut AG - it didn't produce any any uranium at all 1945-1991.
There are a lot of people who worked there that would disagree with you,
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
So you aren't a twerp if you think that Uranium metal can magically heat itself enough to boil water?
There are a lot of people who worked at Wismut AG that would disagree with me!
Of course there are. But they are all paid by ex Stasi/KGB comrades to keep the hoax going. Fact remains Wismut AG never delivered any real uranium ore during 45 years.
There is overwhelming proof that uranium was mined there. However, you have absolutely no proof to the contrary.
And, don’t tell me to read your conspiracy website. I have and you provide nothing but crackpot theories, conjecture, and not one iota of proof about Wismut AG.
Mike
-
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
What about a mixture of tritium and deuterium, both from lithium deuteride?
We are such gullible people to believe this sort of propaganda!
The World's Biggest Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped - Tsar Bomba
Don't you feel so sorry for us?
Idiots deny everything that they are too dumb to understand!
-
Sweden's government asked 1945 Nobel Prize winner MS to construct a nuclear bomb. MS agreed subject to all work being published in the public domain. Swedens government didn't like it. Propaganda only works if the details are secret.
Why do you want terrorists to know how to build atomic bombs?
Why do you always ask stupid questions? Only stoopid tewwowist use nukes.
I hope to God that terrorists never use nukes, and so should you.
If they do, it will be a government hoax
-
Re Wismut AG - it didn't produce any any uranium at all 1945-1991.
There are a lot of people who worked there that would disagree with you,
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
So you aren't a twerp if you think that Uranium metal can magically heat itself enough to boil water?
There are a lot of people who worked at Wismut AG that would disagree with me!
Of course there are. But they are all paid by ex Stasi/KGB comrades to keep the hoax going. Fact remains Wismut AG never delivered any real uranium ore during 45 years.
There is overwhelming proof that uranium was mined there. However, you have absolutely no proof to the contrary.
And, don’t tell me to read your conspiracy website. I have and you provide nothing but crackpot theories, conjecture, and not one iota of proof about Wismut AG.
Mike
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium! It was and is a great propaganda show to make Stalin happy so he could ignite his false a-bomb 1949!
-
Re Wismut AG - it didn't produce any any uranium at all 1945-1991.
There are a lot of people who worked there that would disagree with you,
Only twerps believe that uranium metal can explode in a FLASH.
So you aren't a twerp if you think that Uranium metal can magically heat itself enough to boil water?
There are a lot of people who worked at Wismut AG that would disagree with me!
Of course there are. But they are all paid by ex Stasi/KGB comrades to keep the hoax going. Fact remains Wismut AG never delivered any real uranium ore during 45 years.
There is overwhelming proof that uranium was mined there. However, you have absolutely no proof to the contrary.
And, don’t tell me to read your conspiracy website. I have and you provide nothing but crackpot theories, conjecture, and not one iota of proof about Wismut AG.
Mike
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium! It was and is a great propaganda show to make Stalin happy so he could ignite his false a-bomb 1949!
Stop already. Don't pretend you could tell such a thing just by looking at the mine from a distance. That's just ridiculous. Do you even read your post before you hit the button?
You have no proof so stop making shit up.
Mike
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016 and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards. They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949! The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016 and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards. They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949! The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
So now you're a mining expert and geologist that can tell just by looking what the composition of the ore is...neat trick considering they stopped mining in 1989.
Face it. You have a bunch of made up shit that you’re passing off as fact. Research and theories done by others that you cite as evidence and all without doing any real research of your own.
Everyone knows you’re just a common troll and a crackpot conspiracy theorist and this forum is your last refuge for your trolling because you’ve been banned from everywhere else. No other conspiracy site will have you anymore.
Mike
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016...
In the vicinity of what?
... and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards.
On what did you base this conclusion?
They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949!
Do you understand that pechblende must be processed and refined to extract and concentrate the Uranium, don't you? Besides, it's not as if they didn't have plenty of available labor to extract lots and lots of ore.
The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
You keep saying that, but reality seems to disagree with you.
-
God please, how do I stop getting notifications for this thread!?!?!?!?!
-
God please, how do I stop getting notifications for this thread!?!?!?!?!
Click the "Unnotify" button.
-
WHERE?!?!?!?!
Although I do like this "Mark all posts as Read" button
-
WHERE?!?!?!?!
Although I do like this "Mark all posts as Read" button
Just to the left of "Mark unread" button
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016...
In the vicinity of what?
... and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards.
On what did you base this conclusion?
They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949!
Do you understand that pechblende must be processed and refined to extract and concentrate the Uranium, don't you? Besides, it's not as if they didn't have plenty of available labor to extract lots and lots of ore.
The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
You keep saying that, but reality seems to disagree with you.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where you find all the answers to your questions. You sound like a typical brain washed twerp.
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016...
In the vicinity of what?
... and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards.
On what did you base this conclusion?
They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949!
Do you understand that pechblende must be processed and refined to extract and concentrate the Uranium, don't you? Besides, it's not as if they didn't have plenty of available labor to extract lots and lots of ore.
The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
You keep saying that, but reality seems to disagree with you.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where you find all the answers to your questions. You sound like a typical brain washed twerp.
Stop already. There are no answer there. Only conjecture and conspiracy theories. You didn't even do you're own research.
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016...
In the vicinity of what?
... and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards.
On what did you base this conclusion?
They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949!
Do you understand that pechblende must be processed and refined to extract and concentrate the Uranium, don't you? Besides, it's not as if they didn't have plenty of available labor to extract lots and lots of ore.
The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
You keep saying that, but reality seems to disagree with you.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where you find all the answers to your questions. You sound like a typical brain washed twerp.
No. As I've said before, we are having this discussion on this site. If you have any relevant information to share, then feel free to copy and paste it here. Don't forget to cite your sources.
-
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where you find all the answers to your questions.
Forum rules:
4. Advertisements
Do not create threads/posts, send private messages, or use your profile to advertise products, services, etc.
And yet you include this blatant advertisement with almost every post, http://heiwaco.com (http://nomajesty.com/arguing-idiots-basic-debating-cheat-sheet/).
And I never realised the celebrity we have in our midst:• Anders Björkman: Also goes as Heiwa. Apollo hoax and 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Has no idea how to do energy balances or compute propellant requirements for orbital maneuvers (has notably claimed that the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation is unrelated to this). Offers million-Euro prizes to anyone who shows him to be wrong, and either ignores people who proceed to do so or makes silent corrections to his site in response.
From: RationalWiki:Webshites (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Webshites)
And International Skeptics Forum » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Heiwa drummed out of AE911T (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=253936)
I do so apologise for not giving the deference due to you.
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016...
In the vicinity of what?
... and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards.
On what did you base this conclusion?
They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949!
Do you understand that pechblende must be processed and refined to extract and concentrate the Uranium, don't you? Besides, it's not as if they didn't have plenty of available labor to extract lots and lots of ore.
The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
You keep saying that, but reality seems to disagree with you.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where you find all the answers to your questions. You sound like a typical brain washed twerp.
No. As I've said before, we are having this discussion on this site. If you have any relevant information to share, then feel free to copy and paste it here. Don't forget to cite your sources.
Sorry. You don't understand how it works on Internet. I just link here to the original info in lieu of copy/pasting it.
Plenty anonymous twerps link to anonymous sites with false info with e.g. false info about me, but it is not my style. I always work under my own name and have nothing to hide.
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016...
In the vicinity of what?
... and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards.
On what did you base this conclusion?
They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949!
Do you understand that pechblende must be processed and refined to extract and concentrate the Uranium, don't you? Besides, it's not as if they didn't have plenty of available labor to extract lots and lots of ore.
The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
You keep saying that, but reality seems to disagree with you.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where you find all the answers to your questions. You sound like a typical brain washed twerp.
No. As I've said before, we are having this discussion on this site. If you have any relevant information to share, then feel free to copy and paste it here. Don't forget to cite your sources.
Sorry. You don't understand how it works on Internet. I just link here to the original info in lieu of copy/pasting it.
Plenty anonymous twerps link to anonymous sites with false info with e.g. false info about me, but it is not my style. I always work under my own name and have nothing to hide.
Then quit hiding behind that horrid website and post your answers here.
Wait you can't because you don't have any.
As proof of this you will respond by saying you have to study my website. And never actually post any explanation here.
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016...
In the vicinity of what?
... and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards.
On what did you base this conclusion?
They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949!
Do you understand that pechblende must be processed and refined to extract and concentrate the Uranium, don't you? Besides, it's not as if they didn't have plenty of available labor to extract lots and lots of ore.
The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
You keep saying that, but reality seems to disagree with you.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where you find all the answers to your questions. You sound like a typical brain washed twerp.
No. As I've said before, we are having this discussion on this site. If you have any relevant information to share, then feel free to copy and paste it here. Don't forget to cite your sources.
Sorry. You don't understand how it works on Internet. I just link here to the original info in lieu of copy/pasting it.
Plenty anonymous twerps link to anonymous sites with false info with e.g. false info about me, but it is not my style. I always work under my own name and have nothing to hide.
Then quit hiding behind that horrid website and post your answers here.
Wait you can't because you don't have any.
As proof of this you will respond by saying you have to study my website. And never actually post any explanation here.
But I do not hide at http://heiwaco.com . My full style, etc, is there. Not like you badxtoss. 100% twerp hiding.
-
Well, you just have to visit the Wismut AG mines at Erzgebirge, Sachsen, Germany to see that they just cut holes in the mountains and mined ... stone. No uranium!
Or, you could visit the Wismut AG mines in Vogtland or Ronneberg where they did do the Uranium mining. Perhaps you could learn a thing or two about Wismut AG's Uranium mining efforts in East Germany from this site, unless you think that it's all propaganda, that is.
http://www.wise-uranium.org/uwis.html
I lived in the vicinity 1999-2016...
In the vicinity of what?
... and concluded it was a big/nice propaganda effort by Stalin 1945/53 onwards.
On what did you base this conclusion?
They mined pechblende with very little Uranium in it that would never make an atomic bomb 1949!
Do you understand that pechblende must be processed and refined to extract and concentrate the Uranium, don't you? Besides, it's not as if they didn't have plenty of available labor to extract lots and lots of ore.
The Stalin a- and h-bombs were just propaganda and never existed in the real world. Same applies to the US and French WMDs.
You keep saying that, but reality seems to disagree with you.
You really have to study http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm where you find all the answers to your questions. You sound like a typical brain washed twerp.
No. As I've said before, we are having this discussion on this site. If you have any relevant information to share, then feel free to copy and paste it here. Don't forget to cite your sources.
Sorry. You don't understand how it works on Internet. I just link here to the original info in lieu of copy/pasting it.
Plenty anonymous twerps link to anonymous sites with false info with e.g. false info about me, but it is not my style. I always work under my own name and have nothing to hide.
Then quit hiding behind that horrid website and post your answers here.
Wait you can't because you don't have any.
As proof of this you will respond by saying you have to study my website. And never actually post any explanation here.
But I do not hide at http://heiwaco.com . My full style, etc, is there. Not like you badxtoss. 100% twerp hiding.
Thank you for proving my point. Back to ignore bin with you, you miserable failure.
-
Sorry. You don't understand how it works on Internet. I just link here to the original info in lieu of copy/pasting it.
So where did you get the "original" information about no uranium being mined in East Germany?
Plenty anonymous twerps link to anonymous sites with false info with e.g. false info about me, but it is not my style. I always work under my own name and have nothing to hide.
The site that I linked about Soviet Uranium mining in East Germany wasn't an anonymous site and didn't have any information (false or otherwise) about you. It does, however, cite its sources (something that you don't seem to do on your site). So, would you care refute the information on that site, or would you rather just dismiss it as propaganda?
-
Sorry. You don't understand how it works on Internet. I just link here to the original info in lieu of copy/pasting it.
So where did you get the "original" information about no uranium being mined in East Germany?
Plenty anonymous twerps link to anonymous sites with false info with e.g. false info about me, but it is not my style. I always work under my own name and have nothing to hide.
The site that I linked about Soviet Uranium mining in East Germany wasn't an anonymous site and didn't have any information (false or otherwise) about you. It does, however, cite its sources (something that you don't seem to do on your site). So, would you care refute the information on that site, or would you rather just dismiss it as propaganda?
Thanks for asking. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . 1999-2016 I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
When will you grow up? You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
Why does nearly every single post you make include a personal attack? You've demanded other people be civil and polite to you. Why doesn't that also apply to you?
Mike
-
Microbeta is relentlessly kicking Heiwa in the teeth....geez.
-
Should we intervene? It's not nice to kick a half senile old man in the teeth is it?
-
Should we intervene? It's not nice to kick a half senile old man in the teeth is it?
They are probably false anyways. ..he can just buy some more because he is a rich, genius billionaire with a good sense of humor.
Though all he offers people who travel half way across the world is 50 cent coffee.
So now we know he is cheap too.
-
Should we intervene? It's not nice to kick a half senile old man in the teeth is it?
They are probably false anyways. ..he can just buy some more because he is a rich, genius billionaire with a good sense of humor.
Though all he offers people who travel half way across the world is 50 cent coffee.
So now we know he is cheap too.
Good points. lol
I'm really surprised he isn't willing to kick in a little more towards people willing to travel so far to meet him. Makes you wonder if he really is who he says he is. Anyone can make a website and post a few photos. Why doesn't he want anyone to come see him?
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
Why does nearly every single post you make include a personal attack? You've demanded other people be civil and polite to you. Why doesn't that also apply to you?
Mike
I am very civil and polite and do not attack anyone I know personally. But anonymous twerps I do not like, nor respect.
-
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
If you had any credibility, then you wouldn't feel the need to call me a twerp.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
Why does nearly every single post you make include a personal attack? You've demanded other people be civil and polite to you. Why doesn't that also apply to you?
Mike
I am very civil and polite and do not attack anyone I know personally. But anonymous twerps I do not like, nor respect.
You're either respectful to people or you're not. I shouldn't be based on whether you know them personally or not.
In any case, you've demanded other people be civil and polite to you yet you don't treat them the same way. That makes you a hypocrite.
Mike
-
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
If you had any credibility, then you wouldn't feel the need to call me a twerp.
But you are one with all your stupid posts and questions. And your support of Stalin, GWB, torture, etc. I feel sorry for you.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
Why does nearly every single post you make include a personal attack? You've demanded other people be civil and polite to you. Why doesn't that also apply to you?
Mike
I am very civil and polite and do not attack anyone I know personally. But anonymous twerps I do not like, nor respect.
You're either respectful to people or you're not. I shouldn't be based on whether you know them personally or not.
In any case, you've demanded other people be civil and polite to you yet you don't treat them the same way. That makes you a hypocrite.
Mike
No, I am what I am. I am a public figure at http://heiwaco.com . No secrets, no anonomity. I don't demand people to be anything. I just hope they study what I say and try to learn from it.
-
Heiwa I have been to your website on a couple occasions. It is extremely difficult to read. And even harder to navigate. I’m not trying be rude or insulting. It just isn’t user friendly. I would stick with a simple white background with a large black print. Currently it looks like a hippy on acid put it together. No one is going to take you seriously if the information isn’t presented in a professional manner. I know this is off topic. The link seems to get posted frequently so I thought I would say something.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
Why does nearly every single post you make include a personal attack? You've demanded other people be civil and polite to you. Why doesn't that also apply to you?
Mike
I am very civil and polite and do not attack anyone I know personally. But anonymous twerps I do not like, nor respect.
You're either respectful to people or you're not. I shouldn't be based on whether you know them personally or not.
In any case, you've demanded other people be civil and polite to you yet you don't treat them the same way. That makes you a hypocrite.
Mike
No, I am what I am. I am a public figure at http://heiwaco.com . No secrets, no anonomity. I don't demand people to be anything. I just hope they study what I say and try to learn from it.
First, anonymity has nothing to do with civility and politeness.
Second, you’re wrong! On this very forum you did demand other people be civil and polite to you. AAMOF, you’ve made several posts here demanding such. Since you believe others need to be polite but you don’t, and that is what makes you a hypocrite...among other things.
Mike
-
Heiwa I have been to your website on a couple occasions. It is extremely difficult to read. And even harder to navigate. I’m not trying be rude or insulting. It just isn’t user friendly. I would stick with a simple white background with a large black print. Currently it looks like a hippy on acid put it together. No one is going to take you seriously if the information isn’t presented in a professional manner. I know this is off topic. The link seems to get posted frequently so I thought I would say something.
Thanks for comments.
The layout of my site is 20 years old like the site itself, i.e. a popular layout then, which I copied/pasted. It is mostly white background and black print, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#113 .
And it looks OK on my PC. On a mobile phone or a pad I assume it looks different.
Anyway, 1 000's of people take me seriously since 20 years and I think my bi-langual start page http://heiwaco.com looks pretty professional even today. All search engines find it. What else to ask for? That Donald Trump bombs North Korea back to stone age in nano-seconds? Good news is that he cannot. US nuclear weapons are useless.
I evidently support the North Koreans. But they have to free themselves like the East Germans 1989.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
Why does nearly every single post you make include a personal attack? You've demanded other people be civil and polite to you. Why doesn't that also apply to you?
Mike
I am very civil and polite and do not attack anyone I know personally. But anonymous twerps I do not like, nor respect.
You're either respectful to people or you're not. I shouldn't be based on whether you know them personally or not.
In any case, you've demanded other people be civil and polite to you yet you don't treat them the same way. That makes you a hypocrite.
Mike
No, I am what I am. I am a public figure at http://heiwaco.com . No secrets, no anonomity. I don't demand people to be anything. I just hope they study what I say and try to learn from it.
First, anonymity has nothing to do with civility and politeness.
Second, you’re wrong! On this very forum you did demand other people be civil and polite to you. AAMOF, you’ve made several posts here demanding such. Since you believe others need to be polite but you don’t, and that is what makes you a hypocrite...among other things.
Mike
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
Why does nearly every single post you make include a personal attack? You've demanded other people be civil and polite to you. Why doesn't that also apply to you?
Mike
I am very civil and polite and do not attack anyone I know personally. But anonymous twerps I do not like, nor respect.
You're either respectful to people or you're not. I shouldn't be based on whether you know them personally or not.
In any case, you've demanded other people be civil and polite to you yet you don't treat them the same way. That makes you a hypocrite.
Mike
No, I am what I am. I am a public figure at http://heiwaco.com . No secrets, no anonomity. I don't demand people to be anything. I just hope they study what I say and try to learn from it.
First, anonymity has nothing to do with civility and politeness.
Second, you’re wrong! On this very forum you did demand other people be civil and polite to you. AAMOF, you’ve made several posts here demanding such. Since you believe others need to be polite but you don’t, and that is what makes you a hypocrite...among other things.
Mike
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
-
I owned a house at Freiberg i.Sa and had the opportunity to do some local research about Wismut AG and its uranium and the Stalin a-bomb during the DDR time. I also knew WM that worked for Wismut AG 1946/58 building the Stalin a-bomb before being arrested/tortured by Stasi/KGB, etc. No uranium was mined by Wismut AG ever. It was just a clever propaganda show. If you doubted anything, Stasi/KGB would kill you at once. It was tough times.
So you're saying that just because the Stasi/KGB said that they were mining uranium there, it must be a lie?
No. Stalin & Co said that they built an a-bomb with uranium from Wismut AG 1946/9. It was to promote world peace. If you didn't agree you were shot or jailed. Tough times. But there was no uranium where Wismut AG had its mines. Easy to check.
If it's so easy to check, then by all means post a link to a credible source (not your site) that says that Wismut AG never mined any uranium in East Germany from 1946 on.
What is wrong with my credibility? You sound like a stalinist twerp.
Why does nearly every single post you make include a personal attack? You've demanded other people be civil and polite to you. Why doesn't that also apply to you?
Mike
I am very civil and polite and do not attack anyone I know personally. But anonymous twerps I do not like, nor respect.
You're either respectful to people or you're not. I shouldn't be based on whether you know them personally or not.
In any case, you've demanded other people be civil and polite to you yet you don't treat them the same way. That makes you a hypocrite.
Mike
No, I am what I am. I am a public figure at http://heiwaco.com . No secrets, no anonomity. I don't demand people to be anything. I just hope they study what I say and try to learn from it.
First, anonymity has nothing to do with civility and politeness.
Second, you’re wrong! On this very forum you did demand other people be civil and polite to you. AAMOF, you’ve made several posts here demanding such. Since you believe others need to be polite but you don’t, and that is what makes you a hypocrite...among other things.
Mike
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
According to the internet archive you CV says
"Military training
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970 - specialized in converting merchant ships to mine layers in 24 hours"
Even you're own CV says nothing about being in the Navy from 1965 to 1970.
Again, LIAR.
Mike
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
According to the internet archive you CV says
"Military training
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970 - specialized in converting merchant ships to mine layers in 24 hours"
Even you're own CV says nothing about being in the Navy from 1965 to 1970.
Again, LIAR.
Mike
Ever more obvious he is a narcissistic pathological liar. I don't think he can help it.
-
Ever more obvious he is a narcissistic pathological liar. I don't think he can help it.
Well I seriously doubt he is capable of admitting he is wrong. Is there a medical term for that kind of problem?
This is why, when shown to be wrong he tries to reboot the conversation and pretends the previous conversation never happened, and it's also why he quietly goes and changes his website without ever conceding he is wrong to anyone.
Also, isn't it cute how he thinks having a website makes him more legitimate than Mike, who apparently doesn't? (I can help you out with that if you like Mike. It's actually fairly simple.)
-
Ever more obvious he is a narcissistic pathological liar. I don't think he can help it.
Well I seriously doubt he is capable of admitting he is wrong. Is there a medical term for that kind of problem?
This is why, when shown to be wrong he tries to reboot the conversation and pretends the previous conversation never happened, and it's also why he quietly goes and changes his website without ever conceding he is wrong to anyone.
Also, isn't it cute how he thinks having a website makes him more legitimate than Mike, who apparently doesn't? (I can help you out with that if you like Mike. It's actually fairly simple.)
Thanks but don't need one. I used to have a domain but let it lapse years ago.
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
According to the internet archive you CV says
"Military training
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970 - specialized in converting merchant ships to mine layers in 24 hours"
Even you're own CV says nothing about being in the Navy from 1965 to 1970.
Again, LIAR.
Mike
Thanks for studying my CV.
Fact remains that I joined the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 after having been selected for it 8 December 1964 after careful screening. I remember the food was good and the female volonteers cute but I didn't become overweight like you. I left the Navy 11 December 1970 honorably. If I would have been called in for any reason later, I would have been an officer. Luckily no war broke out.
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
According to the internet archive you CV says
"Military training
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970 - specialized in converting merchant ships to mine layers in 24 hours"
Even you're own CV says nothing about being in the Navy from 1965 to 1970.
Again, LIAR.
Mike
Thanks for studying my CV.
Fact remains that I joined the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 after having been selected for it 8 December 1964 after careful screening. I remember the food was good and the female volonteers cute but I didn't become overweight like you. I left the Navy 11 December 1970 honorably. If I would have been called in for any reason later, I would have been an officer. Luckily no war broke out.
Interesting how your CV says something different and yet you still stick to your story. Why don't you just say you were Naval Reserve from 1965 through 1969 while your were getting your MS in Marine Engineering and when on active duty after college. Why don't you just tell the truth instead of pretending you in the Navy and attending a private university (Chalmers) at the same time.
You don't even lie very well.
Mike
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
According to the internet archive you CV says
"Military training
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970 - specialized in converting merchant ships to mine layers in 24 hours"
Even you're own CV says nothing about being in the Navy from 1965 to 1970.
Again, LIAR.
Mike
Thanks for studying my CV.
Fact remains that I joined the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 after having been selected for it 8 December 1964 after careful screening. I remember the food was good and the female volonteers cute but I didn't become overweight like you. I left the Navy 11 December 1970 honorably. If I would have been called in for any reason later, I would have been an officer. Luckily no war broke out.
Interesting how your CV says something different and yet you still stick to your story. Why don't you just say you were Naval Reserve from 1965 through 1969 while your were getting your MS in Marine Engineering and when on active duty after college. Why don't you just tell the truth instead of pretending you in the Navy and attending a private university (Chalmers) at the same time.
You don't even lie very well.
Mike
You are not very bright fatty, microbrain.
If you join the Swedish Navy, you join, like me 1964/5. If the Swedish Navy wants you to study at a state university, Chalmers, in the mean time at your own cost, you do it.
Of course the Swedish Navy was ready to pay for me, but then I had to sign on for several years service afterwards. Not my style!
So after having completed Chalmers 1969, I finished my service in the Navy, December 1970. But I also worked in the Navy shipyard 1966 and 1967 as a welder and plater. Great fun! 1968 I worked at Webb Institute of NA, LI. You have to move around to get somewhere.
All I publish at http://heiwaco.com is 100% correct.
Plenty twerps like you get upset about it. Why don't you slim down?
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
According to the internet archive you CV says
"Military training
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970 - specialized in converting merchant ships to mine layers in 24 hours"
Even you're own CV says nothing about being in the Navy from 1965 to 1970.
Again, LIAR.
Mike
Thanks for studying my CV.
Fact remains that I joined the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 after having been selected for it 8 December 1964 after careful screening. I remember the food was good and the female volonteers cute but I didn't become overweight like you. I left the Navy 11 December 1970 honorably. If I would have been called in for any reason later, I would have been an officer. Luckily no war broke out.
Interesting how your CV says something different and yet you still stick to your story. Why don't you just say you were Naval Reserve from 1965 through 1969 while your were getting your MS in Marine Engineering and when on active duty after college. Why don't you just tell the truth instead of pretending you in the Navy and attending a private university (Chalmers) at the same time.
You don't even lie very well.
Mike
You are not very bright fatty, microbrain.
If you join the Swedish Navy, you join, like me 1964/5. If the Swedish Navy wants you to study at a state university, Chalmers, in the mean time at your own cost, you do it.
Of course the Swedish Navy was ready to pay for me, but then I had to sign on for several years service afterwards. Not my style!
So after having completed Chalmers 1969, I finished my service in the Navy, December 1970. But I also worked in the Navy shipyard 1966 and 1967 as a welder and plater. Great fun! 1968 I worked at Webb Institute of NA, LI. You have to move around to get somewhere.
All I publish at http://heiwaco.com is 100% correct.
Plenty twerps like you get upset about it. Why don't you slim down?
You really can’t stop with the personal attacks. Do you really think its intimidating or something? I guess it’s the best you can come up with because you have yet to prove a single thing I’ve posted to be wrong.
There’s a name for that type argument. It’s called a red herring fallacy. Specifically an ad hominem or personal attack strategy. It’s used when the person making the argument, that’s you, can’t dispute what the other person is saying, that’s everyone else here, so you resort to personal attacks to try to put the other person on the defensive and avoid the actual discussion. You can’t handle the arguments so you attack people.
You don’t understand most of what’s in your website so instead of supporting your arguments you resort to posting the link over and over and over again and engage in personal attacks. That’s ok. We know it’s the best you can do. However, you need to realize that everything you post is there for everyone to see so you really should stop lying so much. You’ve lied so many times here and it does nothing but hurt you credibility.
Mike
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
According to the internet archive you CV says
"Military training
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970 - specialized in converting merchant ships to mine layers in 24 hours"
Even you're own CV says nothing about being in the Navy from 1965 to 1970.
Again, LIAR.
Mike
Thanks for studying my CV.
Fact remains that I joined the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 after having been selected for it 8 December 1964 after careful screening. I remember the food was good and the female volonteers cute but I didn't become overweight like you. I left the Navy 11 December 1970 honorably. If I would have been called in for any reason later, I would have been an officer. Luckily no war broke out.
Interesting how your CV says something different and yet you still stick to your story. Why don't you just say you were Naval Reserve from 1965 through 1969 while your were getting your MS in Marine Engineering and when on active duty after college. Why don't you just tell the truth instead of pretending you in the Navy and attending a private university (Chalmers) at the same time.
You don't even lie very well.
Mike
You are not very bright fatty, microbrain.
If you join the Swedish Navy, you join, like me 1964/5. If the Swedish Navy wants you to study at a state university, Chalmers, in the mean time at your own cost, you do it.
Of course the Swedish Navy was ready to pay for me, but then I had to sign on for several years service afterwards. Not my style!
So after having completed Chalmers 1969, I finished my service in the Navy, December 1970. But I also worked in the Navy shipyard 1966 and 1967 as a welder and plater. Great fun! 1968 I worked at Webb Institute of NA, LI. You have to move around to get somewhere.
All I publish at http://heiwaco.com is 100% correct.
Plenty twerps like you get upset about it. Why don't you slim down?
You really can’t stop with the personal attacks. Do you really think its intimidating or something? I guess it’s the best you can come up with because you have yet to prove a single thing I’ve posted to be wrong.
There’s a name for that type argument. It’s called a red herring fallacy. Specifically an ad hominem or personal attack strategy. It’s used when the person making the argument, that’s you, can’t dispute what the other person is saying, that’s everyone else here, so you resort to personal attacks to try to put the other person on the defensive and avoid the actual discussion. You can’t handle the arguments so you attack people.
You don’t understand most of what’s in your website so instead of supporting your arguments you resort to posting the link over and over and over again and engage in personal attacks. That’s ok. We know it’s the best you can do. However, you need to realize that everything you post is there for everyone to see so you really should stop lying so much. You’ve lied so many times here and it does nothing but hurt you credibility.
Mike
Personal attacks? I just call a twerp a twerp. Nothing personal. If you do not consider yourself a twerp, just ignore it. I don't care much about you, fatty, overweight microbrain. Why do you get so upset? Attcking me personally.
Why don't you show that the findings/ideas/conclusions I present are wrong.
Why do you attack me?
Why don't you show that my findings are wrong? http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
I pay you € 1M for it.
-
How can anyone take a masked, anonymous person serious anywhere. You hide behind your Microbrain submarine photo and I laugh every time I see it. I spent 500 days in the Navy and I have to admit the military side was mostly a joke. But the civil, engineering side was good.
Wow. A whole 16 months in the Navy.
And, now you’re lying again. You know my name. You know my background. You know who I work for. You know where I live. It’s all been posted here for you and everyone else here to see. So, don’t pretend otherwise because nobody's buying it.
AAMOF, I’ve posted that info just for you so you can’t complain I’m some anonymous forum ID and avatar. What’s the matter, can’t remember back that far?
Mike
No, I only know you as Mikrobrain on this forum ... and I couldn't care less. You don't have a web site like me. You just hide in the shades all the time. You are a typical twerp.
You lie a lot. Why is that?
Here you said....
Calling other people names again...sometimes I wonder if you aren't really just a school kid. Seriously, you're more immature than my daughter ever was.
At any rate, I've already posted my full name here so no, I'm not anonymous. But, just to be clear...
As I've already posted...I work for Electric Boat, I live in Norwich, CT and my name is Mike Bertelson. Look me up.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69424.msg1931654#msg1931654
https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bertelson-a4b22aaa/
http://iamanedgecutter.com/member.php/9-Mike-Bertelson
https://www.dbstalk.com/community/index.php?members/mike-bertelson.448544/
https://www.facebook.com/MicroBeta
Now, you can't say you're the one not anonymous so quit whining about it and grow the fuck up.
Mike
OK, you are right, Mike. You are no longer an anonymous twerp. But you are a twerp with a big mouth. And you haven't won any of my Challenges - http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
So, were you lying then or are you lying now?
? OJ Svenson served in the US Army 1970/3 and didn't murder anyone there, as far as I know. He didn't even visit a brothel while in Germany, poor guy.
But I agree, when I served in the military 1965/70 I was trained to kill the enemy - blow them up with sea mines - and I really liked it. I could also kill the enemy with a small machine gun and my pistol, if they got too close. If they got really close, we were trained to kill them with our feet and hands. Great stuff. Once a guy attacked me in the street and in a FLASH he was mince meat in the gutter. I just acted as trained by instinct.
Here you said you were in the military for 5 years but today you said you were in for 500 days. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
Like I said. You are a liar.
Mike
No. I actually started in the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 and left 11 December 1970 after having served there about 500 days. Reason is I was also doing other things in the mean time. I explain it at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
According to the internet archive you CV says
"Military training
Marine engineer in Swedish Navy 1970 - specialized in converting merchant ships to mine layers in 24 hours"
Even you're own CV says nothing about being in the Navy from 1965 to 1970.
Again, LIAR.
Mike
Thanks for studying my CV.
Fact remains that I joined the Swedish Navy 31 May 1965 after having been selected for it 8 December 1964 after careful screening. I remember the food was good and the female volonteers cute but I didn't become overweight like you. I left the Navy 11 December 1970 honorably. If I would have been called in for any reason later, I would have been an officer. Luckily no war broke out.
Interesting how your CV says something different and yet you still stick to your story. Why don't you just say you were Naval Reserve from 1965 through 1969 while your were getting your MS in Marine Engineering and when on active duty after college. Why don't you just tell the truth instead of pretending you in the Navy and attending a private university (Chalmers) at the same time.
You don't even lie very well.
Mike
You are not very bright fatty, microbrain.
If you join the Swedish Navy, you join, like me 1964/5. If the Swedish Navy wants you to study at a state university, Chalmers, in the mean time at your own cost, you do it.
Of course the Swedish Navy was ready to pay for me, but then I had to sign on for several years service afterwards. Not my style!
So after having completed Chalmers 1969, I finished my service in the Navy, December 1970. But I also worked in the Navy shipyard 1966 and 1967 as a welder and plater. Great fun! 1968 I worked at Webb Institute of NA, LI. You have to move around to get somewhere.
All I publish at http://heiwaco.com is 100% correct.
Plenty twerps like you get upset about it. Why don't you slim down?
You really can’t stop with the personal attacks. Do you really think its intimidating or something? I guess it’s the best you can come up with because you have yet to prove a single thing I’ve posted to be wrong.
There’s a name for that type argument. It’s called a red herring fallacy. Specifically an ad hominem or personal attack strategy. It’s used when the person making the argument, that’s you, can’t dispute what the other person is saying, that’s everyone else here, so you resort to personal attacks to try to put the other person on the defensive and avoid the actual discussion. You can’t handle the arguments so you attack people.
You don’t understand most of what’s in your website so instead of supporting your arguments you resort to posting the link over and over and over again and engage in personal attacks. That’s ok. We know it’s the best you can do. However, you need to realize that everything you post is there for everyone to see so you really should stop lying so much. You’ve lied so many times here and it does nothing but hurt you credibility.
Mike
Personal attacks? I just call a twerp a twerp. Nothing personal. If you do not consider yourself a twerp, just ignore it. I don't care much about you, fatty, overweight microbrain. Why do you get so upset? Attcking me personally.
And, you don’t think you engage in personal attacks?!? Interesting.
I’ve called you a liar and a hypocrite but I’ve never gotten personal. You do that to everyone. You make things very personal. I know you do it because you’re hoping the other person will back down. But, here’s the thing. You didn’t just attack me personally. You attacked my family and friends. You called them liars for saying what they saw. So, for that you’re going get me pointing every inconsistent post and every lie you tell. If it were just me you were attacking I would have stopped posting long ago. I would never say such things about another poster family. You had to attack my family so fuck you, you’ll get what you get.
Why don't you show that the findings/ideas/conclusions I present are wrong.
Why do you attack me?
Why don't you show that my findings are wrong? http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
I pay you € 1M for it.
I showed where you’re wrong over and over again. In this very thread you stated that fast fission was impossible. You then recanted and admitted it was possible. Just one of the things you’ve been proven wrong on.
Mike
-
Heiwa I have been to your website on a couple occasions. It is extremely difficult to read. And even harder to navigate. I’m not trying be rude or insulting. It just isn’t user friendly. I would stick with a simple white background with a large black print. Currently it looks like a hippy on acid put it together. No one is going to take you seriously if the information isn’t presented in a professional manner. I know this is off topic. The link seems to get posted frequently so I thought I would say something.
Thanks for comments.
The layout of my site is 20 years old like the site itself, i.e. a popular layout then, which I copied/pasted. It is mostly white background and black print, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#113 .
And it looks OK on my PC. On a mobile phone or a pad I assume it looks different.
Anyway, 1 000's of people take me seriously since 20 years and I think my bi-langual start page http://heiwaco.com looks pretty professional even today.
So... you are not even going to consider what suggestion this person has, because tens of people have taken you seriously in 20 years and you Think your bi-langual page looks pretty professional?
Reminds me of the guy that ran the "Pirate" themed bar on Bar Rescue... this guy was all ego, had a bar that was failing... brought in the Bar Rescue team... but because they recommended he go to a more conventional theme, he was like, Nope, Fuck you... My pride says that we want to be something different and I'd rather go out of business trying to be different, than stay in thriving by becoming a sellout...
In short, it's okay to be a trail blazer if you are the outlier that makes it... but there is also a good chance your idea sucks.
So, if like you are saying, You haven't updated the visual theme of your page in 20 years... Chances are, it could stand to have a little spring cleaning. Why don't you hire a web designer to really flash it up... Obviously you are rolling in the do-ray-me... Make it look super slick dude...
-
Heiwa I have been to your website on a couple occasions. It is extremely difficult to read. And even harder to navigate. I’m not trying be rude or insulting. It just isn’t user friendly. I would stick with a simple white background with a large black print. Currently it looks like a hippy on acid put it together. No one is going to take you seriously if the information isn’t presented in a professional manner. I know this is off topic. The link seems to get posted frequently so I thought I would say something.
Thanks for comments.
The layout of my site is 20 years old like the site itself, i.e. a popular layout then, which I copied/pasted. It is mostly white background and black print, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#113 .
And it looks OK on my PC. On a mobile phone or a pad I assume it looks different.
Anyway, 1 000's of people take me seriously since 20 years and I think my bi-langual start page http://heiwaco.com looks pretty professional even today.
So... you are not even going to consider what suggestion this person has, because tens of people have taken you seriously in 20 years and you Think your bi-langual page looks pretty professional?
Reminds me of the guy that ran the "Pirate" themed bar on Bar Rescue... this guy was all ego, had a bar that was failing... brought in the Bar Rescue team... but because they recommended he go to a more conventional theme, he was like, Nope, Fuck you... My pride says that we want to be something different and I'd rather go out of business trying to be different, than stay in thriving by becoming a sellout...
In short, it's okay to be a trail blazer if you are the outlier that makes it... but there is also a good chance your idea sucks.
So, if like you are saying, You haven't updated the visual theme of your page in 20 years... Chances are, it could stand to have a little spring cleaning. Why don't you hire a web designer to really flash it up... Obviously you are rolling in the do-ray-me... Make it look super slick dude...
I like the content of my website and I don't care much of the visual layout. But thanks for your suggestions. It seems my site has been downloaded >2 460 000 times, so it cannot be so bad.
-
And yet all those downloads won't get a you a degree in a science.
Read these out loud"
"If you inhibit a nuclear reaction it will continue."
"If you don't inhibit a nuclear reaction it will stop."
See how dumb you are?
-
And yet all those downloads won't get a you a degree in a science.
Read these out loud"
"If you inhibit a nuclear reaction it will continue."
"If you don't inhibit a nuclear reaction it will stop."
See how dumb you are?
There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
There is no secret, military type of fission that works in a nano-seconds FLASH after two subcritical bits of metal are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between producing a mushroom cloud.
Only twerps believe in secret, military, FLASH, mushroom cloud fission. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
Did you read those out loud?
Do you see the strangeness in saying a reaction will only continue if you inhibit it?
-
Where did you go? Got a response? Cat got your tounge? O wait, if cat got you tongue you could post because you are inhibited. But if a cat didn't have your tongue you couldn't post because you are free to post.
lol
toot toot boat engineer
-
There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
You do know all about "fast (neutron) fission" and "slow (neutron) fission"?
There is no secret, military type of fission that works in a nano-seconds FLASH after two subcritical bits of metal are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between producing a mushroom cloud.
Really? Your "nano-seconds FLASH" is totally ridiculous!
Only an ignorant self-opinionated twerp would come out that sort of rubbish.
There is a lot more to designing a successful fission weapon and early fission can force the subcritical apart prematurely.
Little boy (Hiroshima) took a few milliseconds to "assemble" the fissile material and so achieved an efficiency of under 1.4%.
An "assembly" time of about 1 microsecond is desirable.
A Pu-239 weapon cannot simply bring two subcritical pieces together as Pu-240 impurities would initiate premature fission and blow it apart with little fission.
So instead a thin shell of plutonium was collapsed around a Be/Po-210 initiator by two layers of high explosive.
The shock wave is sufficient to compress the plutonium to about 4 times normal density, achieving a sufficiently fast "assembly time" before the fission reaction starts the "disassembly" process.
As a result Fat man (Nagasaki) achieved a 17% effiviency from the fission of plutonium a bit more yield from the uranium damper.
All these details are public domain, but details of initiator design are, I gather, not so easy to get hold of.
Of course you know all this and your expertise in nuclear engineering can debunk it all
but I'd take no more notice of that than I would of your denial of gravity assist or re-entry from orbit.
Of course it's just as well that any Tom, Dick or Anders can build a successful nuclear weapon.
Bang, bang newclear injunier,
from an ignorant twerp!
-
There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
You do know all about "fast (neutron) fission" and "slow (neutron) fission"?
There is no secret, military type of fission that works in a nano-seconds FLASH after two subcritical bits of metal are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between producing a mushroom cloud.
Really? Your "nano-seconds FLASH" is totally ridiculous!
Only an ignorant self-opinionated twerp would come out that sort of rubbish.
There is a lot more to designing a successful fission weapon and early fission can force the subcritical apart prematurely.
Little boy (Hiroshima) took a few milliseconds to "assemble" the fissile material and so achieved an efficiency of under 1.4%.
An "assembly" time of about 1 microsecond is desirable.
A Pu-239 weapon cannot simply bring two subcritical pieces together as Pu-240 impurities would initiate premature fission and blow it apart with little fission.
So instead a thin shell of plutonium was collapsed around a Be/Po-210 initiator by two layers of high explosive.
The shock wave is sufficient to compress the plutonium to about 4 times normal density, achieving a sufficiently fast "assembly time" before the fission reaction starts the "disassembly" process.
As a result Fat man (Nagasaki) achieved a 17% effiviency from the fission of plutonium a bit more yield from the uranium damper.
All these details are public domain, but details of initiator design are, I gather, not so easy to get hold of.
Of course you know all this and your expertise in nuclear engineering can debunk it all
but I'd take no more notice of that than I would of your denial of gravity assist or re-entry from orbit.
Of course it's just as well that any Tom, Dick or Anders can build a successful nuclear weapon.
Bang, bang newclear injunier,
from an ignorant twerp!
No. Real, nuclear fission has been studied for years in laboratories and research nuclear power reactors. It is no big deal!
Fission is simply a neutron splitting an atom core releasing energy.
No Einstein's mass m becomes energy E according to E=mc² in a nuclear power plant. All mass m - unit kg - becomes bits and pieces of other masses (no masses disappear!) and plenty energy - unit Joule - is released. It has nothing to do with c - the velocity of the light of speed - unit meter per second. It is very fast on Earth, but slow if you watch the moons of Jupiter to establish it.
Plenty, not very well paid twerps invented the atomic bomb that exploded 1945. It was a big Hollywood show. Like US clowns on the Moon 1969 and New York Twin Towers becoming dust 2001.
But, if you like me disagree, you are sentenced to death in the USA. US law is tough.
So I stay away from it.
I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . I pay you €1M cash, if you show I am wrong http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm .
Try it. Be serious! Don't insult me!
-
Where did you go? Got a response? Cat got your tounge? O wait, if cat got you tongue you could post because you are inhibited. But if a cat didn't have your tongue you couldn't post because you are free to post.
lol
toot toot boat engineer
Didn't you read his post or his website? He already said it was impossible. I mean, what more evidence do you need?
Why can't people take his thouroghly unresearched and scientifically ignorant opinion as fact? He SAID it was impossible. He even has a website where says it several times!
HE HAS A WEBSITE!
Just because he is too stupid to understand the subject matter doesn't mean he is wrong. HE HAS A WEBSITE. And on that website he claims it's impossible. Why do you need more proof than his completely unsubstantiated claim?
-
No. Real, nuclear fission has been studied for years in laboratories and research nuclear power reactors. It is no big deal!
Fission is simply a neutron splitting an atom core releasing energy.
Yes, but there is quite a difference between "fast (neutron) fission" and "slow (neutron) fission".
No Einstein's mass m becomes energy E according to E=mc² in a nuclear power plant. All mass m becomes bits and pieces of other masses and a little energy is released. It has nothing to do with c - the velocity of the light of speed. It is very fast on Earth but slow if you watch the moons of Jupiter to establish it.
I can't help your total ignorance.
But, if you like me disagree, you are sentenced to death in the USA. US law is tough.
Garbage!
Try it. Be serious! Don't insult me!
It is a little hard to be serious when you post such rubbish and my opinion of your writings seems to be not uncommon!
Anders Björkman: I am quite good at hydrodynamics and wave forces on ships and how to design the ship structures to suit. It is more complicated than nuclear physics! Once you make certain logical deductions, you realize that nuclear explosions are impossible.
From: The Daily Bell, Shock Interview: Anders Björkman Is a Professional Technologist Who Doesn’t Believe in Nukes (http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/shock-interview-anders-bjorkman-is-a-professional-technologist-who-doesnt-believe-in-nukes/)
The design of nuclear weapons might be a little more complex than you suggest, Mr Björkman.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/63d3wibigxlxlts/Einstein%20Duh.png?dl=0)
Yes Simon, but like Anders Björkman points out below, what happened to the tax payers money?
"As an atomic bomb doesn't work it is interesting to note the enormous amounts of $ money, missiles, launch pads, war heads and persons involved to keep the US hoax alive. If that money is or was really spent or just another hoax, is another matter. Evidently you need some money/persons to keep the hoax going:
From: CloesForum.info, OBAMA TO REDUCE NUCLEAR ARSENALS BY ONE THIRD (http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2387863&sid=e16dae13eae584b3e7f51cf6219bb0c7)
Quite notorious aren't you?
And why not insult you? You insult us at every chance that you get!
-
<snip>
There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
<snip>
There you go again. Showing how little you understand how nuclear reactions work.
This statement is just plain wrong any you know it. It took a while of explaining it to you but you finally got it and admitted it. See the post below. Were you lying then or are you lying now.
I told you. Everything we post on the internet is there for everyone to see and you’ve posted so many contradictory things you make this easy.
<snip>
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
<snip>
-
Where did you go? Got a response? Cat got your tounge? O wait, if cat got you tongue you could post because you are inhibited. But if a cat didn't have your tongue you couldn't post because you are free to post.
lol
toot toot boat engineer
Didn't you read his post or his website? He already said it was impossible. I mean, what more evidence do you need?
Why can't people take his thouroghly unresearched and scientifically ignorant opinion as fact? He SAID it was impossible. He even has a website where says it several times!
HE HAS A WEBSITE!
Just because he is too stupid to understand the subject matter doesn't mean he is wrong. HE HAS A WEBSITE. And on that website he claims it's impossible. Why do you need more proof than his completely unsubstantiated claim?
No - at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm I simply show that the first US a-bombs explosions 1945 were just propaganda, i.e. just a stupid invention/fantasy. Stalin then copied it 1949. I do not suggest that anything is impossible. I suggest that igniting an a-bomb by compressing two bits of metal into a critical mass is ... ROTFL.
It is like 911 and the Twin Towers becoming dust. Some stupid footage/film was shown live on TV and US authorities announced soon after that all was due to Arabs crashing planes into the tops of the towers. It cannot happen in reality but most Americans are too stupid to understand it. You sound like one.
-
<snip>
There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
<snip>
There you go again. Showing how little you understand how nuclear reactions work.
This statement is just plain wrong any you know it. It took a while of explaining it to you but you finally got it and admitted it. See the post below. Were you lying then or are you lying now.
I told you. Everything we post on the internet is there for everyone to see and you’ve posted so many contradictory things you make this easy.
<snip>
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
<snip>
No fatty, you are wrong as usual.
Military, fast FLASH, dirty mushroom cloud fission does not exist. All footage of it is simple propaganda, done by Hollywood.
Fission is very easy to do in a laboratory. I explain how at my website.
But military fission cannot be done in a laboratory for obvious reasons. The laboratory disappears in a FLASH and becomes a mushroom cloud.
ROTFL!
-
<snip>
There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
<snip>
There you go again. Showing how little you understand how nuclear reactions work.
This statement is just plain wrong any you know it. It took a while of explaining it to you but you finally got it and admitted it. See the post below. Were you lying then or are you lying now.
I told you. Everything we post on the internet is there for everyone to see and you’ve posted so many contradictory things you make this easy.
<snip>
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
<snip>
No fatty, you are wrong as usual.
Military, fast FLASH, dirty mushroom cloud fission does not exist. All footage of it is simple propaganda, done by Hollywood.
Fission is very easy to do in a laboratory. I explain how at my website.
But military fission cannot be done in a laboratory for obvious reasons. The laboratory disappears in a FLASH and becomes a mushroom cloud.
ROTFL!
That's not what you said. You stated that "There is only one type of fission" and you are wrong and you've admitted it.
Mike
-
<snip>
There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
<snip>
There you go again. Showing how little you understand how nuclear reactions work.
This statement is just plain wrong any you know it. It took a while of explaining it to you but you finally got it and admitted it. See the post below. Were you lying then or are you lying now.
I told you. Everything we post on the internet is there for everyone to see and you’ve posted so many contradictory things you make this easy.
<snip>
OK. Fission, including fast fission works. It is the same thing. Fast or not. Fission is always fast or not. A free neutron splits an atom. It goes fast. And a little later energy is released.
<snip>
No fatty, you are wrong as usual.
Military, fast FLASH, dirty mushroom cloud fission does not exist. All footage of it is simple propaganda, done by Hollywood.
Fission is very easy to do in a laboratory. I explain how at my website.
But military fission cannot be done in a laboratory for obvious reasons. The laboratory disappears in a FLASH and becomes a mushroom cloud.
ROTFL!
That's not what you said. You stated that "There is only one type of fission" and you are wrong and you've admitted it.
Mike
Yes, I said there is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
And then I added that military, fast, i.e. nanoseconds, FLASH, dirty mushroom cloud fission does not exist. All footage of FLASHES and dirty mushroom clouds of it is simple propaganda, done by Hollywood.
Reason why the military, fast FLASH, dirty mushroom cloud fission does not exist is that nobody knows how to start/ignite it.
Somebody should tell Donald Trump!
-
Fission is very easy to do in a laboratory. I explain how at my website.
But military fission cannot be done in a laboratory for obvious reasons. The laboratory disappears in a FLASH and becomes a mushroom cloud.
That's why those experimental devices are taken out in the middle of a desert or deep underground.
Do you think that full size fuel-air bombs are tested inside a laboratory?
-
Fission is very easy to do in a laboratory. I explain how at my website.
But military fission cannot be done in a laboratory for obvious reasons. The laboratory disappears in a FLASH and becomes a mushroom cloud.
That's why those experimental devices are taken out in the middle of a desert or deep underground.
Do you think that full size fuel-air bombs are tested inside a laboratory?
You are right. It is very easy to falsify experiments in the middle of a desert or deep underground with nobody around.
Only twerps would test a full size fuel-air bomb or a-bomb inside a laboratory. It is much better to do it on a test ground. I would like to be invited an watch it. How do you ignite an a-bomb? Any ideas?
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You are right. It is very easy to falsify experiments in the middle of a desert or deep underground with nobody around.
Only twerps would test a full size fuel-air bomb or a-bomb inside a laboratory. It is much better to do it on a test ground. I would like to be invited and watch it. How do you ignite an a-bomb? Any ideas?
Yes, I've a few basic ideas how you ignite an a-bomb, though I certainly would not have the expertise or ability to do it.
And I know that there have been many lies told about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fact that nuclear weapons were used all sickens me,
But you, Mr Anders Björkman, and people like you sicken me more!
Explain these photos:
Is it true that permanent shadows were formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that humans were vaporized in the kill zone? What is the cause of permanent shadows? Why didn't the stair in the picture get destroyed from the explosion?
Ashutosh Vikram Singh, History absolves everything
Permanent shadows, also called “Nuclear Shadows” were definitely formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These are some of the shadows formed on that fateful day.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ba8459c2c795965eaafec4080ee92a70-c)
From: Quora, Is it true that permanent shadows were formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . . . (https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-permanent-shadows-were-formed-during-the-bombing-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-and-that-humans-were-vaporized-in-the-kill-zone-What-is-the-cause-of-permanent-shadows-Why-didnt-the-stair-in-the-picture-get-destroyed-from-the-explosion)
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause shadows like that. There are thousands more photos like that.
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause apparently uninjured people to die from massive internal bleeding three days later.
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause immediate and long term deaths from ionising radiation?
You might read: Columbia | K1 Project, Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects (https://k1project.columbia.edu/)
and: The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today (http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today)
and then: American Military Leaders Urge President Truman not to Drop the Atomic Bomb (https://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm)
Sure, you Mr Anders Björkman, will brush it off and call us twerps, just as you did to Lasha Darkmoon in The “No Nuclear Bombs” Conspiracy theory. (https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/the-no-nuclear-bombs-conspiracy-theory/)
(https://www.darkmoon.me/uploads/nagasaki-hiroshima-blasts.jpg)
And some advice for anyone silly enough to debate with people like you, Click Here! (http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/)
-
You are right. It is very easy to falsify experiments in the middle of a desert or deep underground with nobody around.
Only twerps would test a full size fuel-air bomb or a-bomb inside a laboratory. It is much better to do it on a test ground. I would like to be invited an watch it. How do you ignite an a-bomb? Any ideas?
Umm... The press has been invited to atomic bomb tests. At least one test was even broadcast on live television.
Sixty-five years ago, the new medium of television entered the atomic age as 35 million Americans from coast to coast tuned in to witness the first live nationwide broadcast of a nuclear test. The atomic bomb detonated in the desert outside of Las Vegas packed quite a wallop, but the TV broadcast itself turned out to be a dud.
Millions of Americans who turned on their televisions on April 22, 1952, expecting to watch their favorite soap operas and game shows instead saw quite a change in programming. Rather than “Search for Tomorrow” or “Strike It Rich,” mushroom clouds flickered across black-and-white television screens throughout the country in the first live nationwide broadcast of a nuclear test.
-
He's just going to cry "photoshop"...because you know, they had that in 1945. Anders is a self-proclaimed imaging expert. It's how he knows there were no planes.
-
How do you ignite an a-bomb?
with a-fuse.
-
He's just going to cry "photoshop"...because you know, they had that in 1945. Anders is a self-proclaimed imaging expert. It's how he knows there were no planes.
Fake photos have been around for a long time and even bright young girls managed to pull a few off :(https://www.dropbox.com/s/jfklpg6gw53qm31/Cottingley-sunbath%20Fairies.jpg?dl=1)
Cottingley Fairies
I was around in 1945 and old enough to be aware of what was going on. I do not doubt those photos for one second!
At the time everyone seemed to believe that USA was more-or-less forced into the use of the A-bombs, but maybe not.
Why was Nagasaki nuked?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Days later when Hiroshima was destroyed, Truman broke the news to his shipmates aboard the USS Augusta, saying, “The experiment has been an overwhelming success.” The Nagasaki bombing was his second nuclear “experiment.” The geopolitical logic of the nuclear bombings was to establish U.S. primacy in the postwar order.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Read the rest in: Why was Nagasaki nuked? (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2016/06/01/commentary/japan-commentary/why-was-nagasaki-nuked/#.WiNXmWGubMI)
-
How do you ignite an a-bomb?
with a-fuse.
No, you compress metal to double density and ... FLASH!
ROTFL
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You are right. It is very easy to falsify experiments in the middle of a desert or deep underground with nobody around.
Only twerps would test a full size fuel-air bomb or a-bomb inside a laboratory. It is much better to do it on a test ground. I would like to be invited and watch it. How do you ignite an a-bomb? Any ideas?
Yes, I've a few basic ideas how you ignite an a-bomb, though I certainly would not have the expertise or ability to do it.
And I know that there have been many lies told about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fact that nuclear weapons were used all sickens me,
But you, Mr Anders Björkman, and people like you sicken me more!
Explain these photos:
Is it true that permanent shadows were formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that humans were vaporized in the kill zone? What is the cause of permanent shadows? Why didn't the stair in the picture get destroyed from the explosion?
Ashutosh Vikram Singh, History absolves everything
Permanent shadows, also called “Nuclear Shadows” were definitely formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These are some of the shadows formed on that fateful day.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ba8459c2c795965eaafec4080ee92a70-c)
From: Quora, Is it true that permanent shadows were formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . . . (https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-permanent-shadows-were-formed-during-the-bombing-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-and-that-humans-were-vaporized-in-the-kill-zone-What-is-the-cause-of-permanent-shadows-Why-didnt-the-stair-in-the-picture-get-destroyed-from-the-explosion)
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause shadows like that. There are thousands more photos like that.
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause apparently uninjured people to die from massive internal bleeding three days later.
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause immediate and long term deaths from ionising radiation?
You might read: Columbia | K1 Project, Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects (https://k1project.columbia.edu/)
and: The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today (http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today)
and then: American Military Leaders Urge President Truman not to Drop the Atomic Bomb (https://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm)
Sure, you Mr Anders Björkman, will brush it off and call us twerps, just as you did to Lasha Darkmoon in The “No Nuclear Bombs” Conspiracy theory. (https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/the-no-nuclear-bombs-conspiracy-theory/)
(https://www.darkmoon.me/uploads/nagasaki-hiroshima-blasts.jpg)
And some advice for anyone silly enough to debate with people like you, Click Here! (http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/)
Use your critical thinking, if any! Ever heard of propaganda?
-
<snip>. How do you ignite an a-bomb? Any ideas?
The same way a reactor is started up for the first time. A neutron source. In rectors it's called a startup neutron source. In nuclear weapons it's called a modulated neutron initiator. What's the big deal. You're supposedly an engineer. You should be able to understand the mechanical process.
Although, you should already know this because you claim you do excellent the research...or, is it just too difficult for you to understand?
Mike
-
Use your critical thinking, if any! Ever heard of propaganda?
Yes, propaganda is what you try to pass off as evidence on your "popular" web site.
-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You are right. It is very easy to falsify experiments in the middle of a desert or deep underground with nobody around.
Only twerps would test a full size fuel-air bomb or a-bomb inside a laboratory. It is much better to do it on a test ground. I would like to be invited and watch it. How do you ignite an a-bomb? Any ideas?
Yes, I've a few basic ideas how you ignite an a-bomb, though I certainly would not have the expertise or ability to do it.
And I know that there have been many lies told about Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the fact that nuclear weapons were used all sickens me,
But you, Mr Anders Björkman, and people like you sicken me more!
Explain these photos:
Is it true that permanent shadows were formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that humans were vaporized in the kill zone? What is the cause of permanent shadows? Why didn't the stair in the picture get destroyed from the explosion?
Ashutosh Vikram Singh, History absolves everything
Permanent shadows, also called “Nuclear Shadows” were definitely formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. These are some of the shadows formed on that fateful day.
(https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ba8459c2c795965eaafec4080ee92a70-c)
From: Quora, Is it true that permanent shadows were formed during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki . . . (https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-permanent-shadows-were-formed-during-the-bombing-of-Hiroshima-and-Nagasaki-and-that-humans-were-vaporized-in-the-kill-zone-What-is-the-cause-of-permanent-shadows-Why-didnt-the-stair-in-the-picture-get-destroyed-from-the-explosion)
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause shadows like that. There are thousands more photos like that.
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause apparently uninjured people to die from massive internal bleeding three days later.
Please explain how fire-bombing can cause immediate and long term deaths from ionising radiation?
You might read: Columbia | K1 Project, Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects (https://k1project.columbia.edu/)
and: The lies of Hiroshima are the lies of today (http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-lies-of-hiroshima-are-the-lies-of-today)
and then: American Military Leaders Urge President Truman not to Drop the Atomic Bomb (https://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm)
Sure, you Mr Anders Björkman, will brush it off and call us twerps, just as you did to Lasha Darkmoon in The “No Nuclear Bombs” Conspiracy theory. (https://www.darkmoon.me/2015/the-no-nuclear-bombs-conspiracy-theory/)
(https://www.darkmoon.me/uploads/nagasaki-hiroshima-blasts.jpg)
And some advice for anyone silly enough to debate with people like you, Click Here! (http://www.howtoarguewithanidiot.com/)
Use your critical thinking, if any! Ever heard of propaganda?
How about you provide some proof for the so-called propaganda campaign. Don’t just link to your website.
Mike
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . You find my full style there.
If anybody can show that I am wrong, I will modify the website accordingly.
Anders Björkman
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . You find my full style there.
Nope. Your site is just conspiracy theorist propaganda. Nothing more.
-
If anybody can show that I am wrong...
This is not possible due to some condition of yours. I think it's Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
-
Where did you go? Got a response? Cat got your tounge? O wait, if cat got you tongue you could post because you are inhibited. But if a cat didn't have your tongue you couldn't post because you are free to post.
lol
toot toot boat engineer
Didn't you read his post or his website? He already said it was impossible. I mean, what more evidence do you need?
Why can't people take his thouroghly unresearched and scientifically ignorant opinion as fact? He SAID it was impossible. He even has a website where says it several times!
HE HAS A WEBSITE!
Just because he is too stupid to understand the subject matter doesn't mean he is wrong. HE HAS A WEBSITE. And on that website he claims it's impossible. Why do you need more proof than his completely unsubstantiated claim?
No - at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm I simply show that the first US a-bombs explosions 1945 were just propaganda, i.e. just a stupid invention/fantasy. Stalin then copied it 1949. I do not suggest that anything is impossible. I suggest that igniting an a-bomb by compressing two bits of metal into a critical mass is ... ROTFL.
It is like 911 and the Twin Towers becoming dust. Some stupid footage/film was shown live on TV and US authorities announced soon after that all was due to Arabs crashing planes into the tops of the towers. It cannot happen in reality but most Americans are too stupid to understand it. You sound like one.
No, you just claim it. You show zero evidence. You just say it. That's what I was pointing out. You provide no evidence at all you just say it's impossible. The reason for this is that you are an idiot. Hard stop. No evidence, just your ignorant asshole opinion with literally nothing to back it up. And to prove this I predict that you will offer no evidence here but simply suggest we should visit your worthless piece of shit website for proof that isn't there.
Prove me wrong and present your evidence here or admit you are a complete and utter failure and suggest we visit your website, your choice..
-
Ever heard of propaganda?
Yes, I've heard of propaganda. So what?
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . You find my full style there.
If anybody can show that I am wrong, I will modify the website accordingly.
Anders Björkman
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . You find my full style there.
If anybody can show that I am wrong, I will modify the website accordingly.
Anders Björkman
Post a bit here I'm not falling for any click bait site.
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . You find my full style there.
If anybody can show that I am wrong, I will modify the website accordingly.
Anders Björkman
Post a bit here I'm not falling for any click bait site.
Don't worry! I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . It is not any click bait site.
You find my full style there too.
If anybody can show that I am wrong, I will modify my website accordingly. Since 20 years nobody has managed it.
Anders Björkman
-
This is not possible due to some condition of yours. I think it's Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . You find my full style there.
If anybody can show that I am wrong, I will modify the website accordingly.
Anders Björkman
That's a load of crap. Your website only makes the claim but provide no evidence. Just because you say it doesn't make it true. Where's the proof?
Mike
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website
No, you just dismiss all evidence for nuclear weapons as propaganda. You have not provided a single credible source that agrees with your opinion.
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website
No, you just dismiss all evidence for nuclear weapons as propaganda. You have not provided a single credible source that agrees with your opinion.
Yes, I dismiss all info about nuclear weapons as propaganda and I provide solid evidence for my findings at my website. Twerps like you hiding at a flat earth forum don't agree. I would not expect anything else.
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website
No, you just dismiss all evidence for nuclear weapons as propaganda. You have not provided a single credible source that agrees with your opinion.
Yes, I dismiss all info about nuclear weapons as propaganda and I provide solid evidence for my findings at my website. Twerps like you hiding at a flat earth forum don't agree. I would not expect anything else.
I think that your definition of "solid evidence" is quite different from the one that the rest of the English speaking world uses.
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website
No, you just dismiss all evidence for nuclear weapons as propaganda. You have not provided a single credible source that agrees with your opinion.
Yes, I dismiss all info about nuclear weapons as propaganda and I provide solid evidence for my findings at my website. Twerps like you hiding at a flat earth forum don't agree. I would not expect anything else.
I think that your definition of "solid evidence" is quite different from the one that the rest of the English speaking world uses.
Yeah you have to understand that his idea of evidence does not need to go beyond he said so. He is one of those rare truly sick individuals who, I think, honestly believes that he cannot be wrong. His delusion is so complete that he truly thinks that if he says it then that is proof enough.
If he wasn't so mean spirited it would sad.
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website
No, you just dismiss all evidence for nuclear weapons as propaganda. You have not provided a single credible source that agrees with your opinion.
Yes, I dismiss all info about nuclear weapons as propaganda and I provide solid evidence for my findings at my website. Twerps like you hiding at a flat earth forum don't agree. I would not expect anything else.
I think that your definition of "solid evidence" is quite different from the one that the rest of the English speaking world uses.
I know that your definition of solid evidence is that the US government/media said so, e.g. Hiroshima was wiped out in FLASH, Americans have been pissing on the Moon and Arabs destroyed the Twin Towers. I really feel sorry for you.
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website
No, you just dismiss all evidence for nuclear weapons as propaganda. You have not provided a single credible source that agrees with your opinion.
Yes, I dismiss all info about nuclear weapons as propaganda and I provide solid evidence for my findings at my website. Twerps like you hiding at a flat earth forum don't agree. I would not expect anything else.
I think that your definition of "solid evidence" is quite different from the one that the rest of the English speaking world uses.
I know that your definition of solid evidence is that the US government/media said so, e.g. Hiroshima was wiped out in FLASH, Americans have been pissing on the Moon and Arabs destroyed the Twin Towers. I really feel sorry for you.
If you honestly think that's all of the "solid evidence" there is for those events, then I truly feel sorry for you.
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website
No, you just dismiss all evidence for nuclear weapons as propaganda. You have not provided a single credible source that agrees with your opinion.
Yes, I dismiss all info about nuclear weapons as propaganda and I provide solid evidence for my findings at my website. Twerps like you hiding at a flat earth forum don't agree. I would not expect anything else.
I think that your definition of "solid evidence" is quite different from the one that the rest of the English speaking world uses.
I know that your definition of solid evidence is that the US government/media said so, e.g. Hiroshima was wiped out in FLASH, Americans have been pissing on the Moon and Arabs destroyed the Twin Towers. I really feel sorry for you.
If you honestly think that's all of the "solid evidence" there is for those events, then I truly feel sorry for you.
Well, there are plenty, strange people having seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappearing in FLASHES and US authorities love them. Same with the Americans having pissed on the Moon due to lack of sanitary facilities in the US spacecrafts. Brave people! Not like the enemies destroying the Twin Towers at NY. Go on living in your dreams, markjo.
-
Well, there are plenty, strange people having seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappearing in FLASHES and US authorities love them. Same with the Americans having pissed on the Moon due to lack of sanitary facilities in the US spacecrafts. Brave people! Not like the enemies destroying the Twin Towers at NY. Go on living in your dreams, markjo.
You did say!
Just accepting what other people say is in my view stupid. Only twerps do it.
Do you think this is why no one listens to you? Because they're not stupid?
-
Well, there are plenty, strange people having seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappearing in FLASHES and US authorities love them. Same with the Americans having pissed on the Moon due to lack of sanitary facilities in the US spacecrafts. Brave people! Not like the enemies destroying the Twin Towers at NY. Go on living in your dreams, markjo.
You did say!
Just accepting what other people say is in my view stupid. Only twerps do it.
Do you think this is why no one listens to you? Because they're not stupid?
Plenty people listen to and agree with me and they are not stupid.
-
Well, there are plenty, strange people having seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappearing in FLASHES and US authorities love them. Same with the Americans having pissed on the Moon due to lack of sanitary facilities in the US spacecrafts. Brave people! Not like the enemies destroying the Twin Towers at NY. Go on living in your dreams, markjo.
You did say!
Just accepting what other people say is in my view stupid. Only twerps do it.
Do you think this is why no one listens to you? Because they're not stupid?
Plenty people listen to and agree with me and they are not stupid.
In your dreams! lol
-
I provide solid evidence that nuclear weapons are a fraud since 1945 at my website
No, you just dismiss all evidence for nuclear weapons as propaganda. You have not provided a single credible source that agrees with your opinion.
Yes, I dismiss all info about nuclear weapons as propaganda and I provide solid evidence for my findings at my website. Twerps like you hiding at a flat earth forum don't agree. I would not expect anything else.
I think that your definition of "solid evidence" is quite different from the one that the rest of the English speaking world uses.
I know that your definition of solid evidence is that the US government/media said so, e.g. Hiroshima was wiped out in FLASH, Americans have been pissing on the Moon and Arabs destroyed the Twin Towers. I really feel sorry for you.
If you honestly think that's all of the "solid evidence" there is for those events, then I truly feel sorry for you.
Well, there are plenty, strange people having seen Hiroshima and Nagasaki disappearing in FLASHES and US authorities love them. Same with the Americans having pissed on the Moon due to lack of sanitary facilities in the US spacecrafts. Brave people! Not like the enemies destroying the Twin Towers at NY. Go on living in your dreams, markjo.
Sure, and you go on wallowing in your ignorance. By way, you should probably seek psychiatric help for your obsession with urination. It's getting really creepy.
-
Same with the Americans having pissed on the Moon due to lack of sanitary facilities in the US spacecrafts spacecraft.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png) I suppose you think that the LEM should have been equipped with a full flush toilet and septic tank! (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png)
But if, as you claim all manned space missions were all fakes - how did Americans piss on the Moon. They sure had a longer range that I do!
Of, course the moon suits had urination bags with vents!
I don't see the problem, look!Short fact: the first man to pee on the moon, Buzz Aldrin
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png) (https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/buzz-peeing.jpg) (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png)
unknown photoshop credit. via Gizmodo |
Of course he didn’t actually pee on the moon, Aldrin took his lunar leak into a special bag in his space suit, before trying to climb the Apollo 11 lander’s ladder.
From: ZME Science, Short fact: the first man to pee on the moon, Buzz Aldrin (https://www.zmescience.com/space/short-fact-the-first-man-to-pee-on-the-moon-buzz-aldrin/)
-
Same with the Americans having pissed on the Moon due to lack of sanitary facilities in the US spacecrafts spacecraft.
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png) I suppose you think that the LEM should have been equipped with a full flush toilet and septic tank! (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png)
But if, as you claim all manned space missions were all fakes - how did Americans piss on the Moon. They sure had a longer range that I do!
Of, course the moon suits had urination bags with vents!
I don't see the problem, look!Short fact: the first man to pee on the moon, Buzz Aldrin
(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png) (https://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/buzz-peeing.jpg) (https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1061/1924/products/Wink_Emoji_small.png)
unknown photoshop credit. via Gizmodo |
Of course he didn’t actually pee on the moon, Aldrin took his lunar leak into a special bag in his space suit, before trying to climb the Apollo 11 lander’s ladder.
From: ZME Science, Short fact: the first man to pee on the moon, Buzz Aldrin (https://www.zmescience.com/space/short-fact-the-first-man-to-pee-on-the-moon-buzz-aldrin/)
So you suggest that the US astronuts just pissed in their trousers ... like babies. Why not? If you ask NASA 2017 how you piss and shit on the International Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes, it seems you must strap yourself to some chair and then attach a hose and then push:
(http://heiwaco.tripod.com/issshit.gif)
I describe more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .
It is really disgusting.
-
I describe more at htwrp://heiwadork.com/idiot.htm
It is really disgusting.
I bet.
-
So you suggest that the US astronuts just pissed in their trousers ... like babies. Why not? If you ask NASA 2017 how you piss and shit on the International Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes, it seems you must strap yourself to some chair and then attach a hose and then push:
(http://heiwaco.tripod.com/issshit.gif)
I describe more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .
It is really disgusting.
You're an engineer used to pissing and shitting in confined spaces. How would you have astronauts handle their bodily functions in a cramped zero gravity environment (assuming that manned space flight is real, of course)?
-
So you suggest that the US astronuts just pissed in their trousers ... like babies. Why not? If you ask NASA 2017 how you piss and shit on the International Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes, it seems you must strap yourself to some chair and then attach a hose and then push:
I describe more at http://heiwashit.com
It is really disgusting.
You're an engineer used to pissing and shitting in confined spaces. How would you have astronauts handle their bodily functions in a cramped zero gravity environment (assuming that manned space flight is real, of course)?
I think the argument is something like "pissing and shitting in space would be awkward, therefore, space travel is impossible and never happened."
-
So you suggest that the US astronuts just pissed in their trousers ... like babies. Why not? If you ask NASA 2017 how you piss and shit on the International Space Station orbiting Earth in 90 minutes, it seems you must strap yourself to some chair and then attach a hose and then push:
(http://heiwaco.tripod.com/issshit.gif)
I describe more at http://heiwaco.com/moontravel2.htm .
It is really disgusting.
You're an engineer used to pissing and shitting in confined spaces. How would you have astronauts handle their bodily functions in a cramped zero gravity environment (assuming that manned space flight is real, of course)?
-
I didn't ask "how would NASA do it?" I asked "how would YOU do it?" Come on Anders, put that big engineering brain of yours to work and solve a problem for once in your life.
-
Heiwa was a cabin steward until he got caught whacking it overboard and fired.
Anything more than a request for an extra pillow is was above his pay grade.
-
I didn't ask "how would NASA do it?" I asked "how would YOU do it?" Come on Anders, put that big engineering brain of yours to work and solve a problem for once in your life.
I evidently do not take a rocket spacecraft to go pissing. I just enter the nearest loo. Why do you ask stupid questions? Are you paid for it? If not, why do you do it? Nothing else to do?
-
I evidently do not take a rocket spacecraft to go pissing. I just enter the nearest loo.
When you're in space for more than a few hours, you need to take the loo with you. How would you suggest doing that?
Why do you ask stupid questions? Are you paid for it? If not, why do you do it? Nothing else to do?
Why do you think that they're stupid questions? If sea ships take toilets with them, then why shouldn't space ships take toilets too?
-
That's a big assumption about the nature of space - seeing as nobody has ever been there.
-
That's a big assumption about the nature of space - seeing as nobody has ever been there.
Except for the, over, 500 people who have and the thousands who have studied it.
-
That's a big assumption about the nature of space - seeing as nobody has ever been there.
Actually, we're supposed to be discussing the nature of nuclear power, but Anders can't stay on topic, so here we are.
-
I was actually just watching a documentary about the dropping of the nuclear bombs on the History Channel. It talked about the specific reasons they picked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They were on a list of several choices. They were chosen because the areas were untouched by the huge fire bombing raids and their population density. First the US wanted to see what the exact effects were on an populated area. And second, the US wanted to make it obvious that they had the ability to destroy the entire country. Fire bombing was going on and caused horrific devastation and had already occurred in 67 cities. Japan was intimately familiar with fire bombing. But, it was never going to demoralize the nation. There was no doubt part of the reason for the site selections were because of flammable material. But, the side effect of the nukes were the gift that kept on giving. Radiation. You have to remember that the public was not familiar with the affects of radiation on the body. The average person can understand why fire can cause harm. But, no one understood the after effects of radiation on the body. People were dying of strange illnesses that had nothing to do with the result of fire.
-
That's a big assumption about the nature of space - seeing as nobody has ever been there.
Actually, we're supposed to be discussing the nature of nuclear power, but Anders can't stay on topic, so here we are.
Hm, why do you invent things?
I maintain there is only one type of fission to produce nuclear power and that it is moderated. I explain it at my website.
You change topic and say there are two (!) types of nuclear power, i.e. one normal fission type and another, secret, military FLASH fission that only last nano-seconds after having compressed two pieces of metal together. It is used to vaporize people after careful consideration by some experts. I show that it is utter nonsense that only twerps believe in.
Please, give me a break.
-
I maintain there is only one type of fission to produce nuclear power and that it is moderated. I explain it at my website.
You know full well that unmoderated, fast neutron fission reactors are real and in use around the world.
You change topic and say there are two (!) types of nuclear power, i.e. one normal fission type and another, secret, military FLASH fission that only last nano-seconds after having compressed two pieces of metal together. It is used to vaporize people after careful consideration by some experts. I show that it is utter nonsense that only twerps believe in.
I'll tell you what. I'd consider it a minor miracle if you were to update your web site to acknowledge that unmoderated, fast neutron fission is real and tackle uncontrolled fission chain reactions later.
Please, give me a break.
Okay, what do you want broken?
-
I maintain there is only one type of fission to produce nuclear power and that it is moderated. I explain it at my website.
You know full well that unmoderated, fast neutron fission reactors are real and in use around the world.
Yes, but they are moderated. All nuclear power fission is moderated.
Only twerps believe in unmoderated, secret, military FLASH fission that only lasts some nano-seconds vaporizing people. Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise. You have to believe. I really feel sorry for you.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
No it's not. Do I need to post this on my website and spam a link to prove it?
-
I maintain there is only one type of fission to produce nuclear power and that it is moderated. I explain it at my website.
You know full well that unmoderated, fast neutron fission reactors are real and in use around the world.
Yes, but they are moderated. All nuclear power fission is moderated.
No. Fast neutron fission reactors are not moderated. If they were moderated, then they wouldn't be fast neutron fission reactors because moderation slows the neutrons.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
Wrong again. What you have is OPINION. You have not been and will not be sentenced for an opinion. You have not had access to classified info and you have never been sentenced to anything regarding nuclear policy. Stop lying.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
Is that also the reason that you avoid learning anything about nuclear physics?
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
Wrong again. What you have is OPINION. You have not been and will not be sentenced for an opinion. You have not had access to classified info and you have never been sentenced to anything. Stop lying.
Sorry. I publish solid facts about nuclear weapons at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The a-bomb is a hoax from the beginning 1945. Just military propaganda. And I pay you €1M proving me wrong. Isn't it good news?
It is a big show. CIA and KGB/FSB support/pay anti-atomic bomb groups that win Nobel Peace Prizes at regular intervals and also convince Nobel Price winners to confirm nuclear weapons are real and media just trumpet the lies.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
Wrong again. What you have is OPINION. You have not been and will not be sentenced for an opinion. You have not had access to classified info and you have never been sentenced to anything. Stop lying.
Sorry. I publish solid facts about nuclear weapons at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The a-bomb is a hoax from the beginning 1945. Just military propaganda. And I pay you €1M proving me wrong. Isn't it good news?
It is a big show. CIA and KGB/FSB support/pay anti-atomic bomb groups that win Nobel Peace Prizes at regular intervals and also convince Nobel Price winners to confirm nuclear weapons are real and media just trumpet the lies.
More lies from Heiwa. What you have is OPINION. You're never going to pay anyone because the sole judge is biased and there is no proof the money exist. The "challenges" are nothing more than you stroking your ego. Again, you have not been sentenced for anything related to nuclear policy, you've never had access to classified info, and you're still lying about the law.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
Wrong again. What you have is OPINION. You have not been and will not be sentenced for an opinion. You have not had access to classified info and you have never been sentenced to anything. Stop lying.
Sorry. I publish solid facts about nuclear weapons at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The a-bomb is a hoax from the beginning 1945. Just military propaganda. And I pay you €1M proving me wrong. Isn't it good news?
It is a big show. CIA and KGB/FSB support/pay anti-atomic bomb groups that win Nobel Peace Prizes at regular intervals and also convince Nobel Price winners to confirm nuclear weapons are real and media just trumpet the lies.
More lies from Heiwa. What you have is OPINION. You're never going to pay anyone because the sole judge is biased and there is no proof the money exist. The "challenges" are nothing more than you stroking your ego. Again, you have not been sentenced for anything related to nuclear policy, you've never had access to classified info, and you're still lying about the law.
If OPINION is judgement not founded on complete knowledge I agree with you. But at my website I do my best to base my judgements on solid facts, e.g. that there is only one type of fission - splitting of atom cores by neutrons - and that it is always moderated.
Neutrons cannot simply just fly around in the air and ignite, e.g. nuclear weapons resulting in a nano-seconds fission FLASH. All Japanese stating they saw these type of fission FLASHES over Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 resulting in 100 000's of persons being vaporized and the towns disappearing in smoke ... while they survived to be able to testify.
This nuclear weapons show is big biz and ... finanzed by the Nobel Peace prizes. I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
Wrong again. What you have is OPINION. You have not been and will not be sentenced for an opinion. You have not had access to classified info and you have never been sentenced to anything. Stop lying.
Sorry. I publish solid facts about nuclear weapons at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The a-bomb is a hoax from the beginning 1945. Just military propaganda. And I pay you €1M proving me wrong. Isn't it good news?
It is a big show. CIA and KGB/FSB support/pay anti-atomic bomb groups that win Nobel Peace Prizes at regular intervals and also convince Nobel Price winners to confirm nuclear weapons are real and media just trumpet the lies.
More lies from Heiwa. What you have is OPINION. You're never going to pay anyone because the sole judge is biased and there is no proof the money exist. The "challenges" are nothing more than you stroking your ego. Again, you have not been sentenced for anything related to nuclear policy, you've never had access to classified info, and you're still lying about the law.
If OPINION is judgement not founded on complete knowledge I agree with you. But at my website I do my best to base my judgements on solid facts, e.g. that there is only one type of fission - splitting of atom cores by neutrons - and that it is always moderated.
Neutrons cannot simply just fly around in the air and ignite, e.g. nuclear weapons resulting in a nano-seconds fission FLASH. All Japanese stating they saw these type of fission FLASHES over Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 resulting in 100 000's of persons being vaporized and the towns disappearing in smoke ... while they survived to be able to testify.
This nuclear weapons show is big biz and ... finanzed by the Nobel Peace prizes. I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Noted how you avoid the subject of your LIES about being sentenced to death. and return to your other ego stroking lies and spamming your website.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
Wrong again. What you have is OPINION. You have not been and will not be sentenced for an opinion. You have not had access to classified info and you have never been sentenced to anything. Stop lying.
Sorry. I publish solid facts about nuclear weapons at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The a-bomb is a hoax from the beginning 1945. Just military propaganda. And I pay you €1M proving me wrong. Isn't it good news?
It is a big show. CIA and KGB/FSB support/pay anti-atomic bomb groups that win Nobel Peace Prizes at regular intervals and also convince Nobel Price winners to confirm nuclear weapons are real and media just trumpet the lies.
More lies from Heiwa. What you have is OPINION. You're never going to pay anyone because the sole judge is biased and there is no proof the money exist. The "challenges" are nothing more than you stroking your ego. Again, you have not been sentenced for anything related to nuclear policy, you've never had access to classified info, and you're still lying about the law.
If OPINION is judgement not founded on complete knowledge I agree with you. But at my website I do my best to base my judgements on solid facts, e.g. that there is only one type of fission - splitting of atom cores by neutrons - and that it is always moderated.
Neutrons cannot simply just fly around in the air and ignite, e.g. nuclear weapons resulting in a nano-seconds fission FLASH. All Japanese stating they saw these type of fission FLASHES over Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 resulting in 100 000's of persons being vaporized and the towns disappearing in smoke ... while they survived to be able to testify.
This nuclear weapons show is big biz and ... finanzed by the Nobel Peace prizes. I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Noted how you avoid the subject of your LIES about being sentenced to death. and return to your other ego stroking lies and spamming your website.
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
And it is not me spamming! It is Google and other search engines that help me. It doesn't cost me anything.
But I agree. It is not nice being sentenced to death according to existing laws of a crazy country. Luckily these laws cannot be applied where I live.
-
Of course it is against the law in USA to suggest otherwise.
More lies from Heiwa. It has been pointed out multiple times that the law doesn't say what you think it says and that you have never had access to classified info.
All nuclear weapons info in the USA is classified for national security reasons and anyone, like me, showing the real situation will be sentenced to death. All publicly available info about US WMDs is just propaganda.
That is one reason I avoid visiting USA.
Wrong again. What you have is OPINION. You have not been and will not be sentenced for an opinion. You have not had access to classified info and you have never been sentenced to anything. Stop lying.
Sorry. I publish solid facts about nuclear weapons at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . The a-bomb is a hoax from the beginning 1945. Just military propaganda. And I pay you €1M proving me wrong. Isn't it good news?
It is a big show. CIA and KGB/FSB support/pay anti-atomic bomb groups that win Nobel Peace Prizes at regular intervals and also convince Nobel Price winners to confirm nuclear weapons are real and media just trumpet the lies.
More lies from Heiwa. What you have is OPINION. You're never going to pay anyone because the sole judge is biased and there is no proof the money exist. The "challenges" are nothing more than you stroking your ego. Again, you have not been sentenced for anything related to nuclear policy, you've never had access to classified info, and you're still lying about the law.
If OPINION is judgement not founded on complete knowledge I agree with you. But at my website I do my best to base my judgements on solid facts, e.g. that there is only one type of fission - splitting of atom cores by neutrons - and that it is always moderated.
Neutrons cannot simply just fly around in the air and ignite, e.g. nuclear weapons resulting in a nano-seconds fission FLASH. All Japanese stating they saw these type of fission FLASHES over Hiroshima and Nagasaki August 1945 resulting in 100 000's of persons being vaporized and the towns disappearing in smoke ... while they survived to be able to testify.
This nuclear weapons show is big biz and ... finanzed by the Nobel Peace prizes. I explain how at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Noted how you avoid the subject of your LIES about being sentenced to death. and return to your other ego stroking lies and spamming your website.
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
And it is not me spamming! It is Google and other search engines that help me. It doesn't cost me anything.
But I agree. It is not nice being sentenced to death according to existing laws of a crazy country. Luckily these laws cannot be applied where I live.
You're still lying. You have not been sentenced to anything (or you could provide a link to court proceedings) and you won't be because you have NEVER had access to classified info. Your insistence that you have is just another way for you to try to make yourself look more important. Nobody believes you.
And repeatedly posting your website IS spamming whether you think it helps you or not.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
-
But I agree. It is not nice being sentenced to death according to existing laws of a crazy country. Luckily these laws cannot be applied where I live.
Here is a list of US crimes that hold a capital punishment option . . .
# CODE TYPE OF CRIME
1. 8 U.S.C. 1324 Murder related to the smuggling of aliens
2. 18 U.S.C. 32
18 U.S.C. 33
18 U.S.C. 34 Destruction of aircraft, motor vehicles, or related facilities resulting in death
3. 18 U.S.C. 36 Murder committed during a drug-related drive-by shooting
4. 18 U.S.C. 37 Murder committed at an airport serving international civil aviation
5. 18 U.S.C. 115
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Retaliatory murder of a member of the immediate family of law enforcement officials
6. 18 U.S.C. 241
18 U.S.C. 242
18 U.S.C. 245
18 U.S.C. 247 Civil rights offenses resulting in death
7. 18 U.S.C. 351
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder of a member of Congress, an important executive official, or a Supreme Court Justice
8. 18 U.S.C. 794 Espionage
9. 18 U.S.C. 844 Death resulting from offenses involving transportation of explosives, destruction of government property, or destruction of property related to foreign or interstate commerce
10. 18 U.S.C. 924 Murder committed by the use of a firearm during a crime of violence or a drug-trafficking crime
11. 18 U.S.C. 930
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder committed in a federal government facility
12. 18 U.S.C. 1091 Genocide
13. 18 U.S.C. 1111 First-degree murder
14. 18 U.S.C. 1114
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder of a federal judge or law enforcement official
15. 18 U.S.C. 1116
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder of a foreign official
16. 18 U.S.C. 1118 Murder by a federal prisoner
17. 18 U.S.C. 1119
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder of a US national in a foreign country
18. 18 U.S.C. 1120
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder by an escaped federal prisoner already sentenced to life imprisonment
19. 18 U.S.C. 1121
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder of a state or local law enforcement official or other person aiding in a federal investigation; murder of a State correctional officer
20. 18 U.S.C. 1201 Murder during a kidnapping
21. 18 U.S.C. 1203 Murder during a hostage taking
22. 18 U.S.C. 1503
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder of a court officer or juror
23. 18 U.S.C. 1512
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Murder with the intent of preventing testimony by a witness, victim, or informant
24. 18 U.S.C. 1513
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Retaliatory murder of a witness, victim, or informant
25. 18 U.S.C. 1716 Mailing of injurious articles with intent to kill or resulting in death
26. 18 U.S.C. 1751
[by cross-reference to 18 U.S.C. 1111] Assassination or kidnapping resulting in the death of the President or Vice President
27. 18 U.S.C. 1958 Murder for hire
28. 18 U.S.C. 1959 Murder involved in a racketeering offense
29. 18 U.S.C. 1992 Willful wrecking of a train resulting in death
30. 18 U.S.C. 2113 Bank-robbery-related murder or kidnapping
31. 18 U.S.C. 2119 Murder related to a carjacking
32. 18 U.S.C. 2245 Murder related to rape or child molestation
33. 18 U.S.C. 2251 Murder related to sexual exploitation of children
34. 18 U.S.C. 2280 Murder committed during an offense against maritime navigation
35. 18 U.S.C. 2281 Murder committed during an offense against a maritime fixed platform
36. 18 U.S.C. 2332 Terrorist murder of a US national in another country
37. 18 U.S.C. 2332a Murder by the use of a weapon of mass destruction.
38. 18 U.S.C. 2340a Murder involving torture
39. 18 U.S.C. 2381 Treason
40. 21 U.S.C. 848
(Anti-Drug Abuse Act) Murder related to a continuing criminal enterprise or related murder of a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer
41. 49 U.S.C. 46502 Death resulting from aircraft hijacking
Nothing about being a delusional dork.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
You have never had access to restricted data. More LIES from Heiwa. You just can't help yourself, can you? Plus, even if your interpretation were true (it isn't) you have not been sentenced as you are fond of saying as they would require a court proceeding. NOTHING has been filed against you and nothing will as AGAIN you have never had access to restricted or classified data. Still just another ploy by you to make yourself look more important. Nobody believes you.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
Stop lying. Nobody believes you've consulted legal counsel about this either. Because if you had they'd just laugh at you because you have NEVER had access to restricted information. Further, if you had consulted legal counsel and they did think you were in danger then they would tell you to not publish. More LIES from Heiwa.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
Stop lying. Nobody believes you've consulted legal counsel about this either. Because if you had they'd just laugh at you because you have NEVER had access to restricted information. Further, if you had consulted legal counsel and they did think you were in danger then they would tell you to not publish. More LIES from Heiwa.
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
http://heiwaco.com.chall.htm
And you cannot do it?
So who pays you to be so obnoxious? Are you happy about it? Introduce yourself! Are you another fat, overweight sailor brain damaged in a US nuclear sub?
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
Stop lying. Nobody believes you've consulted legal counsel about this either. Because if you had they'd just laugh at you because you have NEVER had access to restricted information. Further, if you had consulted legal counsel and they did think you were in danger then they would tell you to not publish. More LIES from Heiwa.
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
http://heiwaco.com.chall.htm
And you cannot do it?
So who pays you to be so obnoxious? Are you happy about it? Introduce yourself! Are you another fat, overweight sailor brain damaged in a US nuclear sub?
I'm not upset about your fraud of a contest. Everyone knows you won't pay anyone. All I'm doing is pointing out your continual LIES about being sentenced to death that you tell just to make yourself look important.
Your pathetic attempt to change the subject is extremely transparent.
-
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
I've proven you wrong about fast neutron fission nuclear power plants, but I haven't seen my million yet.
-
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
I've proven you wrong about fast neutron fission nuclear power plants, but I haven't seen my million yet.
Neither has Heiwa
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
Stop lying. Nobody believes you've consulted legal counsel about this either. Because if you had they'd just laugh at you because you have NEVER had access to restricted information. Further, if you had consulted legal counsel and they did think you were in danger then they would tell you to not publish. More LIES from Heiwa.
I took the laws Heiwa is basing his claims on as well as some of the information that Heiwa claims incriminates him to a US lawyer. Heiwa is not incriminated as he so desperately wants to be because:
- The information he is spreading has either been declassified or was never classified in the first place, and
- There is no evidence that Heiwa intends to harm the United States.
-
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
I've proven you wrong about fast neutron fission nuclear power plants, but I haven't seen my million yet.
You haven't won my Challenges at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Plenty people say they have but ... they haven't.
-
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
I've proven you wrong about fast neutron fission nuclear power plants, but I haven't seen my million yet.
You haven't won my Challenges at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Plenty people say they have but ... they haven't.
That's because you aren't ever willing to admit that you're wrong, no matter how many times it's shown that you are.
-
why can't Heiwa make ice?
He forgot the recipe.
-
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
I've proven you wrong about fast neutron fission nuclear power plants, but I haven't seen my million yet.
You haven't won my Challenges at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Plenty people say they have but ... they haven't.
That's because you aren't ever willing to admit that you're wrong, no matter how many times it's shown that you are.
Sorry, you just make up things. Of course I am willing to admit being wrong except regarding five things:
1. Atomic bombs cannot be ignited and are, e.g. US military propaganda.
2. Human space flights in vacuum space orbiting Earth and elsewhere cannot be done as you cannot return and land safely. What has been done in the past is, e.g. US science fiction.
3. Structures do not collapse from top down into dust by gravity as shown on US TV 911.
4. Ship bow visors do not fall off during stormy nights sinking ships.
5. Fusion is not possible on Earth as it is too hot.
I know plenty twerps get upset about 1-5 but they are just brainwashed.
-
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
I've proven you wrong about fast neutron fission nuclear power plants, but I haven't seen my million yet.
You haven't won my Challenges at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Plenty people say they have but ... they haven't.
That's because you aren't ever willing to admit that you're wrong, no matter how many times it's shown that you are.
Sorry, you just make up things. Of course I am willing to admit being wrong except regarding five things:
1. Atomic bombs cannot be ignited and are, e.g. US military propaganda.
2. Human space flights in vacuum space orbiting Earth and elsewhere cannot be done as you cannot return and land safely. What has been done in the past is, e.g. US science fiction.
3. Structures do not collapse from top down into dust by gravity as shown on US TV 911.
4. Ship bow visors do not fall off during stormy nights sinking ships.
5. Fusion is not possible on Earth as it is too hot.
I know plenty twerps get upset about 1-5 but they are just brainwashed.
Are you willing to admit that unmoderated, fast neutron nuclear power reactors are real?
-
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
I've proven you wrong about fast neutron fission nuclear power plants, but I haven't seen my million yet.
You haven't won my Challenges at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Plenty people say they have but ... they haven't.
That's because you aren't ever willing to admit that you're wrong, no matter how many times it's shown that you are.
Sorry, you just make up things. Of course I am willing to admit being wrong except regarding five things:
1. Atomic bombs cannot be ignited and are, e.g. US military propaganda.
2. Human space flights in vacuum space orbiting Earth and elsewhere cannot be done as you cannot return and land safely. What has been done in the past is, e.g. US science fiction.
3. Structures do not collapse from top down into dust by gravity as shown on US TV 911.
4. Ship bow visors do not fall off during stormy nights sinking ships.
5. Fusion is not possible on Earth as it is too hot.
I know plenty twerps get upset about 1-5 but they are just brainwashed.
Are you willing to admit that unmoderated, fast neutron nuclear power reactors are real?
No, it is all propaganda nonsense supported by twerps like you, markjo.
All nuclear reactors work by moderated fission. And no atomic bomb works by secret FLASH fission.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
-
Why do you get so upset? Is it because I pay you €1M proving me wrong?
I've proven you wrong about fast neutron fission nuclear power plants, but I haven't seen my million yet.
You haven't won my Challenges at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm . Plenty people say they have but ... they haven't.
That's because you aren't ever willing to admit that you're wrong, no matter how many times it's shown that you are.
Sorry, you just make up things. Of course I am willing to admit being wrong except regarding five six things:
1. Atomic bombs cannot be ignited and are, e.g. US military propaganda.
2. Human space flights in vacuum space orbiting Earth and elsewhere cannot be done as you cannot return and land safely. What has been done in the past is, e.g. US science fiction.
3. Structures do not collapse from top down into dust by gravity as shown on US TV 911.
4. Ship bow visors do not fall off during stormy nights sinking ships.
5. Fusion is not possible on Earth as it is too hot.
6. Unmoderated, fast neutron fission does not work because more propaganda.
I know plenty twerps get upset about 1-56 but they are just brainwashed.
Are you willing to admit that unmoderated, fast neutron nuclear power reactors are real?
No, it is all propaganda nonsense supported by twerps like you, markjo.
All nuclear reactors work by moderated fission. And no atomic bomb works by secret FLASH fission.
Then in that case, I fixed your list for you.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
-
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
And I already pointed out that the death penalty is only imposed if you gain those military secrets with the intent to harm the USA. Do you intend to harm the USA with those military secrets? You sound like a terrorist.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
and you're still a liar. You've not had access to any secrets.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
-
LOL It's classified because of course it's classified. lol
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
You are attempting to change the subject. Like you do every time you get caught in a lie.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
-
Did you know that nuclear weapons can actually be made by blending lime juice, quartz, and Colgate toothpaste? Of course the US doesn't want people to know this, so of course it's classified information. Of course.
If I get caught making posts like this it's all over for me.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
-
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
So, you claim to be facing imminent capital punishment.
And, eventually, . . .
you will be sentenced to death,
then you will found guilty,
then you will tried for espionage,
then you will be accused,
then you will cure yourself of brain damage,
then you will lose your job as a cabin boy.
About right?
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
You don't post any classified material on your website. That's a lie.
Since you have not been tried or sentenced you are not under any sort of death penalty so that part is a lie as well.
Just a sad, lying old man craving attention.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
I had it checked out by a US lawyer. The information on your website is either de-classified, or was never classified in the first place.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
You don't post any classified material on your website. That's a lie.
Since you have not been tried or sentenced you are not under any sort of death penalty so that part is a lie as well.
Just a sad, lying old man craving attention.
You are not very bright or simply brainwashed or cannot read.
Of course my website is full of classified material about false US nuclear weapons and why they are simple propaganda. And the US law is what it is. Only a few US citizens have been executed according to it in the 1950's and their children given away for adoption.
But as I say. Only twerps believe in US nuclear arms of mass destruction. And none can show that they work even if I pay €1M for it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
-
I had it checked out by a US lawyer. The information on his website is either de-classified, or was never classified in the first place.
Further, there is no evidence that Heiwa intends to harm the United States.
As much as he longs for the notoriety of being a bad boy worthy of a USA administered death penalty, he simply isn't.
It's all a delusion, poor fellow.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
You don't post any classified material on your website. That's a lie.
Since you have not been tried or sentenced you are not under any sort of death penalty so that part is a lie as well.
Just a sad, lying old man craving attention.
You are not very bright or simply brainwashed or cannot read.
Of course my website is full of classified material about false US nuclear weapons and why they are simple propaganda. And the US law is what it is. Only a few US citizens have been executed according to it in the 1950's and their children given away for adoption.
But as I say. Only twerps believe in US nuclear arms of mass destruction. And none can show that they work even if I pay €1M for it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
More LIES from Heiwa.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
You don't post any classified material on your website. That's a lie.
Since you have not been tried or sentenced you are not under any sort of death penalty so that part is a lie as well.
Just a sad, lying old man craving attention.
You are not very bright or simply brainwashed or cannot read.
Of course my website is full of classified material about false US nuclear weapons and why they are simple propaganda. And the US law is what it is. Only a few US citizens have been executed according to it in the 1950's and their children given away for adoption.
But as I say. Only twerps believe in US nuclear arms of mass destruction. And none can show that they work even if I pay €1M for it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
More LIES from Heiwa.
No, so let me repeat some TRUTHS:
You are not very bright or simply brainwashed or cannot read.
Of course my website is full of classified material about false US nuclear weapons and why they are simple propaganda. And the US law is what it is. Only a few US citizens have been executed according to it in the 1950's and their children given away for adoption.
But as I say. Only twerps believe in US nuclear arms of mass destruction. And none can show that they work even if I pay €1M for it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
You don't post any classified material on your website. That's a lie.
Since you have not been tried or sentenced you are not under any sort of death penalty so that part is a lie as well.
Just a sad, lying old man craving attention.
You are not very bright or simply brainwashed or cannot read.
Of course my website is full of classified material about false US nuclear weapons and why they are simple propaganda. And the US law is what it is. Only a few US citizens have been executed according to it in the 1950's and their children given away for adoption.
But as I say. Only twerps believe in US nuclear arms of mass destruction. And none can show that they work even if I pay €1M for it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
More LIES from Heiwa.
No, so let me repeat some TRUTHS:
You are not very bright or simply brainwashed or cannot read.
Of course my website is full of classified material about false US nuclear weapons and why they are simple propaganda. And the US law is what it is. Only a few US citizens have been executed according to it in the 1950's and their children given away for adoption.
But as I say. Only twerps believe in US nuclear arms of mass destruction. And none can show that they work even if I pay €1M for it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
You have never had access to classified info. You have never been sentenced to death. You repeat your lies to make yourself look more important. You insult others when called on you BS. And nobody believes you will pay anyone anything.
-
No, so let me repeat some TRUTHS:
Repeating the same nonsense over and over again until you start to believe it yourself does not make it true.
-
My website http://heiwaco.com is 100% truthful including me being subject to a death sentence according US laws about me showing US nuclear weapons are ... just propaganda nonsense.
If your death sentence is 100% true, then why hasn't the US called for your immediate arrest and extradition? Or is your "death sentence" just your own propaganda nonsense?
The US law is what it is and I cannot do anything about it.
The US Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (1), (2) and (3), (and its revisions) charges the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and later the US Department of Energy (DoE), with regulating restricted data, e.g. that atomic bombs are a hoax, wherever it appears and wherever it comes from, i.e. control of information. Aynbody in breach with the law Sec. 10. (b) Restrictions. (2) and (3) (but only in the USA) like me shall be punished by death!
You really should study my website about it. People get the Nobel Peace Prize today lying about it.
And you really should study Section 10 (b) (1) to see how they define "restricted material".
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
In other words, your "nuclear weapons are a hoax" propaganda is not restricted material.
BTW, the only time that the death sentence can be imposed is if you use that restricted material with the intent to harm the United States. You don't intend to harm the United States, do you Anders?
My legal counsel is of other opinion but it doesn't matter. My intent is just to educate United States citizens about their useless nuclear weapons. Isn't it clear from my website?
Only atomic bomb loving twerps trumpet lies about their gadgets.
But you claimed you were already under a death sentence. Meaning there had already been a trial, conviction and then sentencing. When did that happen or was that just a lie? You should really stop taking legal advice from the drunk next to you at the bar.
You should really visit my website. I write that you are punished by death in the USA, if you reveal military secrets about US nuclear weapons. I of course reveal these secrets but I do not live in the USA. You sound like a brainwashed twerp.
It was a long time ago since I visited a bar. The best ones were the intimate ones on our cruise ships, where people relaxed after a hard day in the sun around the pool or having done some sight seeing on an island in the Caribbean we visited, and where you could have an interesting chat about nothing. Then I drank whisky sour and offered champagne to any lady around. What is your poison?
So you are admitting you lied when you said you were under a death sentence. Got it. Where did you get your classified information from? Because it has to be officially classified info for it to be espionage. The insane ramblings of an internet moron doesn't count. So, do have accesss to officially classified information? Have you been tried? Sentenced?
If you answered no to any of these then you lied about the death sentence. It really is that simple.
No, I asked what is your poison.
Of course it is a classified top secret that US nuclear weapons are a hoax. I explain the details at my site, e.g. that Sweden intended to build fake a-bombs 1945 under the direction of a friend of mine, or that Stalin built his fake a bomb 1945/9 with fake uranium of Wismut AG, Annaberg, Saxony, DDR, mined by another friend of mine. I have also visited the a-bomb museums at Albuquerque, NM, USA and in Japan and it quite clear to me that no a-bombs exploded anywhere as suggested by them. It is not easy to erect museums about things that are pure fantasy.
So what is your poison?
Care to try again? Do you have access to any actually classified material? Were you tried for espionage? Were you sentenced?
Answering no to any of these is an admission that you lied. Last chance liar.
Anything other than a direct
Do I have access to any actually classified material?
Yes and I publish it at my website. Very popular!
Am I tried for espionage?
Not yet. It seems FBI is sleeping at the switches again.
Have I been sentenced?
Not yet. It seems the US authorities want to keep the lid on the case but I don't know.
You don't post any classified material on your website. That's a lie.
Since you have not been tried or sentenced you are not under any sort of death penalty so that part is a lie as well.
Just a sad, lying old man craving attention.
You are not very bright or simply brainwashed or cannot read.
Of course my website is full of classified material about false US nuclear weapons and why they are simple propaganda. And the US law is what it is. Only a few US citizens have been executed according to it in the 1950's and their children given away for adoption.
But as I say. Only twerps believe in US nuclear arms of mass destruction. And none can show that they work even if I pay €1M for it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
More LIES from Heiwa.
No, so let me repeat some TRUTHS:
You are not very bright or simply brainwashed or cannot read.
Of course my website is full of classified material about false US nuclear weapons and why they are simple propaganda. And the US law is what it is. Only a few US citizens have been executed according to it in the 1950's and their children given away for adoption.
But as I say. Only twerps believe in US nuclear arms of mass destruction. And none can show that they work even if I pay €1M for it - http://heiwaco.com/chall4.htm
You have never had access to classified info. You have never been sentenced to death. You repeat your lies to make yourself look more important. You insult others when called on you BS. And nobody believes you will pay anyone anything.
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
-
You have never had access to classified info. You have never been sentenced to death. You repeat your lies to make yourself look more important. You insult others when called on you BS. And nobody believes you will pay anyone anything.
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
No you have not. More LIES from Heiwa. You have NEVER had access to classified info. If you got it from unclassified sources then it was not classified. If it was still classified in the US (which nothing you've written is) but you can show you got it from unclassified sources then it is not prosecutable.
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
Typical Heiwa. Sling insults when called on your lies. This from a guy who claims to be "nice". Are you capable of making a post without slinging insults?
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
No you would not. Yet more lies from Heiwa to try to make yourself look more important. Nobody believes you.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
-
I had it checked out by a US lawyer. The information on his website is either de-classified, or was never classified in the first place.
Further, there is no evidence that Heiwa intends to harm the United States.
As much as he longs for the notoriety of being a bad boy worthy of a USA administered death penalty, he simply isn't.
It's all a delusion, poor fellow.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
-
Like a a six year old "cowboy" sneaking around to avoid them dangerous "indians!" lol
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
Of course I have been to the USA several times incl. Albuquerque, NM, and surroundings. FBI, Albuquerque, was fast asleep then even if I called them. Plenty PhDs live in the Rio Grande gutter inventing science fiction.
Last time I was invited to USA was 2013 - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm , but in the end I didn't go for obvious reasons.
I don't consider anything at my website garbage because all is true. Only anonymous twerps like you do get upset about it.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
Of course I have been to the USA several times incl. Albuquerque, NM, and surroundings. FBI, Albuquerque, was fast asleep then even if I called them. Plenty PhDs live in the Rio Grande gutter inventing science fiction.
Last time I was invited to USA was 2013 - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm , but in the end I didn't go for obvious reasons.
I don't consider anything at my website garbage because all is true. Only anonymous twerps like you do get upset about it.
So you lied about avoiding the US. You are an admitted liar. Got it. That's really all we need to know about you.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
Of course I have been to the USA several times incl. Albuquerque, NM, and surroundings. FBI, Albuquerque, was fast asleep then even if I called them. Plenty PhDs live in the Rio Grande gutter inventing science fiction.
Last time I was invited to USA was 2013 - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm , but in the end I didn't go for obvious reasons.
I don't consider anything at my website garbage because all is true. Only anonymous twerps like you do get upset about it.
So you lied about avoiding the US. You are an admitted liar. Got it. That's really all we need to know about you.
No, last time 2013 I was invited to the US ... but at the last minute the invitation was withdrawn. Before I visited the US on business, etc, etc, many times. But since 2013 I avoid visits to the US for obvious reasons. Nothing to lie about. Main reason why I avoid the US is that I find the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
Of course I have been to the USA several times incl. Albuquerque, NM, and surroundings. FBI, Albuquerque, was fast asleep then even if I called them. Plenty PhDs live in the Rio Grande gutter inventing science fiction.
Last time I was invited to USA was 2013 - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm , but in the end I didn't go for obvious reasons.
I don't consider anything at my website garbage because all is true. Only anonymous twerps like you do get upset about it.
So you lied about avoiding the US. You are an admitted liar. Got it. That's really all we need to know about you.
No, last time 2013 I was invited to the US ... but at the last minute the invitation was withdrawn. Before I visited the US on business, etc, etc, many times. But since 2013 I avoid visits to the US for obvious reasons. Nothing to lie about. Main reason why I avoid the US is that I find the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good.
So you didn't avoid the US like you said. You came here and we're not arrested like you said you would be.
You lied.
-
The real reason he avoids the US is because he .finds the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good
But it makes him feel important to pretend it's because he will get arrested and sentenced to death. lol
Let the old man have his games I guess.
-
The real reason he avoids the US is because he .finds the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good
But it makes him feel important to pretend it's because he will get arrested and sentenced to death. lol
Let the old man have his games I guess.
True enough. Mostly I do just ignore him, but every now and then I feel the need to poke him with a stick.
-
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
I can just see the court transcript . . .
PROSECUTOR: Heiwa has not violated any law whatsoever, yet we believe that ...
JUDGE: Heiwa? THEE Heiwa? The Heiwa of internet shame?
PROSECUTOR: Yes, your Honor, We intend to prove that ...
JUDGE: Oh, FUCK, shoot him. Nobody will ever notice.
-
addendum . . .
JUDGE: And go find Katsung47. Bring him in here.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
Of course I have been to the USA several times incl. Albuquerque, NM, and surroundings. FBI, Albuquerque, was fast asleep then even if I called them. Plenty PhDs live in the Rio Grande gutter inventing science fiction.
Last time I was invited to USA was 2013 - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm , but in the end I didn't go for obvious reasons.
I don't consider anything at my website garbage because all is true. Only anonymous twerps like you do get upset about it.
So you lied about avoiding the US. You are an admitted liar. Got it. That's really all we need to know about you.
No, last time 2013 I was invited to the US ... but at the last minute the invitation was withdrawn. Before I visited the US on business, etc, etc, many times. But since 2013 I avoid visits to the US for obvious reasons. Nothing to lie about. Main reason why I avoid the US is that I find the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good.
So you didn't avoid the US like you said. You came here and we're not arrested like you said you would be.
You lied.
No, I don't lie. I just propose that you are punished by death, if you suggest and prove that US classified info about nuclear arms is a load of BS ... which I do at my website. It seems that the US ... FBI? ... doesn't enforce that law but it doesn't change anything. The law is the law. And FBI? I have been in contact with them several times. They cannot tell me who they are for security reasons, unless it is a SAC but regardless, nothing happens. I describe it too at my website. Isn't it hilarious?
-
Isn't it hilarious?
Yes. But we try not to laugh because it's not nice to laugh at a deluded old man.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
Of course I have been to the USA several times incl. Albuquerque, NM, and surroundings. FBI, Albuquerque, was fast asleep then even if I called them. Plenty PhDs live in the Rio Grande gutter inventing science fiction.
Last time I was invited to USA was 2013 - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm , but in the end I didn't go for obvious reasons.
I don't consider anything at my website garbage because all is true. Only anonymous twerps like you do get upset about it.
So you lied about avoiding the US. You are an admitted liar. Got it. That's really all we need to know about you.
No, last time 2013 I was invited to the US ... but at the last minute the invitation was withdrawn. Before I visited the US on business, etc, etc, many times. But since 2013 I avoid visits to the US for obvious reasons. Nothing to lie about. Main reason why I avoid the US is that I find the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good.
So you didn't avoid the US like you said. You came here and we're not arrested like you said you would be.
You lied.
No, I don't lie. I just propose that you are punished by death, if you suggest and prove that US classified info about nuclear arms is a load of BS ... which I do at my website. It seems that the US ... FBI? ... doesn't enforce that law but it doesn't change anything. The law is the law. And FBI? I have been in contact with them several times. They cannot tell me who they are for security reasons, unless it is a SAC but regardless, nothing happens. I describe it too at my website. Isn't it hilarious?
The only thing hilarious is that you repeatedly lie about posting classified info and being sentenced to death when NOBODY believes you. Are you trying to look like a senile old codger? Because that is the only thing you're accomplishing.
-
The real reason he avoids the US is because he .finds the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good
But it makes him feel important to pretend it's because he will get arrested and sentenced to death. lol
Let the old man have his games I guess.
Please quote me right. Real?
Anyway, it seems FBI consists of overweight, chips eating dummies sleeping at the switches ... dreaming about the next bag of chips? Have you ever visited an FBI office? Try FBI, Albuquerque, NM. A fenced in bunker in the middle of a desert with 3 empty parking places for visitors. LOL.
-
It seems that the US ... FBI? ... doesn't enforce that law but it doesn't change anything.
You accidentally said something correct. The FBI does not enforce the law.
The FBI is an investigative agency. They have no power to prosecute.
Dude, you are a gem: decorative but otherwise useless.
-
The real reason he avoids the US is because he .finds the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good
But it makes him feel important to pretend it's because he will get arrested and sentenced to death. lol
Let the old man have his games I guess.
Please quote me right. Real?
Anyway, it seems FBI consists of overweight, chips eating dummies sleeping at the switches ... dreaming about the next bag of chips? Have you ever visited an FBI office? Try FBI, Albuquerque, NM. A fenced in bunker in the middle of a desert with 3 empty parking places for visitors. LOL.
We're all trying not to LOL because it's rude to laugh at a deluded old man.
-
It seems that the US ... FBI? ... doesn't enforce that law but it doesn't change anything.
You accidentally said something correct. The FBI does not enforce the law.
The FBI is an investigative agency. They have no power to prosecute.
Dude, you are a gem: decorative but otherwise useless.
No, I didn't write or say that, twerp.
Just quote me correctly please.
-
It seems that the US ... FBI? ... doesn't enforce that law but it doesn't change anything.
You accidentally said something correct. The FBI does not enforce the law.
The FBI is an investigative agency. They have no power to prosecute.
Dude, you are a gem: decorative but otherwise useless.
No, I didn't write or say that, twerp.
Just quote me correctly please.
Fuck you, scroll down, bitch. Not even a stupid fuck like you can miss your own words.
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
Of course I have been to the USA several times incl. Albuquerque, NM, and surroundings. FBI, Albuquerque, was fast asleep then even if I called them. Plenty PhDs live in the Rio Grande gutter inventing science fiction.
Last time I was invited to USA was 2013 - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) , but in the end I didn't go for obvious reasons.
I don't consider anything at my website garbage because all is true. Only anonymous twerps like you do get upset about it.
So you lied about avoiding the US. You are an admitted liar. Got it. That's really all we need to know about you.
No, last time 2013 I was invited to the US ... but at the last minute the invitation was withdrawn. Before I visited the US on business, etc, etc, many times. But since 2013 I avoid visits to the US for obvious reasons. Nothing to lie about. Main reason why I avoid the US is that I find the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good.
So you didn't avoid the US like you said. You came here and we're not arrested like you said you would be.
You lied.
No, I don't lie. I just propose that you are punished by death, if you suggest and prove that US classified info about nuclear arms is a load of BS ... which I do at my website. It seems that the US ... FBI? ... doesn't enforce that law but it doesn't change anything. The law is the law. And FBI? I have been in contact with them several times. They cannot tell me who they are for security reasons, unless it is a SAC but regardless, nothing happens. I describe it too at my website. Isn't it hilarious?
-
It seems that the US ... FBI? ... doesn't enforce that law but it doesn't change anything.
You accidentally said something correct. The FBI does not enforce the law.
The FBI is an investigative agency. They have no power to prosecute.
Dude, you are a gem: decorative but otherwise useless.
No, I didn't write or say that, twerp.
Just quote me correctly please.
Fuck you, scroll down, bitch. Not even a stupid fuck like you can miss your own words.
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com (http://heiwaco.com) .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
I do not believe you. Please go to the USA and prove your stupid claim.
I will only believe you when I see documentary evidence of at least your being "sentenced to death".
All info is at my website. In the meantime I avoid visiting USA at all cost.
Nothing but garbage at your website.
Also you claimed to have visited the US, even went to los alamos and Sandia labs. So, once again you show yourself to be a liar.
Of course I have been to the USA several times incl. Albuquerque, NM, and surroundings. FBI, Albuquerque, was fast asleep then even if I called them. Plenty PhDs live in the Rio Grande gutter inventing science fiction.
Last time I was invited to USA was 2013 - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm (http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm) , but in the end I didn't go for obvious reasons.
I don't consider anything at my website garbage because all is true. Only anonymous twerps like you do get upset about it.
So you lied about avoiding the US. You are an admitted liar. Got it. That's really all we need to know about you.
No, last time 2013 I was invited to the US ... but at the last minute the invitation was withdrawn. Before I visited the US on business, etc, etc, many times. But since 2013 I avoid visits to the US for obvious reasons. Nothing to lie about. Main reason why I avoid the US is that I find the average American pretty stupid and overweight and the food is no good.
So you didn't avoid the US like you said. You came here and we're not arrested like you said you would be.
You lied.
No, I don't lie. I just propose that you are punished by death, if you suggest and prove that US classified info about nuclear arms is a load of BS ... which I do at my website. It seems that the US ... FBI? ... doesn't enforce that law but it doesn't change anything. The law is the law. And FBI? I have been in contact with them several times. They cannot tell me who they are for security reasons, unless it is a SAC but regardless, nothing happens. I describe it too at my website. Isn't it hilarious?
According wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Investigation :
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is the domestic intelligence and security service of the United States, and its principal federal law enforcement agency. Operating under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Justice, the FBI is also a member of the U.S. Intelligence Community and reports to both the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence. A leading U.S. counter-terrorism, counterintelligence, and criminal investigative organization, the FBI has jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes.
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC). In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
-
It seems all here agree with me. Thanks!
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
And, you're an idiot if you actually believe the US government gives a crap about your views about nuclear weapons or your piddly little website. There are a few nut jobs right here in the United States who say the same thing and they’ve never been arrested. AAMOF, there hasn’t been a single arrest for such a thing ever.
The US government couldn’t care less about nuclear weapon deniers and only idiots believe otherwise.
Mike
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why should I go to your web site to see what you say about US law when I can look at the law itself?
The term “restricted data” as used in this section means all data concerning the manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power, but shall not include any data which the Commission from time to time determines may be published without adversely affecting the common defense and security.
Where have you posted any data concerning the "manufacture or utilization of atomic weapons" that hasn't been declassified for many, many years?
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
No moaning, just laughing at you for thinking that you ever had access to classified nuclear data and that you're sentenced to death.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
This is incorrect. There is a database of documents containing info about US nuclear weapons that have been officially de-classified. I have a website and I could post this there if that would help.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
Everyone understands what you say. They just understand that what you say proves you are a lying idiot.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
This is incorrect. There is a database of documents containing info about US nuclear weapons that have been officially de-classified. I have a website and I could post this there if that would help.
Yes, I actually refer to some such documents at my website and they all seem to be science fiction fantasies. But I am not aware of a US DoE database listing all of them.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
This is incorrect. There is a database of documents containing info about US nuclear weapons that have been officially de-classified. I have a website and I could post this there if that would help.
Yes, I actually refer to some such documents at my website and they all seem to be science fiction fantasies. But I am not aware of a US DoE database listing all of them.
So you lied when you said all info about US nuclear weapons is restricted.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
This is incorrect. There is a database of documents containing info about US nuclear weapons that have been officially de-classified. I have a website and I could post this there if that would help.
Yes, I actually refer to some such documents at my website and they all seem to be science fiction fantasies. But I am not aware of a US DoE database listing all of them.
So you lied when you said all info about US nuclear weapons is restricted.
And due to his shoddy research he is unaware of lists of which are classified.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
This is incorrect. There is a database of documents containing info about US nuclear weapons that have been officially de-classified. I have a website and I could post this there if that would help.
Yes, I actually refer to some such documents at my website and they all seem to be science fiction fantasies. But I am not aware of a US DoE database listing all of them.
You can search either of these sites for documents. This is something you should already have known but since you have shoddy research skills, I'm not surprised you don't know about them.
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/
https://www.energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/manhattan-project
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51f.asp
Mike
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
This is incorrect. There is a database of documents containing info about US nuclear weapons that have been officially de-classified. I have a website and I could post this there if that would help.
Yes, I actually refer to some such documents at my website and they all seem to be science fiction fantasies. But I am not aware of a US DoE database listing all of them.
Because you don't want to be aware. That would conflict with your sensational claim. Everyone knows you're not one to let facts get in the way of a sensational, self aggrandizing assertion.
-
Anders considers this a restricted atomic secret.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/U2_-_How_to_Dismantle_an_Atomic_Bomb_%28Album_Cover%29.png)
-
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC).
So, you have been 'in touch' with the FBI, and you know they are with the FBI because they don't say they are with the FBI?
In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
Setting aside the fact that they were not with the FBI, the FBI does not enforce laws. They investigate crimes.
They then turn over evidence to the Justice Department who determines whether or not a crime has occurred and whether or not to 'enforce' or prosecute the crime.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
This is incorrect. There is a database of documents containing info about US nuclear weapons that have been officially de-classified. I have a website and I could post this there if that would help.
Yes, I actually refer to some such documents at my website and they all seem to be science fiction fantasies. But I am not aware of a US DoE database listing all of them.
You can search either of these sites for documents. This is something you should already have known but since you have shoddy research skills, I'm not surprised you don't know about them.
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/
https://www.energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/manhattan-project
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51f.asp
Mike
Thanks for the links. However, my description of the US atomic bomb hoax at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm is much better.
-
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC).
So, you have been 'in touch' with the FBI, and you know they are with the FBI because they don't say they are with the FBI?
In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
Setting aside the fact that they were not with the FBI, the FBI does not enforce laws. They investigate crimes.
They then turn over evidence to the Justice Department who determines whether or not a crime has occurred and whether or not to 'enforce' or prosecute the crime.
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
-
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
Is the FBI aware that you have cured yourself of brain damage?
You should point that out next time you call.
-
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
Is the FBI aware that you have cured yourself of brain damage?
You should point that out next time you call.
You sound like a government shill fucking around on the Internet. Pls, introduce yourself, if you are real.
-
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC).
So, you have been 'in touch' with the FBI, and you know they are with the FBI because they don't say they are with the FBI?
In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
Setting aside the fact that they were not with the FBI, the FBI does not enforce laws. They investigate crimes.
They then turn over evidence to the Justice Department who determines whether or not a crime has occurred and whether or not to 'enforce' or prosecute the crime.
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
But you said you couldn't visit the US because you had been sentenced to death. Why do you lie so much? You must be sick.
-
Yes, we all agree that you don't need to worry about the FBI because you have not revealed any classified information and there is no death sentence on you.
You really have to study the US law protecting US secret nuclear weapons and the death penalty involved revealing restricted information about them, e.g. what I say about it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
Why do you moan about classified info and me being sentenced to death? Try to understand what I say.
I don't know about Marco, but I have studied it. Your claim is bogus because any information you have is either declassified or was never classified and there is no evidence you intend to harm the USA.
Some more realistic reasons you don't visit the USA are that you don't like fat, stupid Americans and also you're probably getting too old to travel anyway.
All info about US nuclear weapons is restricted as I explain at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA .
I have no intention to harm the USA. My intention is simply to inform US citizens. I feel sorry for the fat, stupid ones eating potato chips and drinkiing coke all day.
This is incorrect. There is a database of documents containing info about US nuclear weapons that have been officially de-classified. I have a website and I could post this there if that would help.
Yes, I actually refer to some such documents at my website and they all seem to be science fiction fantasies. But I am not aware of a US DoE database listing all of them.
You can search either of these sites for documents. This is something you should already have known but since you have shoddy research skills, I'm not surprised you don't know about them.
https://www.osti.gov/scitech/
https://www.energy.gov/management/office-management/operational-management/history/manhattan-project
http://www.ushistory.org/us/51f.asp
Mike
Thanks for the links. However, my description of the US atomic bomb hoax at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm is much better.
Those are links to real documents that you obviously never researched and your site is nothing but baseless conjecture. Yet another example of your shoddy research.
Mike
-
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC).
So, you have been 'in touch' with the FBI, and you know they are with the FBI because they don't say they are with the FBI?
In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
Setting aside the fact that they were not with the FBI, the FBI does not enforce laws. They investigate crimes.
They then turn over evidence to the Justice Department who determines whether or not a crime has occurred and whether or not to 'enforce' or prosecute the crime.
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
But you said you couldn't visit the US because you had been sentenced to death. Why do you lie so much? You must be sick.
Please, quote me correctly (and not bits).
-
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC).
So, you have been 'in touch' with the FBI, and you know they are with the FBI because they don't say they are with the FBI?
In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
Setting aside the fact that they were not with the FBI, the FBI does not enforce laws. They investigate crimes.
They then turn over evidence to the Justice Department who determines whether or not a crime has occurred and whether or not to 'enforce' or prosecute the crime.
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
But you said you couldn't visit the US because you had been sentenced to death. Why do you lie so much? You must be sick.
Please, quote me correctly (and not bits).
I did.
-
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC).
So, you have been 'in touch' with the FBI, and you know they are with the FBI because they don't say they are with the FBI?
In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
Setting aside the fact that they were not with the FBI, the FBI does not enforce laws. They investigate crimes.
They then turn over evidence to the Justice Department who determines whether or not a crime has occurred and whether or not to 'enforce' or prosecute the crime.
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
But you said you couldn't visit the US because you had been sentenced to death. Why do you lie so much? You must be sick.
Please, quote me correctly (and not bits).
I did.
No.
-
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC).
So, you have been 'in touch' with the FBI, and you know they are with the FBI because they don't say they are with the FBI?
In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
Setting aside the fact that they were not with the FBI, the FBI does not enforce laws. They investigate crimes.
They then turn over evidence to the Justice Department who determines whether or not a crime has occurred and whether or not to 'enforce' or prosecute the crime.
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
But you said you couldn't visit the US because you had been sentenced to death. Why do you lie so much? You must be sick.
Please, quote me correctly (and not bits).
I did.
No.
So you didn't say you could not come to the US because there was a death penalty hanging over you?
-
I have been in touch with them several times. They always refuse to identify themselves, if they reply (unless a SAC).
So, you have been 'in touch' with the FBI, and you know they are with the FBI because they don't say they are with the FBI?
In all my cases they do nothing and never enforce laws.
Setting aside the fact that they were not with the FBI, the FBI does not enforce laws. They investigate crimes.
They then turn over evidence to the Justice Department who determines whether or not a crime has occurred and whether or not to 'enforce' or prosecute the crime.
Living in France my FBI contact is the legal attaché at the US Embassy at Paris, which is easy to call. I have done it many times. They refuse to identify themselves on the phone or to meet and suggest I contact FBI at DC or in a town with an FBI office, when in USA!
I tried to contact DC via e-mail and never got a reply but when I visited Albuquerque, NM, (I lived around the corner from the FBI compound in the desert) I got a reply by the SAC in writing: FBI is not interested in my findings ... and I should contact the US legal attaché at Paris to evaluate whatever I know. ROTFL
But you said you couldn't visit the US because you had been sentenced to death. Why do you lie so much? You must be sick.
Please, quote me correctly (and not bits).
I did.
No.
So you didn't say you could not come to the US because there was a death penalty hanging over you?
Yes.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA . No lies at all!
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA . No lies at all!
All those posts saying you can't enter the US because you'll be arrested...those are all lies. You're a liar.
Mike
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA . No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA . No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
Fact remains I do not present any lies at my website http://heiwaco.com . Only twerps believe otherwise.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA . No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
Fact remains I do not present any lies at my website http://heiwaco.com . Only twerps believe otherwise.
I didn't say anything you lying on your website. Although, it is full of lies. I was talking about your posts here. The ones where you said you'll be arrested. That's all a lie and you keep avoiding that point by posting the link to your little website.
Everyone sees your lies.
Mike
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website http://heiwaco.com .
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#USA . No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
Fact remains I do not present any lies at my website http://heiwaco.com . Only twerps believe otherwise.
I didn't say anything you lying on your website. Although, it is full of lies. I was talking about your posts here. The ones where you said you'll be arrested. That's all a lie and you keep avoiding that point by posting the link to your little website.
Everyone sees your lies.
Mike
It seems you cannot read what I post here and at my popular website. Why would I lie anywhere?
Of course I have never been arrested anywhere. FBI is too lazy for it or sleeping at the switches as usual.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
Fact remains I do not present any lies at my website http://heiwaco.com . Only twerps believe otherwise.
Here's some more facts: 1+1=2, Pigs can't fly, Oranges are orange etc.
But neither these, nor your dubious claim about your website have much of anything to do with the post you were responding to.
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
Fact remains I do not present any lies at my website http://heiwaco.com . Only twerps believe otherwise.
Here's some more facts: 1+1=2, Pigs can't fly, Oranges are orange etc.
But neither these, nor your dubious claim about your website have much of anything to do with the post you were responding to.
That's because he doesn't have the balls to respond because he knows he has no response.
Mike
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
Fact remains I do not present any lies at my website http://heiwaco.com . Only twerps believe otherwise.
Here's some more facts: 1+1=2, Pigs can't fly, Oranges are orange etc.
But neither these, nor your dubious claim about your website have much of anything to do with the post you were responding to.
That's because he doesn't have the balls to respond because he knows he has no response.
Mike
Why do you moan and groan like a twerp? Being locked up in a submarine too long?
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
Fact remains I do not present any lies at my website . Only twerps believe otherwise.
Here's some more facts: 1+1=2, Pigs can't fly, Oranges are orange etc.
But neither these, nor your dubious claim about your website have much of anything to do with the post you were responding to.
That's because he doesn't have the balls to respond because he knows he has no response.
Mike
Why do you moan and groan like a twerp? Being locked up in a submarine too long?
Still no actual response.
-
Still no actual response.
Heiwa is just spruiking to entice people to visit his site.
The Spider and the Fly
“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the Spider to the Fly,
'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to show when you are there.”
-
Sorry. I have had access to info that is classified in the USA. Don't blame me for it. It was not classified in Sweden or Germany, so I studied it there and published it at my website
You sound like a crazy, sick, mad US government troll twerp. I know plenty of your idiot types.
In USA I would be arrested at once, sentenced to death and executed ... and nobody would notice it.
Luckily I am not there.
You’re such a liar...either that or you’re completely delusional.
That is complete and total bullshit. There is no information available to you on this subject that is classified in the US but not in the EU. I’m a DoD certified Derivative Classifier and I know for a fact that there is no classified information on your website. I read it carefully hoping on the very slim chance there was something I could get you on and there's nothing. You do not now, nor have you ever had access to US classified information let alone restricted data. DO NOT PRETEND OTHERWISE.
Since you do not have any access to RD, nor have you ever posted any on your low traffic wanabe website, you haven’t violated any laws so drop the lies that your life is in danger. You have only posted what you've found online or in a book...all of which is unclassified, publicly released information. Both France and Sweden have extradition treaties with the US. If the US wanted you, all they would have to do is come get you. More proof that you are a lying sack of shit.
You didn't even post anything about the Atomic Energy Act on your website until August of 2015. You found out about that law and wanted boost you over inflated, narcissistic ego by pretending you life was in danger.
Stop lying.
Mike
Thanks for reminding me. I explain all at No lies at all!
Did you think the rest of us readers wouldn't see what you did there?
In your opinion what is worse, a twerp or a slimeball who acts like he has made a legitimate response when what he's really done is ignored 99% of what was just said to him?
Fact remains I do not present any lies at my website . Only twerps believe otherwise.
Here's some more facts: 1+1=2, Pigs can't fly, Oranges are orange etc.
But neither these, nor your dubious claim about your website have much of anything to do with the post you were responding to.
That's because he doesn't have the balls to respond because he knows he has no response.
Mike
Why do you moan and groan like a twerp? Being locked up in a submarine too long?
Still no actual response.
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
Mike
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated for my numerous fans.
This is exactly what your not would say.
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
This is exactly what your not would say.
Yes, and the weather was good. Do you ski at weekends? Do you have any fun?
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site http://heiwaco.com is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
-
How many nuclear bomb plants are with 10 miles if you?
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site http://heiwaco.com is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
The site where I'm a moderator gets twice that in a day. IOW, we do in 12 hours what you do in a month. We also do >120,000 page views a day or ≈3.6 million page views per month. Page views are an indications of popularity and my site is a very low traffic niche site with ≈6 page views per visit. That makes your site very, very unpopular.
How many page views do you get in a month?
Face it, aside from search bots and the occasional visit from people here, nobody goes to your site.
Mike
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
This is exactly what your not would say.
Yes, and the weather was good. Do you ski at weekends? Do you have any fun?
You still sound like a programmed bot. When's Heiwa coming back?
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site http://heiwaco.com is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
The site where I'm a moderator gets twice that in a day. IOW, we do in 12 hours what you do in a month. We also do >120,000 page views a day or ≈3.6 million page views per month. Page views are an indications of popularity and my site is a very low traffic niche site with ≈6 page views per visit. That makes your site very, very unpopular.
How many page views do you get in a month?
Face it, aside from search bots and the occasional visit from people here, nobody goes to your site.
Mike
So you are just a moderator of a site. And what do they discuss there requiring your moderation?
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site http://heiwaco.com is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
The site where I'm a moderator gets twice that in a day. IOW, we do in 12 hours what you do in a month. We also do >120,000 page views a day or ≈3.6 million page views per month. Page views are an indications of popularity and my site is a very low traffic niche site with ≈6 page views per visit. That makes your site very, very unpopular.
How many page views do you get in a month?
Face it, aside from search bots and the occasional visit from people here, nobody goes to your site.
Mike
So you are just a moderator of a site. And what do they discuss there requiring your moderation?
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
I own my own site too!
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site http://heiwaco.com is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
The site where I'm a moderator gets twice that in a day. IOW, we do in 12 hours what you do in a month. We also do >120,000 page views a day or ≈3.6 million page views per month. Page views are an indications of popularity and my site is a very low traffic niche site with ≈6 page views per visit. That makes your site very, very unpopular.
How many page views do you get in a month?
Face it, aside from search bots and the occasional visit from people here, nobody goes to your site.
Mike
So you are just a moderator of a site. And what do they discuss there requiring your moderation?
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
I own my own site too!
You do?
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site http://heiwaco.com is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
The site where I'm a moderator gets twice that in a day. IOW, we do in 12 hours what you do in a month. We also do >120,000 page views a day or ≈3.6 million page views per month. Page views are an indications of popularity and my site is a very low traffic niche site with ≈6 page views per visit. That makes your site very, very unpopular.
How many page views do you get in a month?
Face it, aside from search bots and the occasional visit from people here, nobody goes to your site.
Mike
So you are just a moderator of a site. And what do they discuss there requiring your moderation?
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
There it is. Your usual argumentum ad hominem reply. You can't reply to the post so you ignore the post and attack the poster. Too funny.
Mike
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site http://heiwaco.com is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
The site where I'm a moderator gets twice that in a day. IOW, we do in 12 hours what you do in a month. We also do >120,000 page views a day or ≈3.6 million page views per month. Page views are an indications of popularity and my site is a very low traffic niche site with ≈6 page views per visit. That makes your site very, very unpopular.
How many page views do you get in a month?
Face it, aside from search bots and the occasional visit from people here, nobody goes to your site.
Mike
So you are just a moderator of a site. And what do they discuss there requiring your moderation?
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
I own my own site too!
You do?
Yes. You know what this means right?
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site http://heiwaco.com is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
The site where I'm a moderator gets twice that in a day. IOW, we do in 12 hours what you do in a month. We also do >120,000 page views a day or ≈3.6 million page views per month. Page views are an indications of popularity and my site is a very low traffic niche site with ≈6 page views per visit. That makes your site very, very unpopular.
How many page views do you get in a month?
Face it, aside from search bots and the occasional visit from people here, nobody goes to your site.
Mike
So you are just a moderator of a site. And what do they discuss there requiring your moderation?
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
I own my own site too!
You do?
Yes. You know what this means right?
No, except you are OT.
-
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
How many of those people have told you that your claims about nuclear bombs (and just about everything else) are wrong?
-
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
How many of those people have told you that your claims about nuclear bombs (and just about everything else) are wrong?
Generally anonymous twerps send me messages that I am wrong about nuclear weapons but cannot explain why. And then there are people telling me their names and thanking me for my efforts.
What about you? Do you believe in military, secret, nuclear FLASH power vaporizing people?
-
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
How many of those people have told you that your claims about nuclear bombs (and just about everything else) are wrong?
Generally anonymous twerps send me messages that I am wrong about nuclear weapons but cannot explain why. And then there are people telling me their names and thanking me for my efforts.
What about you? Do you believe in military, secret, nuclear FLASH power vaporizing people?
That's because you refuse to post your evidence as to why it doesn't. You don't give anything to argue against except your claim that it doesn't work.
You claim all evidence against that claim is fake so there is nothing anyone can say.
You see that right? If you claim all evidence is fake you make it impossible to debate you.
-
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
How many of those people have told you that your claims about nuclear bombs (and just about everything else) are wrong?
Generally anonymous twerps send me messages that I am wrong about nuclear weapons but cannot explain why. And then there are people telling me their names and thanking me for my efforts.
What about you? Do you believe in military, secret, nuclear FLASH power vaporizing people?
That's because you refuse to post your evidence as to why it doesn't. You don't give anything to argue against except your claim that it doesn't work.
You claim all evidence against that claim is fake so there is nothing anyone can say.
You see that right? If you claim all evidence is fake you make it impossible to debate you.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com .
Calm down and study it. I look forward to your comments.
-
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
How many of those people have told you that your claims about nuclear bombs (and just about everything else) are wrong?
Generally anonymous twerps send me messages that I am wrong about nuclear weapons but cannot explain why. And then there are people telling me their names and thanking me for my efforts.
What about you? Do you believe in military, secret, nuclear FLASH power vaporizing people?
That's because you refuse to post your evidence as to why it doesn't. You don't give anything to argue against except your claim that it doesn't work.
You claim all evidence against that claim is fake so there is nothing anyone can say.
You see that right? If you claim all evidence is fake you make it impossible to debate you.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com .
Calm down and study it. I look forward to your comments.
I have. You explain nothing you just make claims and say everyone who disagrees is a liar or twerp and all evidence is fake. That's it. No evidence just you making idiotic claims.
-
Like I said. He doesn't have the balls.
The exceptions get tossed into a bin file to be sorted later.
Or just let the bot crash. Not like anyone cares.
Just bad programming. You only trap for errors you care about.
Actually I was up skiing in the local Alps during the weekend. But I also updated for my numerous fans.
"numerous fans"?!? Now that's funny. You have just about the lowest traffic of any website there is so stop lying about how popular your site is.
Mike
I assume >10 000 visitors/month means my site is popular. How many visitors does your website have? 0?
The site where I'm a moderator gets twice that in a day. IOW, we do in 12 hours what you do in a month. We also do >120,000 page views a day or ≈3.6 million page views per month. Page views are an indications of popularity and my site is a very low traffic niche site with ≈6 page views per visit. That makes your site very, very unpopular.
How many page views do you get in a month?
Face it, aside from search bots and the occasional visit from people here, nobody goes to your site.
Mike
So you are just a moderator of a site. And what do they discuss there requiring your moderation?
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
I own my own site too!
You do?
Yes. You know what this means right?
No, except you are OT.
It means my challenges are legitimate, including one in which I pay you to prove your claims regarding nuclear bombs are correct. So far you have failed - utterly!
-
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
How many of those people have told you that your claims about nuclear bombs (and just about everything else) are wrong?
Generally anonymous twerps send me messages that I am wrong about nuclear weapons but cannot explain why. And then there are people telling me their names and thanking me for my efforts.
What about you? Do you believe in military, secret, nuclear FLASH power vaporizing people?
I believe that nuclear weapons do exist and work as demonstrated by hundreds of above ground tests that have been witnessed by countless people. I also believe that it takes a special kind of stupid to deny so much evidence. Then again, we're having this discussion on a very popular web site that claims that the earth is flat, so what do I know
-
FEers are a patient lot. I have waited in excess of 7 years for reason to post ITT since nuclear knowledge is not in my wheelhouse.
I see a flat Earth has been mentioned and that is something I have knowledge of. I take this opportunity to invite visitors who have not been to the upper fora to go there and see reasons to understand why so many agree with and support the flat Earth side of the Earth shape debate.
We do say that round Earth believers have a propensity for gullibility for reasons outside of their control. As you get back to your relevant debate I leave you with this...you can trust that a visit to the upper fora will do wonders for you and that even those REers blessed with perfect natural gullibility can travel with us safely, without fear of irreparable personal misguidance.
-
FEers are a patient lot. I have waited in excess of 7 years for reason to post ITT since nuclear knowledge is not in my wheelhouse.
I see a flat Earth has been mentioned and that is something I have knowledge of.
And you still have no reason to post here since I mentioned the flat earth only to point out the absurdity of denying the existence of nuclear weapons despite the preponderance of supporting evidence.
*edit* Come to think of it, as a FE'er, you do have lots of experience ignoring a preponderance of evidence, so I guess that you do belong in this thread. Welcome.
-
FEers are a patient lot. I have waited in excess of 7 years for reason to post ITT since nuclear knowledge is not in my wheelhouse.
I see a flat Earth has been mentioned and that is something I have knowledge of.
And you still have no reason to post here since I mentioned the flat earth only to point out the absurdity of denying the existence of nuclear weapons despite the preponderance of supporting evidence.
*edit* Come to think of it, as a FE'er, you do have lots of experience ignoring a preponderance of evidence, so I guess that you do belong in this thread. Welcome.
Thank you and I look forward to helping the thread in any way I can...
-
Wanted to mention a writer by the name of William Arkin who since the early 1980’s seems to be recognised as the foremost authority on the subject of weapons of mass destruction. Ronald Reagan denounced Arkin in the early 1980’s for exposing locations of all American nuclear weapons in one of his books. His knowledge lies more in the area of military practicalities, storage locations, history, et al as opposed to technical science.
Perhaps a very solid familiarisation with the subject of everything to do with nuclear weapons written by Arkin is:
‘Nuclear Battlefields’
By William Arkin (1985)
This book has appendices listing and briefly describing all military installations in the US, Russia, Britain, France, and China as well as details about which one contain nuclear bombs and how many at each location. Dated, but very detailed and comprehensive.
He’s got several more recent books on the US military and the growth of internal security in recent years.
-
I believe that nuclear weapons do exist and work as demonstrated by hundreds of above ground tests that have been witnessed by countless people. I also believe that it takes a special kind of stupid to deny so much evidence. Then again, we're having this discussion on a very popular web site that claims that the earth is flat, so what do I know
It's fine for you to believe they exist but you do not know it for a fact.
Using ground tests witnessed by countless people is simply using hearsay to back up something you really do not know.
I'm in the opposite boat. I have no direct proof that they don't exist but I simply use my own logic based on how I'm told it all works, from bombs to power and it simply makes little sense to me but it makes a lot of sense if it's a made up power to mask the almost infinite abundance of power we simply harness from the atmosphere/sea.
The nuclear (supposed) submarines are the biggest giveaway in terms of nuclear power not being legitimate in what we are told.
They can roll out the longest set of equations they want to. They can fill 1 million chalk boards with them or fill 1 million encyclopedia's with them and it proves nothing if the supposed reality of it is hidden behind a cloak and security.
-
I believe that nuclear weapons do exist and work as demonstrated by hundreds of above ground tests that have been witnessed by countless people. I also believe that it takes a special kind of stupid to deny so much evidence. Then again, we're having this discussion on a very popular web site that claims that the earth is flat, so what do I know
It's fine for you to believe they exist but you do not know it for a fact.
Using ground tests witnessed by countless people is simply using hearsay to back up something you really do not know.
I'm in the opposite boat. I have no direct proof that they don't exist but I simply use my own logic based on how I'm told it all works, from bombs to power and it simply makes little sense to me but it makes a lot of sense if it's a made up power to mask the almost infinite abundance of power we simply harness from the atmosphere/sea.
The nuclear (supposed) submarines are the biggest giveaway in terms of nuclear power not being legitimate in what we are told.
They can roll out the longest set of equations they want to. They can fill 1 million chalk boards with them or fill 1 million encyclopedia's with them and it proves nothing if the supposed reality of it is hidden behind a cloak and security.
There is an inherent difference between a nuclear explosion and power from a nuclear reactor. If you understand how they o
Nuclear power is steam power that uses a nuclear reactor to heat the water in a boiler instead of a traditional furnace. Steam is created that turns the turbines. Nuclear Powered ships use miniaturized reactors as the power generation required is fractional compared to what a full size nuclear power facility produces.
-
It's fine for you to believe they exist but you do not know it for a fact.
Using ground tests witnessed by countless people is simply using hearsay to back up something you really do not know.
I'm in the opposite boat. I have no direct proof that they don't exist but I simply use my own logic based on how I'm told it all works, from bombs to power and it simply makes little sense to me but it makes a lot of sense if it's a made up power to mask the almost infinite abundance of power we simply harness from the atmosphere/sea.
The nuclear (supposed) submarines are the biggest giveaway in terms of nuclear power not being legitimate in what we are told.
They can roll out the longest set of equations they want to. They can fill 1 million chalk boards with them or fill 1 million encyclopedia's with them and it proves nothing if the supposed reality of it is hidden behind a cloak and security.
In other words, simply because you cannot understand nuclear power and nuclear weapons they must be fake!
By the same reasoning, I cannot understand your denpressure and "flat" earth model they must be fake, so nice to know!
Thanks for that wonderful insight.
-
There is an inherent difference between a nuclear explosion and power from a nuclear reactor. If you understand how they o
Nuclear power is steam power that uses a nuclear reactor to heat the water in a boiler instead of a traditional furnace. Steam is created that turns the turbines. Nuclear Powered ships use miniaturized reactors as the power generation required is fractional compared to what a full size nuclear power facility produces.
I'm well aware of what they tell us.
-
It's fine for you to believe they exist but you do not know it for a fact.
Using ground tests witnessed by countless people is simply using hearsay to back up something you really do not know.
I'm in the opposite boat. I have no direct proof that they don't exist but I simply use my own logic based on how I'm told it all works, from bombs to power and it simply makes little sense to me but it makes a lot of sense if it's a made up power to mask the almost infinite abundance of power we simply harness from the atmosphere/sea.
The nuclear (supposed) submarines are the biggest giveaway in terms of nuclear power not being legitimate in what we are told.
They can roll out the longest set of equations they want to. They can fill 1 million chalk boards with them or fill 1 million encyclopedia's with them and it proves nothing if the supposed reality of it is hidden behind a cloak and security.
In other words, simply because you cannot understand nuclear power and nuclear weapons they must be fake!
By the same reasoning, I cannot understand your denpressure and "flat" earth model they must be fake, so nice to know!
Thanks for that wonderful insight.
You're welcome.
-
I believe that nuclear weapons do exist and work as demonstrated by hundreds of above ground tests that have been witnessed by countless people. I also believe that it takes a special kind of stupid to deny so much evidence. Then again, we're having this discussion on a very popular web site that claims that the earth is flat, so what do I know
It's fine for you to believe they exist but you do not know it for a fact.
Using ground tests witnessed by countless people is simply using hearsay to back up something you really do not know.
Countless eyewitnesses, films, huge craters, residual radiation. What more do you want? Maybe you should talk with Kim Jong Un and see if he'll give you and Anders front row seats to their next nuclear test.
I'm in the opposite boat. I have no direct proof that they don't exist but I simply use my own logic based on how I'm told it all works, from bombs to power and it simply makes little sense to me but it makes a lot of sense if it's a made up power to mask the almost infinite abundance of power we simply harness from the atmosphere/sea.
If your denpressure idea is any indication of your scientific understanding, then it's no wonder that you cann't make heads or tails out of nuclear weapons.
The nuclear (supposed) submarines are the biggest giveaway in terms of nuclear power not being legitimate in what we are told.
They can roll out the longest set of equations they want to. They can fill 1 million chalk boards with them or fill 1 million encyclopedia's with them and it proves nothing if the supposed reality of it is hidden behind a cloak and security.
Perhaps nuclear power doesn't fit in your reality, but it fits in quite nicely in just about everyone else's.
-
I am the owner/master of my own site and if you have comments or corrections you just contact me. Plenty people do it.
How many of those people have told you that your claims about nuclear bombs (and just about everything else) are wrong?
Generally anonymous twerps send me messages that I am wrong about nuclear weapons but cannot explain why. And then there are people telling me their names and thanking me for my efforts.
What about you? Do you believe in military, secret, nuclear FLASH power vaporizing people?
I believe that nuclear weapons do exist and work as demonstrated by hundreds of above ground tests that have been witnessed by countless people. I also believe that it takes a special kind of stupid to deny so much evidence. Then again, we're having this discussion on a very popular web site that claims that the earth is flat, so what do I know
Well, twerps like you believe plenty things. But I am not a special kind of stupid to deny so much evidence that you suggest. I use my brains. Use yours!
It seems we agree that earth is a planet in the Universe. So focus on the nuclear weapons developed by some clowns at Los Alamos, NM, 1943/5. Of course these clowns were just fucking, skiing, drinking and dancing around then. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
I use my brains?
Good question. I don't think that you'll like my answer.
-
I use my brains?
Good question. I don't think that you'll like my answer.
And what can it be?
-
I use my brains?
Good question. I don't think that you'll like my answer.
And what can it be?
That your brain or part of it was removed, partially or mostly brain dead, you are suffering from a severe brain damage due to trauma, have a debilitating brain disease, suffered a psychological trauma which caused you to have a mental breakdown, or you are just retarded.
-
(https://sep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-15720665560768_2268_7400062)
-
I use my brains?
Good question. I don't think that you'll like my answer.
And what can it be?
That your brain or part of it was removed, partially or mostly brain dead, you are suffering from a severe brain damage due to trauma, have a debilitating brain disease, suffered a psychological trauma which caused you to have a mental breakdown, or you are just retarded.
Hm, my daughter is a MD and considers me top fit. Only problem is eye sight. I need glasses for reading.
-
Hm, my daughter is a MD and considers me top fit. Only problem is eye sight. I need glasses for reading.
Are you sure she's an MD (a Doctor of Medicine)?
Almost medical doctors only have MB BS degrees (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery).
-
I use my brains?
Good question. I don't think that you'll like my answer.
And what can it be?
That your brain or part of it was removed, partially or mostly brain dead, you are suffering from a severe brain damage due to trauma, have a debilitating brain disease, suffered a psychological trauma which caused you to have a mental breakdown, or you are just retarded.
Hm, my daughter is a MD and considers me top fit. Only problem is eye sight. I need glasses for reading.
Lying to loved ones is common when the loved one has a seriously weakened mental state. The truth of your condition could cause additional mental damage and stress. Then you have to factor the toll it would take on her, so it is easier to lie to you than to tell you the truth.
-
Hm, my daughter is a MD and considers me top fit. Only problem is eye sight. I need glasses for reading.
Are you sure she's an MD (a Doctor of Medicine)?
Almost medical doctors only have MB BS degrees (Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery).
Yes, I am sure she is a medical doctor. I know her from she was born 1972 until today and I paid for most of her 8 years studies at Strasbourg and Montpellier (old French university towns that twerps never have heard of). She works for the prince of Monaco today. Imagine that! Tomorrow we celebrate Rosh Hashanah just for fun. Shanah tovah umetuka for what it is worth. Imagine a New Year in September. Crazy, isn't it?
-
Only problem is eye sight. I need glasses
Solved.
(https://s15.postimg.cc/dbwevq4h7/yhst-15720665560768_2268_7400062.jpg)
-
I believe that nuclear weapons do exist and work as demonstrated by hundreds of above ground tests that have been witnessed by countless people. I also believe that it takes a special kind of stupid to deny so much evidence. Then again, we're having this discussion on a very popular web site that claims that the earth is flat, so what do I know
It's fine for you to believe they exist but you do not know it for a fact.
Using ground tests witnessed by countless people is simply using hearsay to back up something you really do not know.
Countless eyewitnesses,
Who are these eye witnesses?
You're simply going by stories told, if you're honest about it.
films,
Come on man....films?....seriously?
huge craters,
Huge craters can be of anything. Just because you're sold the story of it being nuclear, does not make it so.
residual radiation.
Where can you verify this radiation for it to be nuclear?
You can't, so it's simply another story told that you accept as a truth, but is not your own physical truth.
What more do you want?
I want absolute proof.
I'd like to see a working sub or a working plant in its full glory...not what it appears to be from a distance.
I'd like to see something that proves to me that little pellets can fission without any external fuel feed.
Am I going to ever see this?...Of course not.
I'm well aware of the old " well go to your nearest nuclear power station" or " well go on a nuclear sub."
You know as well as I do that it's all shrouded in secrecy/security and for good reason in my opinion...which isn't to protect the so called fuel from being stolen.
Maybe you should talk with Kim Jong Un and see if he'll give you and Anders front row seats to their next nuclear test.
Who is he?
He's probably just a sham. A front for a fictional set up. I don't really know but neither do you.
I'm in the opposite boat. I have no direct proof that they don't exist but I simply use my own logic based on how I'm told it all works, from bombs to power and it simply makes little sense to me but it makes a lot of sense if it's a made up power to mask the almost infinite abundance of power we simply harness from the atmosphere/sea.
If your denpressure idea is any indication of your scientific understanding, then it's no wonder that you cann't make heads or tails out of nuclear weapons.
I can make heads and taiuls of its concept. It's shown how it works and it's because of this that I do not accept it as being a reality.
It's like saying the diagram of a sugar grain powered rocket managing to enter a black hole and coming out of the other side then back through to come back to where it first started, but now being one kilo bag of sugar heavier due to expanding grain mass due to the expansion and contraction of the black hole. And the equations to supposedly show why.
You see, people can say " ahhhh, yeah it makes sense"...but the truth is, it only makes sense because people want to believe it does for no other reason than to want to accept stuff outside of normality, because they beg for real magic rather than accepting of a limit to reality.
The nuclear (supposed) submarines are the biggest giveaway in terms of nuclear power not being legitimate in what we are told.
They can roll out the longest set of equations they want to. They can fill 1 million chalk boards with them or fill 1 million encyclopedia's with them and it proves nothing if the supposed reality of it is hidden behind a cloak and security.
Perhaps nuclear power doesn't fit in your reality, but it fits in quite nicely in just about everyone else's.
Of course it fits others reality. It's been trained into their psyche, so why wouldn't they go with the mass flow?
Kids are trained to believe in fairies and Santa, etc.
Adults are trained into believing in soap storylines to the point where they sacrifice a portion of their lives to become a part of that in watching and then relaying it to others who will verify the content.
It becomes their reality story rather than the fictional one it really portrays.
-
Well, let's give this another go, shall we?
March 1, 1954, we lit off one of the biggest thermonuclear weapons ever built. This happened in the Bikini Atoll, which can be found here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bikini+Atoll/@-2.3661178,138.0195555,5949119m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x644c2180a24fadbf:0x4c3f21ce9753a027!8m2!3d11.6065142!4d165.3768099
Here's what it looks like close up:
(https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*9L9Hr4xCWR3Z76ArXZJA2w.png)
(https://static.businessinsider.com/image/59c57b8519d2f523008b5078/image.jpg)
(https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/83000/83237/bikiniatoll_oli_2013231_lrg.jpg)
It's sort of northeast of Australia. I'm picking this one because we have a good film record of the detonation, it happened somewhere you can actually visit and see the remnants of what happened, and it also resulted in the death of one Japanese fisherman. The blast produced a fallout plume that carried a considerable distance further than what the weapon engineers expected. In fact, the blast was much more powerful than predicted due to the use of lithium compounds in the physics package (the actual part of the weapon that does the fission/fusion stuff) which becomes a plentiful source of hydrogen during the fusion cycle of the detonation.
Anyway, there's a great documentary that discusses the US nuclear weapons program following WWII called Trinity and Beyond narrated by William Shatner. If you don't believe the content, hopefully you enjoy Cpt. Kirk talking about things that explode.
-
Well, let's give this another go, shall we?
March 1, 1954, we lit off one of the biggest thermonuclear weapons ever built. This happened in the Bikini Atoll, which can be found here:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bikini+Atoll/@-2.3661178,138.0195555,5949119m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x644c2180a24fadbf:0x4c3f21ce9753a027!8m2!3d11.6065142!4d165.3768099
Anyway, there's a great documentary that discusses the US nuclear weapons program following WWII called Trinity and Beyond narrated by William Shatner. If you don't believe the content, hopefully you enjoy Cpt. Kirk talking about things that explode.
If you believe this is film of real nuclear blasts then fair enough. It looks pathetic to me and the pictures show nothing that says anything has happened where nuclear is concerned.
-
If you believe this is film of real nuclear blasts then fair enough. It looks pathetic to me and the pictures show nothing that says anything has happened where nuclear is concerned.
So, this was filmed in 1954, which predates Sputnik 1 by three years. I mention that because it was well before orbital photography was even possible. Given what we know about how far along special effects were in film:
(https://images.mentalfloss.com/sites/default/files/styles/mf_image_16x9/public/blacklag.jpg?itok=tMEf-WOM&resize=1100x1100)
I can say with utter confidence that this is no film effect or tampering with celluloid.
You've conceded up to this point, that this is a real film of an incredibly large explosion. So, the challenge you're making is that it isn't nuclear (in this case thermonuclear), then what can it be? I can work with this.
Conventional explosives of the time weren't too dissimilar from what we have available today. Compounds like RDX (cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine), which is the main component of C4, was invented in 1898. Trinitrotoluene (TNT) has been around forever too. Here's the main problem with conventional explosives; the speed of detonation. Conventional explosives are broken down into two major categories: High and Low explosives. Low explosives are stuff like black powder, smokeless reloader, potassium chlorate (matches), anything with a detonation velocity less than 15,000 feet per second. High explosives are the big guns: TNT, C4, PETN, Symtex, anything above that 15,000 fps threshold.
Here's the problem - all of these explosives take time to release their energy. Take this video for example:
Skip to 4:46 for the relevant part. What you're seeing is a 5 meter stick of dynamite exploding in super slo-motion. What's important to understand is that it actually takes time for the dynamite to explode. You can clearly see the ignition and the detonation wave move from left to right. It doesn't go all at once, this is extremely important.
The Castle Bravo test was 15 megatons. That's 62.76 X 1015 joules of energy released and represents 15 million metric tons of TNT. You can clearly see in the video the weapon housing prior to detonation and the structure it was housed in. A kiloton of TNT can be thought of as a cube 27.8 ft on each edge (21,485 cubic feet). A megaton of TNT would be 1000 kilotons, which would occupy at least 2 million cubic feet. Now multiply that by 15 and you have how much TNT you'd need and the space it would occupy to duplicate Castle Bravo. 30 million cubic feet or 244.5 million gallons. An Olympic sized swimming pool, for reference, holds 660,000 gallons of water.
Now, I believe the next step in trying to debunk that this is, in fact, a thermonuclear explosion would be to point out that perhaps we used a more powerful explosive, something stronger than TNT which would occupy less space? Aziroazide azide is the most powerful, non-nuclear explosive ever invented. Two problems with this particular explosive. First, it was invented in 2011. Second, it is terrifyingly unstable. Meaning, it literally blew up the moment it was made. In the lab. Destroying a fair chunk of the lab. Also, it's detonation velocity is only slightly higher than TNT (21,000 fps vs. something slightly north of 30,000 fps). We still aren't anywhere the speed needed to create Castle Bravo.
Here's the primary difference and the sheer terror in Einstein's simple E=mc2:
The TNT equivalent for a nuclear weapon is just a placeholder. The real kick is understanding that all of that energy is being liberated in a single instant. 15 million metric tons of TNT, it's energy equivalent, being released in the space of time between seconds. That's the only way you create a blast like that. It isn't a fuel bomb, it isn't a light show, it is a weapon that literally creates a mini-star up close and personal for a split second.
-
The Castle Bravo test was 15 megatons. That's 62.76 X 1015 joules of energy released and represents 15 million metric tons of TNT. You can clearly see in the video the weapon housing prior to detonation and the structure it was housed in. A kiloton of TNT can be thought of as a cube 27.8 ft on each edge (21,485 cubic feet). A megaton of TNT would be 1000 kilotons, which would occupy at least 2 million cubic feet. Now multiply that by 15 and you have how much TNT you'd need and the space it would occupy to duplicate Castle Bravo. 30 million cubic feet or 244.5 million gallons. An Olympic sized swimming pool, for reference, holds 660,000 gallons of water.
Now, I believe the next step in trying to debunk that this is, in fact, a thermonuclear explosion would be to point out that perhaps we used a more powerful explosive, something stronger than TNT which would occupy less space? Aziroazide azide is the most powerful, non-nuclear explosive ever invented. Two problems with this particular explosive. First, it was invented in 2011. Second, it is terrifyingly unstable. Meaning, it literally blew up the moment it was made. In the lab. Destroying a fair chunk of the lab. Also, it's detonation velocity is only slightly higher than TNT (21,000 fps vs. something slightly north of 30,000 fps). We still aren't anywhere the speed needed to create Castle Bravo.
Here's the primary difference and the sheer terror in Einstein's simple E=mc2:
The TNT equivalent for a nuclear weapon is just a placeholder. The real kick is understanding that all of that energy is being liberated in a single instant. 15 million metric tons of TNT, it's energy equivalent, being released in the space of time between seconds. That's the only way you create a blast like that. It isn't a fuel bomb, it isn't a light show, it is a weapon that literally creates a mini-star up close and personal for a split second.
Your presentation is eloquent.
Your calculations are very precise.
And yet.
Here are the extremely precise calculations of Nikola Tesla on the same subject:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1994713#msg1994713
My apparatus projects particles which may be relatively large or of microscopic dimensions, enabling us to convey to a small area at a great distance trillions of times more energy than is possible with rays of any kind. Many thousands of horsepower can thus be transmitted by a stream thinner than a hair, so that nothing can resist.
N. Tesla
It is perfectly practicable to transmit electrical energy without wires and produce destructive effects at a distance. I have already constructed a wireless transmitter which makes this possible, and have described it in my technical publications, among which I may refer to my patent 1,119,732 recently granted. With transmitters of this kind we are enabled to project electrical energy in any amount to any distance and apply it for innumerable purposes, both in peace and war.
N. Tesla
Tesla said his transmitter could produce 100 million volts of pressure with currents up to 1000 amperes which is a power level of 100 billion watts.
If it was resonating at a radio frequency of 2 MHz, then the energy released during one period of its oscillation would be 100,000,000,000,000,000 (1016) Joules of energy, or roughly the amount of energy released by the explosion of 10 megatons of TNT.
Such a transmitter, would be capable of projecting the energy of a nuclear warhead by radio.
This is exactly what happened at Tunguska:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1995026#msg1995026
-
The following is going to be a “cool story bro” post.
I just got back from instrument training. One of the instructors used to work for a nuclear lab. They only did work for the DOD. She did many things there. Talked about weighing nuclear material in a glove box while 20 auditors watched. But one thing she also did while there was train sailors going on nuclear subs. Just shows how closed mined one would have to believe nuclear bombs and power doesn’t exist when so many people randomly work on them. You never know who. The lady now travels around the country doing instrument training and other stuff.
So yeah cool story.
Sandokhan bonus.
I learned more about ICP-MS. Your theory of the atom is so shit it’s unbelievable.
-
I believe that nuclear weapons do exist and work as demonstrated by hundreds of above ground tests that have been witnessed by countless people. I also believe that it takes a special kind of stupid to deny so much evidence. Then again, we're having this discussion on a very popular web site that claims that the earth is flat, so what do I know
It's fine for you to believe they exist but you do not know it for a fact.
Using ground tests witnessed by countless people is simply using hearsay to back up something you really do not know.
Countless eyewitnesses,
Who are these eye witnesses?
Survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. The crews that dropped and filmed the blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Various military personnel who were part of military experiments involving nuclear test explosions. The people who set up and carried out the test explosions. Residents and tourists who saw the above ground test explosions from Las Vegas and surrounding areas. Just to name a few.
You're simply going by stories told, if you're honest about it.
Well, that's kinda how it works when you weren't there yourself. If you hear enough stories from enough different sources and none of the stories conflict with each other, then maybe there is some grain of truth that you should consider acknowledging.
films,
Come on man....films?....seriously?
Yes, documentary films. You know, the ones in the non-fiction department.
huge craters,
Huge craters can be of anything. Just because you're sold the story of it being nuclear, does not make it so.
Maybe not, but a huge crater where a nuclear bomb exploded does make it so.
residual radiation.
Where can you verify this radiation for it to be nuclear?
You can't, so it's simply another story told that you accept as a truth, but is not your own physical truth.
Actually, you can. Just remember to bring your Geiger counter.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/7-nuclear-test-sites-you-can-visit-today
What more do you want?
I want absolute proof.
I'd like to see a working sub or a working plant in its full glory...not what it appears to be from a distance.
I'd like to see something that proves to me that little pellets can fission without any external fuel feed.
Am I going to ever see this?...Of course not.
Have you ever looked into visiting a nuclear power plant? Some commercial facilities and a few universities give tours. When I was in college, I visited a nuclear reactor at Cornell University (although I think that it's since been decommissioned). The blue glow of the Cerenkov radiation is kind eerie.
I'm well aware of the old " well go to your nearest nuclear power station" or " well go on a nuclear sub."
You know as well as I do that it's all shrouded in secrecy/security and for good reason in my opinion...which isn't to protect the so called fuel from being stolen.
Not to mention to protect you from the radiation.
Maybe you should talk with Kim Jong Un and see if he'll give you and Anders front row seats to their next nuclear test.
Who is he?
He's probably just a sham. A front for a fictional set up. I don't really know but neither do you.
Umm... He's the supreme leader of North Korea. You may want to catch up on the news every once in a while, unless it conflicts with your reality.
I'm in the opposite boat. I have no direct proof that they don't exist but I simply use my own logic based on how I'm told it all works, from bombs to power and it simply makes little sense to me but it makes a lot of sense if it's a made up power to mask the almost infinite abundance of power we simply harness from the atmosphere/sea.
If your denpressure idea is any indication of your scientific understanding, then it's no wonder that you cann't make heads or tails out of nuclear weapons.
I can make heads and taiuls of its concept. It's shown how it works and it's because of this that I do not accept it as being a reality.
It's like saying the diagram of a sugar grain powered rocket managing to enter a black hole and coming out of the other side then back through to come back to where it first started, but now being one kilo bag of sugar heavier due to expanding grain mass due to the expansion and contraction of the black hole. And the equations to supposedly show why.
You see, people can say " ahhhh, yeah it makes sense"...but the truth is, it only makes sense because people want to believe it does for no other reason than to want to accept stuff outside of normality, because they beg for real magic rather than accepting of a limit to reality.
Nuclear physics is a highly specialized science that will not make sense to anyone who has not studied it extensively. Your own "common sense" is not sufficient do debunk something that is not in everyone's common experience.
The nuclear (supposed) submarines are the biggest giveaway in terms of nuclear power not being legitimate in what we are told.
They can roll out the longest set of equations they want to. They can fill 1 million chalk boards with them or fill 1 million encyclopedia's with them and it proves nothing if the supposed reality of it is hidden behind a cloak and security.
Perhaps nuclear power doesn't fit in your reality, but it fits in quite nicely in just about everyone else's.
Of course it fits others reality. It's been trained into their psyche, so why wouldn't they go with the mass flow?
Kids are trained to believe in fairies and Santa, etc.
Adults are trained into believing in soap storylines to the point where they sacrifice a portion of their lives to become a part of that in watching and then relaying it to others who will verify the content.
It becomes their reality story rather than the fictional one it really portrays.
If you can't tell the difference between a soap opera and reality, then you should consider seeking professional help.
-
I want absolute proof.
I'd like to see a working sub or a working plant in its full glory...not what it appears to be from a distance.
I'd like to see something that proves to me that little pellets can fission without any external fuel feed.
Am I going to ever see this?...Of course not.
I'm well aware of the old " well go to your nearest nuclear power station" or " well go on a nuclear sub."
You know as well as I do that it's all shrouded in secrecy/security and for good reason in my opinion...which isn't to protect the so called fuel from being stolen.
There are over 500 nuclear power plants operating or under construction around the world employing millions of people and there’s nothing “shrouded in secrecy” in commercial power plants. This isn’t me telling you go anywhere or visit something. You want absolute proof then get a job at a power plant so I’m telling you to get off your butt and get a job one of those plants and see for yourself.
You clearly don’t understand nuclear power so unless you’re willing to do something like getting a job you have absolutely no business saying it doesn’t exist.
Mike
-
I want absolute proof.
I'd like to see a working sub or a working plant in its full glory...not what it appears to be from a distance.
I'd like to see something that proves to me that little pellets can fission without any external fuel feed.
Am I going to ever see this?...Of course not.
I'm well aware of the old " well go to your nearest nuclear power station" or " well go on a nuclear sub."
You know as well as I do that it's all shrouded in secrecy/security and for good reason in my opinion...which isn't to protect the so called fuel from being stolen.
There are over 500 nuclear power plants operating or under construction around the world employing millions of people and there’s nothing “shrouded in secrecy” in commercial power plants. This isn’t me telling you go anywhere or visit something. You want absolute proof then get a job at a power plant so I’m telling you to get off your butt and get a job one of those plants and see for yourself.
You clearly don’t understand nuclear power so unless you’re willing to do something like getting a job you have absolutely no business saying it doesn’t exist.
Mike
You clearly don't understand nuclear power except what you're told...that's it.
Accepting the official line as to what they are is your business. I simply do not believe they are what we are told.
I don't care whether you think I should or how much you try to tell me it's all true.
You can feel free to accept every part of everything you're told. I question it and I choose not to believe anything until I'm fairly happy that it displays more of a potential reality rather than leaving too much to ponder.
I've seen far too much nonsense films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants to set off my radar enough to not believe the official line.
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
-
You clearly don't understand nuclear power except what you're told...that's it.
And we could say exactly the same about so many things in modern life.
Do you understand the difference between a junction and a metal–nitride–oxide–silicon transistor except what you're told?
But at least we can make some judgement based on what these devices do.
Likewise with nuclear power only those working directly in that field know other than what they're told.
But some believe that they understand the basic processes involved if not the detail needed to construct such devices.
Accepting the official line as to what they are is your business. I simply do not believe they are what we are told.
I don't care whether you think I should or how much you try to tell me it's all true.
Sure, no-one can make you believe in anything you don't want to believe.
You can feel free to accept every part of everything you're told. I question it and I choose not to believe anything until I'm fairly happy that it displays more of a potential reality rather than leaving too much to ponder.
I've seen far too much nonsense films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants to set off my radar enough to not believe the official line.
But I don't see that you have any business calling the "films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants" nonsense.
Others have just as much right as you to believe those things that they understand without your ridiculing them.
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
OK, you have your thoughts but the energy generated by those nuclear power plants comes from somewhere. And:France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.
-
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
What are your thoughts on that?
-
I want absolute proof.
I'd like to see a working sub or a working plant in its full glory...not what it appears to be from a distance.
I'd like to see something that proves to me that little pellets can fission without any external fuel feed.
Am I going to ever see this?...Of course not.
I'm well aware of the old " well go to your nearest nuclear power station" or " well go on a nuclear sub."
You know as well as I do that it's all shrouded in secrecy/security and for good reason in my opinion...which isn't to protect the so called fuel from being stolen.
There are over 500 nuclear power plants operating or under construction around the world employing millions of people and there’s nothing “shrouded in secrecy” in commercial power plants. This isn’t me telling you go anywhere or visit something. You want absolute proof then get a job at a power plant so I’m telling you to get off your butt and get a job one of those plants and see for yourself.
You clearly don’t understand nuclear power so unless you’re willing to do something like getting a job you have absolutely no business saying it doesn’t exist.
Mike
You clearly don't understand nuclear power except what you're told...that's it.
Accepting the official line as to what they are is your business. I simply do not believe they are what we are told.
I don't care whether you think I should or how much you try to tell me it's all true.
You can feel free to accept every part of everything you're told. I question it and I choose not to believe anything until I'm fairly happy that it displays more of a potential reality rather than leaving too much to ponder.
I've seen far too much nonsense films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants to set off my radar enough to not believe the official line.
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
Fission is very simple and used in nuclear power plants to heat water to steam that is fed to turbines/generators producing electricity (or turning ship propellers). That fission is always moderated.
Military explosive fission, where all the fuel is transformed into pure energy in nano-seconds FLASH, doesn't exist as nobody knows how to ignite or start it. Only twerps believe in military explosive fission.
-
Military explosive fission, where all the fuel is transformed into pure energy in nano-seconds FLASH, doesn't exist as nobody knows how to ignite or start it.
How do you know that "nobody knows how to ignite or start it"? YOU do not know what anybody else knows of doesn't know!
You cannot prove that nuclear detonation is not possible.
So OK, YOU don't know how to start nuclear detonation but that proves nothing about possibility of nuclear detonation.
All that proves is your ignorance.
-
Nuclear weapons, even if they worked as advertised are for pussies. A matter/anti matter annihilation is far more spectacular.
-
Nuclear weapons, even if they worked as advertised are for pussies. A matter/anti matter annihilation is far more spectacular.
But there are little containment problems for that anti-matter.
It wants to get all lovey-dovey with any ordinary matter it meets and that's one real hot romance!
-
Fission is very simple and used in nuclear power plants to heat water to steam that is fed to turbines/generators producing electricity (or turning ship propellers). That fission is always moderated.
It's important to note that you do believe in commercial uses of nuclear fission yet:
Military explosive fission, where all the fuel is transformed into pure energy in nano-seconds FLASH, doesn't exist as nobody knows how to ignite or start it. Only twerps believe in military explosive fission.
Don't seem to understand that if you accept the first use of nuclear energy, you must accept that a weaponized version exists as well. Nuclear criticality = commercial use, Nuclear supercriticality = bomb. What was figured out during the US push to create atomic weapons was that if you simply put too much uranium or plutonium in close enough proximity, it would explode. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a gun-type weapon; it had several rings or donuts of uranium on one side of the cigar shaped bomb, and a uranium slug on the other. The distance between the two was measured as sufficient to prevent a critical or supercritical event. An explosive charge drives the slug into the donuts on the other end thus providing sufficient material for a cascading free neutron cycle to begin. This in turn creates an atomic explosion.
The issue with your response is that you accept the aspect of nuclear processes that create power without understanding that it is the same in both cases. The only difference is that one is controlled and the other isn't.
You are either a troll or incredibly dense.
-
You clearly don't understand nuclear power except what you're told...that's it.
And we could say exactly the same about so many things in modern life.
Do you understand the difference between a junction and a metal–nitride–oxide–silicon transistor except what you're told?
But at least we can make some judgement based on what these devices do.
I'm not arguing anything other than nuclear at the moment, so it's pointless using something else as some kind of yardstick for supposed verification based on assumption.
Likewise with nuclear power only those working directly in that field know other than what they're told.
Yep...but what do they really know, is the question, as far as I'm concerned.
But some believe that they understand the basic processes involved if not the detail needed to construct such devices.
Yep, they most likely do believe they understand it.
A person can also recite a lot of deliberate fictional technology to an audience and believe they understand how that works, even though they know it to be fictional.
The only difference with this set up (in my opinion) is, nobody at the top is letting on that the process is fiction, so the storytellers/studying people believe they're telling/understanding factual processes.
Accepting the official line as to what they are is your business. I simply do not believe they are what we are told.
I don't care whether you think I should or how much you try to tell me it's all true.
Sure, no-one can make you believe in anything you don't want to believe.
Correct.
You can feel free to accept every part of everything you're told. I question it and I choose not to believe anything until I'm fairly happy that it displays more of a potential reality rather than leaving too much to ponder.
I've seen far too much nonsense films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants to set off my radar enough to not believe the official line.
But I don't see that you have any business calling the "films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants" nonsense.
I'm entitled to call it nonsense if I don't get shown otherwise, physically, on my terms..and we know that would never happen. So yeah, it is my business, just like it's your business to call what I say, nonsense, if you so wish.
Others have just as much right as you to believe those things that they understand without your ridiculing them.
I'm not ridiculing anybody except for the process.
Everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe, as I've stated time and time and time ,again.
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
OK, you have your thoughts but the energy generated by those nuclear power plants comes from somewhere.
Yep. Correct. It does.
I have my thoughts which may or may not be correct and I may or may not get to ever find out the truth of what it all is.
In my mind it's certainly not what we are told...but then again, that's just my thoughts.
And:France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.
Why would a country derive 75% of its own electricity from so called nuclear power and sell on to other countries (somehow) and yet not actually just fully look after their own country 100%.
It makes no sense whatsoever, seriously.
-
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
What are your thoughts on that?
Hydrogen harnessed from the sea.
-
Fission is very simple and used in nuclear power plants to heat water to steam that is fed to turbines/generators producing electricity (or turning ship propellers). That fission is always moderated.
Military explosive fission, where all the fuel is transformed into pure energy in nano-seconds FLASH, doesn't exist as nobody knows how to ignite or start it. Only twerps believe in military explosive fission.
Fission is fine but not nuclear as we are told it works.
-
Hydrogen harnessed from the sea.
How do you believe it's being used? A furnace or some other heat exchange type system?
-
I want absolute proof.
I'd like to see a working sub or a working plant in its full glory...not what it appears to be from a distance.
I'd like to see something that proves to me that little pellets can fission without any external fuel feed.
Am I going to ever see this?...Of course not.
I'm well aware of the old " well go to your nearest nuclear power station" or " well go on a nuclear sub."
You know as well as I do that it's all shrouded in secrecy/security and for good reason in my opinion...which isn't to protect the so called fuel from being stolen.
There are over 500 nuclear power plants operating or under construction around the world employing millions of people and there’s nothing “shrouded in secrecy” in commercial power plants. This isn’t me telling you go anywhere or visit something. You want absolute proof then get a job at a power plant so I’m telling you to get off your butt and get a job one of those plants and see for yourself.
You clearly don’t understand nuclear power so unless you’re willing to do something like getting a job you have absolutely no business saying it doesn’t exist.
Mike
You clearly don't understand nuclear power except what you're told...that's it.
Accepting the official line as to what they are is your business. I simply do not believe they are what we are told.
I don't care whether you think I should or how much you try to tell me it's all true.
You can feel free to accept every part of everything you're told. I question it and I choose not to believe anything until I'm fairly happy that it displays more of a potential reality rather than leaving too much to ponder.
I've seen far too much nonsense films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants to set off my radar enough to not believe the official line.
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
I not only understand it I've put my hands on it. We’ve had this discussion before. I’ve operated/maintained these plants and I’m currently employed in the design and construction of them. My comments are from actual knowledge. But, rather than having a discussion with anyone who might know what he/she is talking about you dismiss them as too ignorant to think for themselves...as if you have some almighty insight the rest of humanity lacks. The truth is you're just afraid of anyone who has real knowledge of the subject.
I find it interesting that you completely ignored my comments about getting a job in a commercial plant. Why is that? Could it be that it’s another situation where you could get direct evidence that will contradict your baseless preconceived notions so you’ll just ignore it? Over 500 plants worldwide employing millions is a long, very expensive, way to go to perpetuate a lie. That alone should give you pause but it's just another inconvenient fact so you'll ignore it like you always do....and still have the balls to tell people who do this for a living that they're just mindless gullible sheep incapable of thinking for themselves. One could argue that is an incredible arrogant and closed minded stance.
Mike
-
Hydrogen harnessed from the sea.
How do you believe it's being used? A furnace or some other heat exchange type system?
Some other type system.
-
I want absolute proof.
I'd like to see a working sub or a working plant in its full glory...not what it appears to be from a distance.
I'd like to see something that proves to me that little pellets can fission without any external fuel feed.
Am I going to ever see this?...Of course not.
I'm well aware of the old " well go to your nearest nuclear power station" or " well go on a nuclear sub."
You know as well as I do that it's all shrouded in secrecy/security and for good reason in my opinion...which isn't to protect the so called fuel from being stolen.
There are over 500 nuclear power plants operating or under construction around the world employing millions of people and there’s nothing “shrouded in secrecy” in commercial power plants. This isn’t me telling you go anywhere or visit something. You want absolute proof then get a job at a power plant so I’m telling you to get off your butt and get a job one of those plants and see for yourself.
You clearly don’t understand nuclear power so unless you’re willing to do something like getting a job you have absolutely no business saying it doesn’t exist.
Mike
You clearly don't understand nuclear power except what you're told...that's it.
Accepting the official line as to what they are is your business. I simply do not believe they are what we are told.
I don't care whether you think I should or how much you try to tell me it's all true.
You can feel free to accept every part of everything you're told. I question it and I choose not to believe anything until I'm fairly happy that it displays more of a potential reality rather than leaving too much to ponder.
I've seen far too much nonsense films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants to set off my radar enough to not believe the official line.
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
I not only understand it I've put my hands on it. We’ve had this discussion before. I’ve operated/maintained these plants and I’m currently employed in the design and construction of them. My comments are from actual knowledge. But, rather than having a discussion with anyone who might know what he/she is talking about you dismiss them as too ignorant to think for themselves...as if you have some almighty insight the rest of humanity lacks. The truth is you're just afraid of anyone who has real knowledge of the subject.
I find it interesting that you completely ignored my comments about getting a job in a commercial plant. Why is that? Could it be that it’s another situation where you could get direct evidence that will contradict your baseless preconceived notions so you’ll just ignore it? Over 500 plants worldwide employing millions is a long, very expensive, way to go to perpetuate a lie. That alone should give you pause but it's just another inconvenient fact so you'll ignore it like you always do....and still have the balls to tell people who do this for a living that they're just mindless gullible sheep incapable of thinking for themselves. One could argue that is an incredible arrogant and closed minded stance.
Mike
Don't waste your time telling me you have hands on physical experience. It doesn't wash with me.
-
Hydrogen harnessed from the sea.
How do you believe it's being used? A furnace or some other heat exchange type system?
Some other type system.
Please eleborate. That amount of energy has to come from somewhere. Look at these figures:World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in France
In 2016 electricity production in France was 556 TWh (gross), and of this nuclear provided 403 TWh (72%), hydro 65 TWh (12%), coal and gas 45 TWh (8%), and solar and wind 31 TWh. After net exports of 42 TWh, total electricity consumption came to 442 TWh, about 6,600 kWh per capita on average.
Read more in: Nuclear Power in France (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx)
That 403 TWh is 403,000,000,000 kWh and I use about 10 kWh per day.
You don't get that sort of energy out of thin air.
-
Don't waste your time telling me you have hands on physical experience. It doesn't wash with me.
He's telling you to get some hands on physical experience of your own.
-
Fission is very simple and used in nuclear power plants to heat water to steam that is fed to turbines/generators producing electricity (or turning ship propellers). That fission is always moderated.
It's important to note that you do believe in commercial uses of nuclear fission yet:
Military explosive fission, where all the fuel is transformed into pure energy in nano-seconds FLASH, doesn't exist as nobody knows how to ignite or start it. Only twerps believe in military explosive fission.
Don't seem to understand that if you accept the first use of nuclear energy, you must accept that a weaponized version exists as well. Nuclear criticality = commercial use, Nuclear supercriticality = bomb. What was figured out during the US push to create atomic weapons was that if you simply put too much uranium or plutonium in close enough proximity, it would explode. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a gun-type weapon; it had several rings or donuts of uranium on one side of the cigar shaped bomb, and a uranium slug on the other. The distance between the two was measured as sufficient to prevent a critical or supercritical event. An explosive charge drives the slug into the donuts on the other end thus providing sufficient material for a cascading free neutron cycle to begin. This in turn creates an atomic explosion.
The issue with your response is that you accept the aspect of nuclear processes that create power without understanding that it is the same in both cases. The only difference is that one is controlled and the other isn't.
You are either a troll or incredibly dense.
No, I just show the difference between moderated fission used in nuclear, electric power plants, which works fine, and un-moderated, military, explosive fission, which is just propaganda. Only twerps believe that a few kilograms of pure metal can suddenly explode in a nuclear weapon.
-
Everyone knows dominos only fall in sets of 10.
Also, do you understand what “moderated” means?
-
You are either a troll or incredibly dense.
No, I just show the difference between moderated fission used in nuclear, electric power plants, which works fine, and un-moderated, military, explosive fission, which is just propaganda. Only twerps believe that a few kilograms of pure metal can suddenly explode in a nuclear weapon.
Unmoderated fission can also be used in nuclear, electric power plants in breeder reactors. The only reason they are not used more often is that they can produce fissile plutonium-239.
I have shown you several times that unmoderated fast neutron fission reactors work just fine.
Yes, "unmoderated fast neutron fission reactors work just fine":
Fast Neutron Reactors (Updated June 2018) (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/fast-neutron-reactors.aspx)
The fast reactor has no moderator and relies on fast neutrons alone to cause fission, which for uranium is less efficient than using slow neutrons. Hence a fast reactor usually uses plutonium as its basic fuel, since it fissions sufficiently with fast neutrons to keep going.* At the same time the number of neutrons produced per plutonium-239 fission is 25% more than from uranium, and this means that there are enough (after losses) not only to maintain the chain reaction but also continually to convert U-238 into more Pu-239. Furthermore, the fast neutrons are more efficient than slow ones in doing this breeding, due to more neutrons being released per fission. These are the main reasons for avoiding the use of a moderator. The coolant is a liquid metal (normally sodium) to avoid any neutron moderation and provide a very efficient heat transfer medium. So, the fast reactor 'burns' and 'breeds' fissile plutonium.*
While the conversion ratio (the ratio of new fissile nuclei to fissioned nuclei) in a normal reactor is around 0.6, that in a fast reactor may exceed 1.0.
* If the ratio of final to initial fissile content is less than 1 they are burners, consuming more fissile material (U-235, Pu and minor actinides) than they produce (fissile Pu), if more than 1 they are breeders. This is the burn ratio or breeding ratio. If the ratio is 1 they are iso-breeders, producing the same amount of fuel as they consume during operation.
-
Fission is very simple and used in nuclear power plants to heat water to steam that is fed to turbines/generators producing electricity (or turning ship propellers). That fission is always moderated.
It's important to note that you do believe in commercial uses of nuclear fission yet:
Military explosive fission, where all the fuel is transformed into pure energy in nano-seconds FLASH, doesn't exist as nobody knows how to ignite or start it. Only twerps believe in military explosive fission.
Don't seem to understand that if you accept the first use of nuclear energy, you must accept that a weaponized version exists as well. Nuclear criticality = commercial use, Nuclear supercriticality = bomb. What was figured out during the US push to create atomic weapons was that if you simply put too much uranium or plutonium in close enough proximity, it would explode. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a gun-type weapon; it had several rings or donuts of uranium on one side of the cigar shaped bomb, and a uranium slug on the other. The distance between the two was measured as sufficient to prevent a critical or supercritical event. An explosive charge drives the slug into the donuts on the other end thus providing sufficient material for a cascading free neutron cycle to begin. This in turn creates an atomic explosion.
The issue with your response is that you accept the aspect of nuclear processes that create power without understanding that it is the same in both cases. The only difference is that one is controlled and the other isn't.
You are either a troll or incredibly dense.
No, I just show the difference between moderated fission used in nuclear, electric power plants, which works fine, and un-moderated, military, explosive fission, which is just propaganda. Only twerps believe that a few kilograms of pure metal can suddenly explode in a nuclear weapon.
You're once again showing your complete lack of understanding of nuclear reactions. Fast fission reactors aren't moderated.
You can't even get the basics right and you want people to believe you. Thanks for playing, try again.
Mike
-
I want absolute proof.
I'd like to see a working sub or a working plant in its full glory...not what it appears to be from a distance.
I'd like to see something that proves to me that little pellets can fission without any external fuel feed.
Am I going to ever see this?...Of course not.
I'm well aware of the old " well go to your nearest nuclear power station" or " well go on a nuclear sub."
You know as well as I do that it's all shrouded in secrecy/security and for good reason in my opinion...which isn't to protect the so called fuel from being stolen.
There are over 500 nuclear power plants operating or under construction around the world employing millions of people and there’s nothing “shrouded in secrecy” in commercial power plants. This isn’t me telling you go anywhere or visit something. You want absolute proof then get a job at a power plant so I’m telling you to get off your butt and get a job one of those plants and see for yourself.
You clearly don’t understand nuclear power so unless you’re willing to do something like getting a job you have absolutely no business saying it doesn’t exist.
Mike
You clearly don't understand nuclear power except what you're told...that's it.
Accepting the official line as to what they are is your business. I simply do not believe they are what we are told.
I don't care whether you think I should or how much you try to tell me it's all true.
You can feel free to accept every part of everything you're told. I question it and I choose not to believe anything until I'm fairly happy that it displays more of a potential reality rather than leaving too much to ponder.
I've seen far too much nonsense films about nuclear bombs. subs/ power plants to set off my radar enough to not believe the official line.
The only question for me is....what is really happening as regards power. I have my thoughts and that's that.
I not only understand it I've put my hands on it. We’ve had this discussion before. I’ve operated/maintained these plants and I’m currently employed in the design and construction of them. My comments are from actual knowledge. But, rather than having a discussion with anyone who might know what he/she is talking about you dismiss them as too ignorant to think for themselves...as if you have some almighty insight the rest of humanity lacks. The truth is you're just afraid of anyone who has real knowledge of the subject.
I find it interesting that you completely ignored my comments about getting a job in a commercial plant. Why is that? Could it be that it’s another situation where you could get direct evidence that will contradict your baseless preconceived notions so you’ll just ignore it? Over 500 plants worldwide employing millions is a long, very expensive, way to go to perpetuate a lie. That alone should give you pause but it's just another inconvenient fact so you'll ignore it like you always do....and still have the balls to tell people who do this for a living that they're just mindless gullible sheep incapable of thinking for themselves. One could argue that is an incredible arrogant and closed minded stance.
Mike
Don't waste your time telling me you have hands on physical experience. It doesn't wash with me.
Typical...ignore reality to maintain your delusions.
Mike
-
(https://s15.postimg.cc/dbwevq4h7/yhst-15720665560768_2268_7400062.jpg)
-
No, I just show the difference between moderated fission used in nuclear, electric power plants, which works fine, and un-moderated, military, explosive fission, which is just propaganda. Only twerps believe that a few kilograms of pure metal can suddenly explode in a nuclear weapon.
You didn't show anything. You stated a commonly known bit about nuclear power, that it is and has been used for commercial power, and then dismissed that it can be weaponized. You did so without support nor do you seemingly realize that in order for the first point to be correct, the following point is necessarily correct. Additionally, uranium is not a metal, its an actinide.
So, if you'd care to explain why spontaneous fission isn't possible when sufficient fissile mass is collected in close proximity it might help getting out of the fallacious hole you've dug yourself into (though it will more likely dig you deeper).
-
It is very easy to find out who is telling the truth on the matter of "nuclear" energy.
ORANUR EXPERIMENT, 1951
Friday, January 5, 1951: Wilhelm Reich M.D. puts one milligram of pure radium inside a 20 layer Orgone Energy Accumulator. For five hours the radium remains inside the life energy charging device. During the next seven days the process is repeated for one hour per day; the one milligram of pure radium is placed inside the 20 layer Orgone Accumulator. On Friday, January 12, the radium was removed from the Orgone charging device after only one half hour and the experiment was stopped
It was on the last day of the experiment that the most dramatic effect occurred. The observers were outside the student’s laboratory where the metal lined Orgone Room housing the powerful 20 layer Orgone Energy Accumulator was located. While one experimental milligram of pure radium served as a control and was kept far away in an unused building on Reich’s 280 acre farm; the other milligram of pure radium was placed inside the life energy charging device.
The “normal” background count of “radioactivity” at Reich’s laboratory in Western Maine where a dozen people lived and worked was 30 – 50 counts per minute measured on the big 4096 Tracerlab Autoscaler. The background of radioactivity within an Orgone Accumulator measured with a portable SU-5 Tracerlab Survey Meter, type 6C5, was 40 – 70 cpm. In other words, with no nuclear material present, the concentration of Life Energy within a charging device caused the Geiger Counter to give a higher reading; about 40 % higher.
Once the Oranur Experiment had started; once the concentrated Life Energy had been exposed to the radioactive nuclear material – the background count at Reich’s laboratory climbed to approx. 80 cpm and would not immediately subside even when the nuclear material was removed from the Orgone Accumulator.
The radioactivity of a one milligram unit of radium had been calibrated at 16,000 cpm (8.3 Roentgens per hour). This was done in New York City, away from the highly charged atmosphere of Reich’s setup near Rangeley, Maine. The two units of Radium arrived on Jan. 5, 1951 and immediately they were measured unshielded at one centimeter distance and gave a reading of 254,760 cpm in the highly charged atmosphere near the various Orgone Accumulators. One milligram unit was secured as a control and not exposed further to the charging effect of the Orgone devices. The other milligram was placed inside the 20 layer Orgone Accumulator in the metal lined Orgone Room in the student’s laboratory. While the radium was within the charging device, accurate measurement was not possible because the instrument, the SU-5 Survey Meter would either race right off the scale or go completely dead. Away from the active experiment, the instrument resumed normal operation.
The fateful Friday, January 12 – again the milligram of pure radium is placed inside the Life Energy device and again the observers feel the amplified radiation effects: severe nausea, loss of equilibrium, pressure in the forehead, sensations of fainting, severe headache, hot and cold flashes, severe belching: all these symptoms were observed and experienced by the one dozen or so physicians and technicians present during the 5 month course of the experiment. Additionally each observer was affected by a recurrence of any old or dormant injury or disease condition varying according to each individual’s weakest spot. It was as if the effect of the reaction of the concentrated Life Energy to the nuclear irritant was to attack each living organism in its weakest area.
The last time that the radium was placed inside the 20 layer Accumulator was to prove so dramatic that for fear of possible consequences, the experiment was stopped. The observers (Wilhelm Reich, Dr. Simon Tropp & others) were standing outside in the cold afternoon of January 12. They could see through the large picture windows the atmosphere inside the student’s lab become clouded within minutes after they had placed the unshielded milligram of radium inside the Life Energy charger. The clouded atmosphere was starting to move visibly and was shining blue and purple 1 The men became quite ill from nausea, loss of balance, cramps in the stomach – all this from one milligram of radium over 300 feet distant. Never before had symptoms of radiation sickness been so strong or had they been felt at such a great distance from the physical setup of the experiment.
The experiment was stopped in that the radioactive material was no longer placed inside the Life Energy charging device. The effects from the experiment continued and they intensified. It was quite unbearable to be near any Orgone Accumulator on the premises. It was as if the Oranur effect had spread and affected all of the Life Energy charging devices located at Reich’s extensive laboratory comprising two large and several smaller buildings. All of the Orgone devices exhibited exorbitantly high Geiger counter readings and produced symptoms of radiation sickness in nearby observers. A large batch of 30 experimental mice died from exposure to this Orgone Anti-Nuclear effect even though the mice were never physically close to arty nuclear material. Thorough autopsies on the mice revealed a leukemia-like blood picture.
The reaction seemed to be self-sustaining and was spreading. In response to the severity of the Oranur effect, all of the Orgone Accumulators were physically dismantled and their component parts were separated. The metal lined Orgone Room was dismantled. This measure of turning off the Orgone Accumulators (there is no switch to an Orgone device); this dismantling of the Orgone devices seemed to reduce the background counts of radioactivity from their levels of 80 cpm and above. It was noticed that reassembling even one Orgone charging device would immediately cause the background radiation measurements to approximately double. The experimental radium was secured within its 1/2” lead shield and placed inside a 4” steel and concrete safe located in a small wooden building some distance from the main laboratory.
What had been learned from this experiment? Basically, the presence of a stong concentration of Orgone Energy seems to amplify and magnify the radiation from a nuclear source. The New York Times reported on February 3, 1951 of an Atomic Energy Commission announcement of an increase in background radiation comprising an area of 600 miles in radius with its approximate center located Northern New England. It is likely that Reich’s Oranur Experiment with one milligram of radium had affected an area of 1,130,900 square miles.
Reference for the New York Times article:
Wilson, Colin. The Quest for Wilhelm Reich. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. 1981. p. 210
Heiwa or Sceptimatic: can you access the NY Times archives for the article published on February 3, 1951, written by Robert K. Plumb, on the increase of the radiation level in the northern New England area?
-
Hydrogen harnessed from the sea.
How do you believe it's being used? A furnace or some other heat exchange type system?
Some other type system.
Please eleborate. That amount of energy has to come from somewhere. Look at these figures:World Nuclear Association, Nuclear Power in France
In 2016 electricity production in France was 556 TWh (gross), and of this nuclear provided 403 TWh (72%), hydro 65 TWh (12%), coal and gas 45 TWh (8%), and solar and wind 31 TWh. After net exports of 42 TWh, total electricity consumption came to 442 TWh, about 6,600 kWh per capita on average.
Read more in: Nuclear Power in France (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-a-f/france.aspx)
That 403 TWh is 403,000,000,000 kWh and I use about 10 kWh per day.
You don't get that sort of energy out of thin air.
Tell me something.
What do you think a dynamo is and how does it get electricity from the air?
You can liken it to the wind turbine.
That's basically electricity from so called thin air.
The Vestas V164 wind turbine has a rated capacity of 8 MW, apparently, so this thin air stuff comes to the fore...if it's the entire reality of that.
However, I think much thicker air for power plants.
All you have to do is look at the way electricity is created from the atmosphere on its own by cloud build up.
Then look at electrolysis in water with lead and what not.
Yes yes we all get told it takes a lot of energy to make electrolysis happen and it wouldn't be worth it.
It's easy to be told all this just as it's even easier to be told little so called uranium pellets just fission in water, in side tubes as a sort of rod that is sat in between a control rod that supposedly stops the fissioning.
I believe it's absolute nonsense and you have absolutely no proof of anything other than what you're told, regardless of how many times you profess to know what's going on.
-
It is very easy to find out who is telling the truth on the matter of "nuclear" energy.
...
Heiwa or Sceptimatic: can you access the NY Times archives for the article published on February 3, 1951, written by Robert K. Plant, on the increase of the radiation level in the northern New England area?
No, NYT publishes so much Fake News so I think the archive is full of it. I explain more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
It is very easy to scare people with radiation. Don't stay in the Sun too long or protect yourself with a cream!
-
Don't waste your time telling me you have hands on physical experience. It doesn't wash with me.
He's telling you to get some hands on physical experience of your own.
He can tell me all he wants but it's not going to happen, because it's all hidden behind a wall of secrecy, literally...and security under the guise of being stolen.
Of course, I can be told to go to this plant or that university to see it in action.
What am I seeing in action?
I get told about a blue glow inside a pot. So what. It proves nothing of nuclear supposed fissioning.
-
Typical...ignore reality to maintain your delusions.
Mike
I could be ignoring reality, but then again so could you, except the fact that you feel the need to try and put your point across by pretending to actually have physical hands on experience of seeing it all.
I'll tell you right now...I don't accept your story and you can't actually expect me to accept it.
Don't try and use that argument to gain you any traction with me. It may work with some, but certainly not me.
-
Heiwa or Sceptimatic: can you access the NY Times archives for the article published on February 3, 1951, written by Robert K. Plant, on the increase of the radiation level in the northern New England area?
I don't need to. I don't buy into it. I think any power created in anything is not self sustaining for any long period of time in terms of high energy output...except for the use of similar energy applied to gain the exact same energy release. No more no less.
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
-
It is very easy to find out who is telling the truth on the matter of "nuclear" energy.
ORANUR EXPERIMENT, 1951
Friday, January 5, 1951: Wilhelm Reich M.D. puts one milligram of pure radium inside a 20 layer Orgone Energy Accumulator. For five hours the radium remains inside the life energy charging device. During the next seven days the process is repeated for one hour per day; the one milligram of pure radium is placed inside the 20 layer Orgone Accumulator. On Friday, January 12, the radium was removed from the Orgone charging device after only one half hour and the experiment was stopped
It was on the last day of the experiment that the most dramatic effect occurred. The observers were outside the student’s laboratory where the metal lined Orgone Room housing the powerful 20 layer Orgone Energy Accumulator was located. While one experimental milligram of pure radium served as a control and was kept far away in an unused building on Reich’s 280 acre farm; the other milligram of pure radium was placed inside the life energy charging device.
The “normal” background count of “radioactivity” at Reich’s laboratory in Western Maine where a dozen people lived and worked was 30 – 50 counts per minute measured on the big 4096 Tracerlab Autoscaler. The background of radioactivity within an Orgone Accumulator measured with a portable SU-5 Tracerlab Survey Meter, type 6C5, was 40 – 70 cpm. In other words, with no nuclear material present, the concentration of Life Energy within a charging device caused the Geiger Counter to give a higher reading; about 40 % higher.
Once the Oranur Experiment had started; once the concentrated Life Energy had been exposed to the radioactive nuclear material – the background count at Reich’s laboratory climbed to approx. 80 cpm and would not immediately subside even when the nuclear material was removed from the Orgone Accumulator.
The radioactivity of a one milligram unit of radium had been calibrated at 16,000 cpm (8.3 Roentgens per hour). This was done in New York City, away from the highly charged atmosphere of Reich’s setup near Rangeley, Maine. The two units of Radium arrived on Jan. 5, 1951 and immediately they were measured unshielded at one centimeter distance and gave a reading of 254,760 cpm in the highly charged atmosphere near the various Orgone Accumulators. One milligram unit was secured as a control and not exposed further to the charging effect of the Orgone devices. The other milligram was placed inside the 20 layer Orgone Accumulator in the metal lined Orgone Room in the student’s laboratory. While the radium was within the charging device, accurate measurement was not possible because the instrument, the SU-5 Survey Meter would either race right off the scale or go completely dead. Away from the active experiment, the instrument resumed normal operation.
The fateful Friday, January 12 – again the milligram of pure radium is placed inside the Life Energy device and again the observers feel the amplified radiation effects: severe nausea, loss of equilibrium, pressure in the forehead, sensations of fainting, severe headache, hot and cold flashes, severe belching: all these symptoms were observed and experienced by the one dozen or so physicians and technicians present during the 5 month course of the experiment. Additionally each observer was affected by a recurrence of any old or dormant injury or disease condition varying according to each individual’s weakest spot. It was as if the effect of the reaction of the concentrated Life Energy to the nuclear irritant was to attack each living organism in its weakest area.
The last time that the radium was placed inside the 20 layer Accumulator was to prove so dramatic that for fear of possible consequences, the experiment was stopped. The observers (Wilhelm Reich, Dr. Simon Tropp & others) were standing outside in the cold afternoon of January 12. They could see through the large picture windows the atmosphere inside the student’s lab become clouded within minutes after they had placed the unshielded milligram of radium inside the Life Energy charger. The clouded atmosphere was starting to move visibly and was shining blue and purple 1 The men became quite ill from nausea, loss of balance, cramps in the stomach – all this from one milligram of radium over 300 feet distant. Never before had symptoms of radiation sickness been so strong or had they been felt at such a great distance from the physical setup of the experiment.
The experiment was stopped in that the radioactive material was no longer placed inside the Life Energy charging device. The effects from the experiment continued and they intensified. It was quite unbearable to be near any Orgone Accumulator on the premises. It was as if the Oranur effect had spread and affected all of the Life Energy charging devices located at Reich’s extensive laboratory comprising two large and several smaller buildings. All of the Orgone devices exhibited exorbitantly high Geiger counter readings and produced symptoms of radiation sickness in nearby observers. A large batch of 30 experimental mice died from exposure to this Orgone Anti-Nuclear effect even though the mice were never physically close to arty nuclear material. Thorough autopsies on the mice revealed a leukemia-like blood picture.
The reaction seemed to be self-sustaining and was spreading. In response to the severity of the Oranur effect, all of the Orgone Accumulators were physically dismantled and their component parts were separated. The metal lined Orgone Room was dismantled. This measure of turning off the Orgone Accumulators (there is no switch to an Orgone device); this dismantling of the Orgone devices seemed to reduce the background counts of radioactivity from their levels of 80 cpm and above. It was noticed that reassembling even one Orgone charging device would immediately cause the background radiation measurements to approximately double. The experimental radium was secured within its 1/2” lead shield and placed inside a 4” steel and concrete safe located in a small wooden building some distance from the main laboratory.
What had been learned from this experiment? Basically, the presence of a stong concentration of Orgone Energy seems to amplify and magnify the radiation from a nuclear source. The New York Times reported on February 3, 1951 of an Atomic Energy Commission announcement of an increase in background radiation comprising an area of 600 miles in radius with its approximate center located Northern New England. It is likely that Reich’s Oranur Experiment with one milligram of radium had affected an area of 1,130,900 square miles.
Reference for the New York Times article:
Wilson, Colin. The Quest for Wilhelm Reich. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday. 1981. p. 210
Heiwa or Sceptimatic: can you access the NY Times archives for the article published on February 3, 1951, written by Robert K. Plumb, on the increase of the radiation level in the northern New England area?
https://www.nytimes.com/1951/02/03/archives/increased-radiation-found-in-east-laid-to-atom-tests-held-harmless.html
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
So anyone who says they work in nuclear power is just lying?
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
-
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
MicroBrain - I love spending some hours on a beach exposed to Sun radiation - sipping a beer and watching the girls - hoping my natural power will attract them. Why do/did you waste time inside a nuke sub or nuke power station?
-
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
MicroBrain - I love spending some hours on a beach exposed to Sun radiation - sipping a beer and watching the girls - hoping my natural power will attract them. Why do/did you waste time inside a nuke sub or nuke power station?
Because the job exist and someone has to do it.
All the jobs in the nuclear field exist or existed, because nuclear reactions are understood. Nuclear power and nuclear bombs exist.
-
It is very easy to find out who is telling the truth on the matter of "nuclear" energy.
ORANUR EXPERIMENT, 1951
Friday, January 5, 1951: Wilhelm Reich M.D. puts one milligram of pure radium inside a 20 layer Orgone Energy Accumulator. For five hours the radium remains inside the life energy charging device. During the next seven days the process is repeated for one hour per day; the one milligram of pure radium is placed inside the 20 layer Orgone Accumulator. On Friday, January 12, the radium was removed from the Orgone charging device after only one half hour and the experiment was stopped
I had no idea what an "Orgone Energy Accumulator" could possibly be, so I consult the ;) font of all knowledge ;) Google, of course.
And look what I found: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/fb03aj32fnwwm5m/Rational%20Wiki%20Logo.png?dl=1) Orgone accumulator
An orgone accumulator (ORAC) was a box developed by Wilhelm Reich to trap and then radiate his magical orgone energy into a concentrated area. Reich constructed the box so that it had organic material lining the outside of its walls and metallic material lining the insides of its walls. To Reich orgone energy would be drawn into the organic material on the outside of the box but then be radiated into the box by the metallic inner lining. Over time this orgone energy would "accumulate" in the interior of the box.
Reich came to the conclusion that orgone energy would be absorbed by organic substances because of his (woefully inadequate) knowledge of "radiation" — by which he meant "nuclear" radiation, e.g. the spooky stuff that comes out of radium. Somewhere along the line he heard that organic matter absorbs radiation,[1] and that was all he needed to convince himself that orgone energy "must" behave the same way.
Objects (including people) could then be placed inside such a device and be exposed to well above background levels of orgone energy. Of course there is absolutely no evidence that orgone exists so any device designed to "accumulate" it in one place can be immediately written off. Orgone accumulators were proposed to cure everything from mental disease to cancer. It is the ultimate mix of woo and pseudoscience.
Yup, "the ultimate mix of woo and pseudoscience" sounds about right.
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
So anyone who says they work in nuclear power is just lying?
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
Yep I believe radiation exists.
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
So anyone who says they work in nuclear power is just lying?
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
Yep I believe radiation exists.
Then you believe in nuclear power because they're exactly the same thing. Fission is nothing but radioactive decay. It's naturally occurring. Nuc plants just takes a large quantity of an unstable isotope, controls how fast it decays, and capture the heat from that decay.
If you believe in one you have to believe in the other.
Mike
-
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
MicroBrain - I love spending some hours on a beach exposed to Sun radiation - sipping a beer and watching the girls - hoping my natural power will attract them. Why do/did you waste time inside a nuke sub or nuke power station?
Because the job exist and someone has to do it.
All the jobs in the nuclear field exist or existed, because nuclear reactions are understood. Nuclear power and nuclear bombs exist.
I agree fission and nuclear power plants are real. On the other hand military explosive fission and nuclear weapons that explode in a FLASH + dirty mushroom cloud are just propaganda and fakery to scare you.
-
On the other hand military explosive fission and nuclear weapons that explode in a FLASH + dirty mushroom cloud are just propaganda and fakery to scare you.
We've heard your lies for so long that you'll have us believing that you are Vladimir Lenin reincarnated.
(https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_tr/en/v/vladimirlenin/132031/vladimirlenin1-2x.jpg)
Keep the amusement going!
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
So anyone who says they work in nuclear power is just lying?
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
Yep I believe radiation exists.
Then you believe in nuclear power because they're exactly the same thing. Fission is nothing but radioactive decay. It's naturally occurring. Nuc plants just takes a large quantity of an unstable isotope, controls how fast it decays, and capture the heat from that decay.
If you believe in one you have to believe in the other.
Mike
Nope.
Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
So anyone who says they work in nuclear power is just lying?
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
Yep I believe radiation exists.
Then you believe in nuclear power because they're exactly the same thing. Fission is nothing but radioactive decay. It's naturally occurring. Nuc plants just takes a large quantity of an unstable isotope, controls how fast it decays, and capture the heat from that decay.
If you believe in one you have to believe in the other.
Mike
Nope.
Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
Radiation is a source of nuclear power.
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
So anyone who says they work in nuclear power is just lying?
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
Yep I believe radiation exists.
Then you believe in nuclear power because they're exactly the same thing. Fission is nothing but radioactive decay. It's naturally occurring. Nuc plants just takes a large quantity of an unstable isotope, controls how fast it decays, and capture the heat from that decay.
If you believe in one you have to believe in the other.
Mike
Nope.
Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
I didn't say it had to be nuclear power. What I am saying is that radioactive decay harnessed and controlled is nuclear power. It really is that simple.
Mike
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
So anyone who says they work in nuclear power is just lying?
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
Yep I believe radiation exists.
Then you believe in nuclear power because they're exactly the same thing. Fission is nothing but radioactive decay. It's naturally occurring. Nuc plants just takes a large quantity of an unstable isotope, controls how fast it decays, and capture the heat from that decay.
If you believe in one you have to believe in the other.
Mike
Nope.
Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
I didn't say it had to be nuclear power. What I am saying is that radioactive decay harnessed and controlled is nuclear power. It really is that simple.
Mike
Like I said before. Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
There's a multitude of reasons for radiation.
-
Like I said before. Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
There's a multitude of reasons for radiation.
Yes, and nuclear fission is the reason for 3 types of radiation (alpha, beta and gamma).
-
Like I said before. Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
There's a multitude of reasons for radiation.
Yes, and nuclear fission is the reason for 3 types of radiation (alpha, beta and gamma).
Fine, but I do not believe metal gives off decades of super radiated energy to boil water to turn it into steam, as I pointed out a good while ago.
Like I said before, also. You only get out of something what you put into it.
That goes for everything, which means tiny pellets are not going to give out energy for decades if they do not have that energy placed into them.
-
Like I said before. Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
There's a multitude of reasons for radiation.
Yes, and nuclear fission is the reason for 3 types of radiation (alpha, beta and gamma).
Fine, but I do not believe metal gives off decades of super radiated energy to boil water to turn it into steam, as I pointed out a good while ago.
Like I said before, also. You only get out of something what you put into it.
That goes for everything, which means tiny pellets are not going to give out energy for decades if they do not have that energy placed into them.
The energy that radioactive decay/fission emits is the energy stored in the bonds that hold the nucleus together, so the energy is already there. It's much like the chemical energy that is stored in gasoline and is released when the gasoline burns and the inter-molecular chemical bonds are broken.
-
Applied to everything in life.
For every ACTION there is an EQUAL and Opposite REACTION.
This applies to absolutely EVERYTHING.
This means that stuff like nuclear power and bombs and anything that pertains to getting much more out of something than what is in it....is nonsense in my book.
There's no way around it other than to appeal to magic in a supposed real sense of the word that SOME people seem to adhere to in varying ways.
So anyone who says they work in nuclear power is just lying?
How about this? Do you believe radiation exists?
Mike
Yep I believe radiation exists.
Then you believe in nuclear power because they're exactly the same thing. Fission is nothing but radioactive decay. It's naturally occurring. Nuc plants just takes a large quantity of an unstable isotope, controls how fast it decays, and capture the heat from that decay.
If you believe in one you have to believe in the other.
Mike
Nope.
Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
I didn't say it had to be nuclear power. What I am saying is that radioactive decay harnessed and controlled is nuclear power. It really is that simple.
Mike
Like I said before. Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
There's a multitude of reasons for radiation.
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
-
Like I said before. Radiation does not have to be nuclear power.
There's a multitude of reasons for radiation.
Yes, and nuclear fission is the reason for 3 types of radiation (alpha, beta and gamma).
Fine, but I do not believe metal gives off decades of super radiated energy to boil water to turn it into steam, as I pointed out a good while ago.
Like I said before, also. You only get out of something what you put into it.
That goes for everything, which means tiny pellets are not going to give out energy for decades if they do not have that energy placed into them.
The energy that radioactive decay/fission emits is the energy stored in the bonds that hold the nucleus together, so the energy is already there. It's much like the chemical energy that is stored in gasoline and is released when the gasoline burns and the inter-molecular chemical bonds are broken.
Yep. When a gallon of gasoline burns for a decade or two then I'll believe anything.
As it stands I don't see any proof of anything giving out super energy to boil water for decades.
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
So you don't believe in the classical definition of radiation. You knew what I was asking so why beat around the bush.
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
So you don't believe in the classical definition of radiation. You knew what I was asking so why beat around the bush.
Let me make this even more clear if it isn't as clear, anyway.
I do not believe so called uranium pellets inside a so called fuel rod sitting in between a so called control rod can sit in a tank of water in a pressure vessel and just heat it up into steam upon the raising of those supposed control rods.
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
So you don't believe in the classical definition of radiation. You knew what I was asking so why beat around the bush.
Let me make this even more clear if it isn't as clear, anyway.
I do not believe so called uranium pellets inside a so called fuel rod sitting in between a so called control rod can sit in a tank of water in a pressure vessel and just heat it up into steam upon the raising of those supposed control rods.
That's been clear from the beginning. What isn't clear is whether or not you believe in the classical definition of radiation.
You seem to keep side-stepping that question.
Mike
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
So you don't believe in the classical definition of radiation. You knew what I was asking so why beat around the bush.
Let me make this even more clear if it isn't as clear, anyway.
I do not believe so called uranium pellets inside a so called fuel rod sitting in between a so called control rod can sit in a tank of water in a pressure vessel and just heat it up into steam upon the raising of those supposed control rods.
That's been clear from the beginning. What isn't clear is whether or not you believe in the classical definition of radiation.
You seem to keep side-stepping that question.
Mike
I seriously doubt it. As I recall, scepti doesn't even believe in the classical definition of atoms.
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
So you don't believe in the classical definition of radiation. You knew what I was asking so why beat around the bush.
Let me make this even more clear if it isn't as clear, anyway.
I do not believe so called uranium pellets inside a so called fuel rod sitting in between a so called control rod can sit in a tank of water in a pressure vessel and just heat it up into steam upon the raising of those supposed control rods.
That's been clear from the beginning. What isn't clear is whether or not you believe in the classical definition of radiation.
You seem to keep side-stepping that question.
Mike
I seriously doubt it. As I recall, scepti doesn't even believe in the classical definition of atoms.
That’s true. However, sceptimatic unequivocally stated that he believed in radiation. A measurable, quantifiable energy...to the point of even determining the element & isotope producing the radiation.
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
So you don't believe in the classical definition of radiation. You knew what I was asking so why beat around the bush.
Let me make this even more clear if it isn't as clear, anyway.
I do not believe so called uranium pellets inside a so called fuel rod sitting in between a so called control rod can sit in a tank of water in a pressure vessel and just heat it up into steam upon the raising of those supposed control rods.
That's been clear from the beginning. What isn't clear is whether or not you believe in the classical definition of radiation.
You seem to keep side-stepping that question.
Mike
I seriously doubt it. As I recall, scepti doesn't even believe in the classical definition of atoms.
That’s true. However, sceptimatic unequivocally stated that he believed in radiation. A measurable, quantifiable energy...to the point of even determining the element & isotope producing the radiation.
Radiation is a word that describes all kinds of energy change.
A radiator creates radiation.
A microwave oven creates radiation...but these things only give out what is fed in, in hot water under pressure or electricity in terms of watts, respectively.
When I get hold of something that can consistently give me the energy muy home requires, which has no outside source aiding it for just 5 years, I'll believe in whatever I'm told about nuclear power or whatever.
Until that happens I stand firmly behind the natural logic of only getting out what is put in. No more and no less.
-
When I get hold of something that can consistently give me the energy muy home requires, which has no outside source aiding it for just 5 years, I'll believe in whatever I'm told about nuclear power or whatever.
Until that happens I stand firmly behind the natural logic of only getting out what is put in. No more and no less.
Scepti, have you ever heard of tritium night sights (http://reddotsights.us/four-reasons-why-you-should-be-using-tritium-sights/) for guns? They glow in the dark for years with no batteries. How do you suppose that works if not for the fact that tritium is a radioactive isotope that decays at a predictable rate?
I'm sorry, but using your "natural logic" won't do you any good if you don't understand the nature of atomic structure and related forces, and you obviously don't.
-
Radioactive materials are the dense targets of external energetic streams.
Tesla stated that if any radioactive element were to be shielded from these rays, the material would cease to be radioactive.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1830498#msg1830498 (nuclear energy file)
Let us remember that Riemann's zeta function is totally related to the values of the energy levels of the atom:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2088754#msg2088754
Especially to the heavy nucleus of U-238.
-
When I get hold of something that can consistently give me the energy muy home requires, which has no outside source aiding it for just 5 years, I'll believe in whatever I'm told about nuclear power or whatever.
Until that happens I stand firmly behind the natural logic of only getting out what is put in. No more and no less.
Scepti, have you ever heard of tritium night sights (http://reddotsights.us/four-reasons-why-you-should-be-using-tritium-sights/) for guns? They glow in the dark for years with no batteries. How do you suppose that works if not for the fact that tritium is a radioactive isotope that decays at a predictable rate?
I'm sorry, but using your "natural logic" won't do you any good if you don't understand the nature of atomic structure and related forces, and you obviously don't.
Like I said earlier, markjo. If something can produce that energy to consistently boil water into steam, even a cup full of water under pressure for a few years or even a few months, then I'll accept the energy goes way ahead of what I believed.
However, if that doesn't happen then there's a reason for it...and that reason is because it's not releasing energy without input of equal energy.
-
When I get hold of something that can consistently give me the energy muy home requires, which has no outside source aiding it for just 5 years, I'll believe in whatever I'm told about nuclear power or whatever.
Until that happens I stand firmly behind the natural logic of only getting out what is put in. No more and no less.
Scepti, have you ever heard of tritium night sights (http://reddotsights.us/four-reasons-why-you-should-be-using-tritium-sights/) for guns? They glow in the dark for years with no batteries. How do you suppose that works if not for the fact that tritium is a radioactive isotope that decays at a predictable rate?
I'm sorry, but using your "natural logic" won't do you any good if you don't understand the nature of atomic structure and related forces, and you obviously don't.
Like I said earlier, markjo. If something can produce that energy to consistently boil water into steam, even a cup full of water under pressure for a few years or even a few months, then I'll accept the energy goes way ahead of what I believed.
However, if that doesn't happen then there's a reason for it...and that reason is because it's not releasing energy without input of equal energy.
It's a matter of scale. The tritium in the night sights will release energy for years with no input of energy beyond the natural decay of th tritium atoms. This is similar to the old radium watch dials used to glow in the dark for many years, but were discontinued because of the radiation dangers. All you have to do is to scale up the amount of radium, tritium or other radioactive material of your choice enough and it will release enough energy to boil water to make steam to spin a turbine to drive a generator to generate electricity.
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
So you don't believe in the classical definition of radiation. You knew what I was asking so why beat around the bush.
Let me make this even more clear if it isn't as clear, anyway.
I do not believe so called uranium pellets inside a so called fuel rod sitting in between a so called control rod can sit in a tank of water in a pressure vessel and just heat it up into steam upon the raising of those supposed control rods.
That's been clear from the beginning. What isn't clear is whether or not you believe in the classical definition of radiation.
You seem to keep side-stepping that question.
Mike
I seriously doubt it. As I recall, scepti doesn't even believe in the classical definition of atoms.
That’s true. However, sceptimatic unequivocally stated that he believed in radiation. A measurable, quantifiable energy...to the point of even determining the element & isotope producing the radiation.
Radiation is a word that describes all kinds of energy change.
A radiator creates radiation.
A microwave oven creates radiation...but these things only give out what is fed in, in hot water under pressure or electricity in terms of watts, respectively.
When I get hold of something that can consistently give me the energy muy home requires, which has no outside source aiding it for just 5 years, I'll believe in whatever I'm told about nuclear power or whatever.
Until that happens I stand firmly behind the natural logic of only getting out what is put in. No more and no less.
Using "natural logic" only works if you understand what you are applying it to.
IOW it's flawed logic.
You can take a chunk of radioactive stuff with multiple elements and by measuring the energies be able to tell what the elements are and how much of each it contains. Explain that with your logic.
Mike
-
When I get hold of something that can consistently give me the energy muy home requires, which has no outside source aiding it for just 5 years, I'll believe in whatever I'm told about nuclear power or whatever.
Until that happens I stand firmly behind the natural logic of only getting out what is put in. No more and no less.
Scepti, have you ever heard of tritium night sights (http://reddotsights.us/four-reasons-why-you-should-be-using-tritium-sights/) for guns? They glow in the dark for years with no batteries. How do you suppose that works if not for the fact that tritium is a radioactive isotope that decays at a predictable rate?
I'm sorry, but using your "natural logic" won't do you any good if you don't understand the nature of atomic structure and related forces, and you obviously don't.
Like I said earlier, markjo. If something can produce that energy to consistently boil water into steam, even a cup full of water under pressure for a few years or even a few months, then I'll accept the energy goes way ahead of what I believed.
However, if that doesn't happen then there's a reason for it...and that reason is because it's not releasing energy without input of equal energy.
The energy they release is the energy that went into makeing the atom. Not too different from burning hydrocarbons.
-
I like sun bathing on a beach during summer. That nuclear radiation is free of charge and quite healthy in reasonable amounts. Lots of vitamins! But not too much! You may burn yourself.
-
The light from the sun, including UV, comes from electrons. I wouldn't call it nuclear. And no, it contains no vitamins. That's just dumb sun gazer talk.
-
The light from the sun, including UV, comes from electrons.
Umm... Wut?!?!
-
And, I'm saying the reasons for radiation doesn't matter. It's completely irrelevant. It's measurable energy and a nuclear reactor harnesses to produce power.
Feel free to believe that.
So you don't believe in the classical definition of radiation. You knew what I was asking so why beat around the bush.
Let me make this even more clear if it isn't as clear, anyway.
I do not believe so called uranium pellets inside a so called fuel rod sitting in between a so called control rod can sit in a tank of water in a pressure vessel and just heat it up into steam upon the raising of those supposed control rods.
That's been clear from the beginning. What isn't clear is whether or not you believe in the classical definition of radiation.
You seem to keep side-stepping that question.
Mike
I seriously doubt it. As I recall, scepti doesn't even believe in the classical definition of atoms.
That’s true. However, sceptimatic unequivocally stated that he believed in radiation. A measurable, quantifiable energy...to the point of even determining the element & isotope producing the radiation.
Radiation is a word that describes all kinds of energy change.
A radiator creates radiation.
A microwave oven creates radiation...but these things only give out what is fed in, in hot water under pressure or electricity in terms of watts, respectively.
When I get hold of something that can consistently give me the energy muy home requires, which has no outside source aiding it for just 5 years, I'll believe in whatever I'm told about nuclear power or whatever.
Until that happens I stand firmly behind the natural logic of only getting out what is put in. No more and no less.
A radiator does not create radiation. A radiator is just a heat transfer. The heatsink in your computer is a radiator. Contrary to the name, most radiators transfer heat via convection not thermal radiation.
The light from the sun, including UV, comes from electrons. I wouldn't call it nuclear. And no, it contains no vitamins. That's just dumb sun gazer talk.
Heiwa's an idiot, he thinks because they tell you it is good to go out in the sunlight as it helps your vitamin D creation, that the sunlight itself holds the vitamin D. Stupid French Swedes.
-
The light from the sun, including UV, comes from electrons.
Umm... Wut?!?!
EM radiation lower than gamma radiation comes from electrons. Gamma radiation comes from radioactive decay. Someone else worded it like that before I did. I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe I should have said "also" instead of "including".
Another edit:Maybe I hsould have said "emitted from" instead of "comes from". other than those I'm lost.
-
As I understand it sun radiation on Earth is a result of a nuclear reaction - fusion - on the Sun far away. When my skin is subject to sun radiation on Earth, vitamin D is created on way or other in my body, which some people say is healthy. Without sun radiation there would be no light in our solar system and ... no life. Unfortunately life in the shape of clowns like Donald Trump and Kim Yong-Un is unavoidable but luckily their nuclear weapons are just propaganda to scare and cannot explode. Neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion explode.
-
It's a matter of scale. The tritium in the night sights will release energy for years with no input of energy beyond the natural decay of th tritium atoms. This is similar to the old radium watch dials used to glow in the dark for many years, but were discontinued because of the radiation dangers. All you have to do is to scale up the amount of radium, tritium or other radioactive material of your choice enough and it will release enough energy to boil water to make steam to spin a turbine to drive a generator to generate electricity.
A small pellet resting on top of another small pellet...and so on , inside a rod is not going to super boil water for any amount of time without being energised, such as, being an element.
I'm not arguing glow in the dark stuff and I certainly do not marry it up with the so called energy produced in so called nuclear power.
-
Using "natural logic" only works if you understand what you are applying it to.
IOW it's flawed logic.
You can take a chunk of radioactive stuff with multiple elements and by measuring the energies be able to tell what the elements are and how much of each it contains. Explain that with your logic.
Mike
It's only flawed logic if it can be physically proved to be.
You can't prove it and neither can anyone else on here.
You can certainly tell me all about what happens by your own learning of it from books and such but you have no clue about the reality of nuclear power in what I'm arguing.
Let's be clear that I'm not interested in glowing lights in the dark.
We are talking about small pieces of metal that somehow boil water into super steam with no power input to create it other than those pieces inside a rod that just heat up in water for decades.
If not in water they will apparently just heat up and heat up until they melt down and down and down into the Earth.
Feel free to carry on believing that. I find it a clever ruse/dupe to hide the reality of what's happening...and of that I can only speculate.
-
You can certainly tell me all about what happens by your own learning of it from books and such but you have no clue about the reality of nuclear power in what I'm arguing.
Nuclear power plants are a scam.
They actually bring in semi-trucks full of electricity at night to fill the vat
and then just drain it out through the wires.
-
A radiator does not create radiation. A radiator is just a heat transfer. The heatsink in your computer is a radiator. Contrary to the name, most radiators transfer heat via convection not thermal radiation.
Radiation is radiation no matter how it happens.
-
You can certainly tell me all about what happens by your own learning of it from books and such but you have no clue about the reality of nuclear power in what I'm arguing.
Nuclear power plants are a scam.
They actually bring in semi-trucks full of electricity at night to fill the vat
and then just drain it out through the wires.
You just can't help yourself, can you?
-
You just can't help yourself, can you?
I try, sometimes. ;)
-
You just can't help yourself, can you?
I try, sometimes. ;)
You spend most of your time having digs.
-
A radiator does not create radiation. A radiator is just a heat transfer. The heatsink in your computer is a radiator. Contrary to the name, most radiators transfer heat via convection not thermal radiation.
Radiation is radiation no matter how it happens.
No it's not.
There is electromagnetic radiation ranging from radio, through infra-red, visible light, ultra-violet through to X-rays and on to gamma-rays.
Hard UV, X-rays and gamma rays are energetic enough to cause cell damage.
Then there is particulate radiation including
- alpha-radiation - helium-4 nuclei,
- beta-radiation - high speed electrons or positrons and
- neutron-radiation.
High velocity neutrons are both the initiators and products of nuclear fission though other types of radiation are produced as well.
-
A radiator does not create radiation. A radiator is just a heat transfer. The heatsink in your computer is a radiator. Contrary to the name, most radiators transfer heat via convection not thermal radiation.
Radiation is radiation no matter how it happens.
No it's not.
There is electromagnetic radiation ranging from radio, through infra-red, visible light, ultra-violet through to X-rays and on to gamma-rays.
Hard UV, X-rays and gamma rays are energetic enough to cause cell damage.
Then there is particulate radiation including
- alpha-radiation - helium-4 nuclei,
- beta-radiation - high speed electrons or positrons and
- neutron-radiation.
High velocity neutrons are both the initiators and products of nuclear fission though other types of radiation are produced as well.
Whatever is said about radiation, it radiates in whatever forms. That's what I'm saying.
-
Whatever is said about radiation, it radiates in whatever forms. That's what I'm saying.
Yes, it all radiates but the various forms have - quite different properties,
- travel at quite different velocities and
- present quite different dangers ranging from simple heating through to minor and very major cell damage and rapid death.
-
Whatever is said about radiation, it radiates in whatever forms. That's what I'm saying.
Yes, it all radiates but the various forms have - quite different properties,
- travel at quite different velocities and
- present quite different dangers ranging from simple heating through to minor and very major cell damage and rapid death.
I agree they do in their different forms and I'm not arguing most of it.
I'm simply arguing the super energy release of what we're told is nuclear radiation/power.
You can read 100 books on nuclear. You can construct your own mock up nuclear power plant in your own way, under the premise of it producing this magical super heating power so you can point it all out with a pointer stick to anyone who comes by your home.
You may be able to explain every little thing that apparently happens...but if you're a truthful person you will tell me that you dx not have any direct physical proof of this happening, even if your physical proof is by simply accepting that these plants are nuclear.
You have no more proof of this on ships and subs as well as in warheads than I do of knowing for a fact that they aren't what I'm led to believe they are.
You are welcome, of course, to sit back and argue that you do know, but if you do, you're not being straight down the line, are you?
-
Whatever is said about radiation, it radiates in whatever forms. That's what I'm saying.
Yes, it all radiates but the various forms have - quite different properties,
- travel at quite different velocities and
- present quite different dangers ranging from simple heating through to minor and very major cell damage and rapid death.
I agree they do in their different forms and I'm not arguing most of it.
I'm simply arguing the super energy release of what we're told is nuclear radiation/power.
You can read 100 books on nuclear. You can construct your own mock up nuclear power plant in your own way, under the premise of it producing this magical super heating power so you can point it all out with a pointer stick to anyone who comes by your home.
What's the point of "constructing your own mock up nuclear power plant in your own way"? Without the enriched uranium you've got nothing.
Sure, with nuclear power and with nuclear detonation (considerably different) you have to believe other people but this applies to many things.
For example:on September 21, 1921, when a tower silo storing 4,500 tonnes of a mixture of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded at a BASF plant in Oppau, now part of Ludwigshafen, Germany, killing 500–600.
Care to prove that at home?
But you don't have to believe it. You have every right to believe anything that you feel you have sufficient evidence for.
You may be able to explain every little thing that apparently happens...but if you're a truthful person you will tell me that you dx not have any direct physical proof of this happening, even if your physical proof is by simply accepting that these plants are nuclear.
You have no more proof of this on ships and subs as well as in warheads than I do of knowing for a fact that they aren't what I'm led to believe they are.
You are welcome, of course, to sit back and argue that you do know, but if you do, you're not being straight down the line, are you?
I have no personal proof and all I can do is look at the available evidence. Obviously we see that evidence differently.
It fite with the physics, etc that I know but obviously it doen't fit with what you accept and that's where it has to remain.
-
The light from the sun, including UV, comes from electrons.
Umm... Wut?!?!
EM radiation lower than gamma radiation comes from electrons. Gamma radiation comes from radioactive decay. Someone else worded it like that before I did. I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe I should have said "also" instead of "including".
Another edit:Maybe I hsould have said "emitted from" instead of "comes from". other than those I'm lost.
The sun creates its photons as a by product of fusion in its core where those photons will bounce around from electron to electron for thousands of years before finally being emitted at whatever energy level it happens to be at last.
-
It's a matter of scale. The tritium in the night sights will release energy for years with no input of energy beyond the natural decay of th tritium atoms. This is similar to the old radium watch dials used to glow in the dark for many years, but were discontinued because of the radiation dangers. All you have to do is to scale up the amount of radium, tritium or other radioactive material of your choice enough and it will release enough energy to boil water to make steam to spin a turbine to drive a generator to generate electricity.
A small pellet resting on top of another small pellet...and so on , inside a rod is not going to super boil water for any amount of time without being energised, such as, being an element.
Of course one or two of those small fuel pellets aren't going to do much of anything. However, when you get about 100 tons of those small fuel pellets together, then you can generate some serious heat.
I'm not arguing glow in the dark stuff and I certainly do not marry it up with the so called energy produced in so called nuclear power.
You should be because it's the exact same process of nuclear decay/fission that lights up a glow in the dark stuff and heats up a nuclear reactor. Again, it's just a matter of scale.
-
The light from the sun, including UV, comes from electrons.
Umm... Wut?!?!
EM radiation lower than gamma radiation comes from electrons. Gamma radiation comes from radioactive decay. Someone else worded it like that before I did. I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe I should have said "also" instead of "including".
Another edit:Maybe I hsould have said "emitted from" instead of "comes from". other than those I'm lost.
The sun creates its photons as a by product of fusion in its core where those photons will bounce around from electron to electron for thousands of years before finally being emitted at whatever energy level it happens to be at last.
I am told fusion is hydrogen atoms becoming helium atoms under high pressure, temperature and other particular circumstances and that it takes place in the Sun since billions of years, so that I can enjoy its radiation on a sunny beach here on Earth. There are people down the road from me that say they can copy/paste it here on Earth. I doubt it very much and pay anyone €1M proving me wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm
-
The light from the sun, including UV, comes from electrons.
Umm... Wut?!?!
EM radiation lower than gamma radiation comes from electrons. Gamma radiation comes from radioactive decay. Someone else worded it like that before I did. I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe I should have said "also" instead of "including".
Another edit:Maybe I hsould have said "emitted from" instead of "comes from". other than those I'm lost.
The sun creates its photons as a by product of fusion in its core where those photons will bounce around from electron to electron for thousands of years before finally being emitted at whatever energy level it happens to be at last.
I am told fusion is hydrogen atoms becoming helium atoms under high pressure, temperature and other particular circumstances and that it takes place in the Sun since billions of years, so that I can enjoy its radiation on a sunny beach here on Earth. There are people down the road from me that say they can copy/paste it here on Earth. I doubt it very much and pay anyone €1M proving me wrong. http://heiwaco.com/chall3.htm
Sorry Anders, but this isn't that thread. Also, scientists are using different methods than the sun to achieve fusion.
-
The light from the sun, including UV, comes from electrons.
Umm... Wut?!?!
EM radiation lower than gamma radiation comes from electrons. Gamma radiation comes from radioactive decay. Someone else worded it like that before I did. I'm not sure what the problem is. Maybe I should have said "also" instead of "including".
Another edit:Maybe I hsould have said "emitted from" instead of "comes from". other than those I'm lost.
The sun creates its photons as a by product of fusion in its core where those photons will bounce around from electron to electron for thousands of years before finally being emitted at whatever energy level it happens to be at last.
Yes, electrons.
-
It's a matter of scale. The tritium in the night sights will release energy for years with no input of energy beyond the natural decay of th tritium atoms. This is similar to the old radium watch dials used to glow in the dark for many years, but were discontinued because of the radiation dangers. All you have to do is to scale up the amount of radium, tritium or other radioactive material of your choice enough and it will release enough energy to boil water to make steam to spin a turbine to drive a generator to generate electricity.
A small pellet resting on top of another small pellet...and so on , inside a rod is not going to super boil water for any amount of time without being energised, such as, being an element.
Of course one or two of those small fuel pellets aren't going to do much of anything. However, when you get about 100 tons of those small fuel pellets together, then you can generate some serious heat.
100 tons?
I'm not arguing glow in the dark stuff and I certainly do not marry it up with the so called energy produced in so called nuclear power.
You should be because it's the exact same process of nuclear decay/fission that lights up a glow in the dark stuff and heats up a nuclear reactor. Again, it's just a matter of scale.
If you put 100 tons of those glowing lights into a massive pot you'd get a glowing pot for a short period of time, but no boiling water.
100 tons of pellets though. Hmmmm.
-
As explained, the energy come from the energy added to create the atom. If the atom is still there it’s energy is still there.
-
Using "natural logic" only works if you understand what you are applying it to.
IOW it's flawed logic.
You can take a chunk of radioactive stuff with multiple elements and by measuring the energies be able to tell what the elements are and how much of each it contains. Explain that with your logic.
Mike
It's only flawed logic if it can be physically proved to be.
You can't prove it and neither can anyone else on here.
You can certainly tell me all about what happens by your own learning of it from books and such but you have no clue about the reality of nuclear power in what I'm arguing.
Let's be clear that I'm not interested in glowing lights in the dark.
We are talking about small pieces of metal that somehow boil water into super steam with no power input to create it other than those pieces inside a rod that just heat up in water for decades.
If not in water they will apparently just heat up and heat up until they melt down and down and down into the Earth.
Feel free to carry on believing that. I find it a clever ruse/dupe to hide the reality of what's happening...and of that I can only speculate.
Flawed logic may not have been the best description. Your attempt to apply conservation of energy is in and of itself sound. While the logic is sound you lack of understand of the energies, specifically binding energy, makes the conclusion flawed.
The fact is, mass and energy are conserved in nuclear reactions. And yes, it is a fact.
One thing that bugs me about your responses is the you admit you’re speculating and yet you treat anyone who presents contrary posts as if they’re even less than speculation. AAMOF, when it told you I had the hands-on experience you’re looking for you flat out dismissed it as a flat out lie. You’re very biased and dismissive. It's not that you're not interested in glowing lights or isotopic analysis. Rather, it's your bias that won't let you admit there may be plenty about the subject you don't understand and can't explain.
Let me make myself clear. I have 35 years of design and analysis of reactor plant systems and hands-on operation/maintenance in both Naval and commercial nuclear power. You believe it’s not real but KNOW that it is. It’s fact whether or not you accept it.
Mike
-
<snip>
If you put 100 tons of those glowing lights into a massive pot you'd get a glowing pot for a short period of time, but no boiling water.
100 tons of pellets though. Hmmmm.
What the heck is that base on. You seem to be saying that there is energy release there and have somehow quantified its effect. Seriously, how can you possibly make that assertion?
Mike
-
<snip>
If you put 100 tons of those glowing lights into a massive pot you'd get a glowing pot for a short period of time, but no boiling water.
100 tons of pellets though. Hmmmm.
What the heck is that base on. You seem to be saying that there is energy release there and have somehow quantified its effect. Seriously, how can you possibly make that assertion?
Mike
Seriously Septimatic...how have you quantified this? What is glowing, how much, and for how long.
-
<snip>
If you put 100 tons of those glowing lights into a massive pot you'd get a glowing pot for a short period of time, but no boiling water.
100 tons of pellets though. Hmmmm.
What the heck is that base on. You seem to be saying that there is energy release there and have somehow quantified its effect. Seriously, how can you possibly make that assertion?
Mike
Seriously Septimatic...how have you quantified this? What is glowing, how much, and for how long.
I was on about the glow sticks that were used to back up nuclear power, so I simply said all they would do, is glow....not boil water.
-
<snip>
If you put 100 tons of those glowing lights into a massive pot you'd get a glowing pot for a short period of time, but no boiling water.
100 tons of pellets though. Hmmmm.
What the heck is that base on. You seem to be saying that there is energy release there and have somehow quantified its effect. Seriously, how can you possibly make that assertion?
Mike
Seriously Septimatic...how have you quantified this? What is glowing, how much, and for how long.
I was on about the glow sticks that were used to back up nuclear power, so I simply said all they would do, is glow....not boil water.
Radiation Boiling Water (and this isn't even from radioactive material that releases considerable more radiation)
-
That is of course a fake video.
-
That is of course a fake video.
Probably made by the same outfit that produced all those fake videos of those fake planes flying into the twin towers. ;)
-
Seriously Septimatic...how have you quantified this? What is glowing, how much, and for how long.
I was on about the glow sticks that were used to back up nuclear power, so I simply said all they would do, is glow....not boil water.
Excuse my ignorance, but what on earth are these "glow sticks that were used to back up nuclear power"?
-
<snip>
If you put 100 tons of those glowing lights into a massive pot you'd get a glowing pot for a short period of time, but no boiling water.
100 tons of pellets though. Hmmmm.
What the heck is that base on. You seem to be saying that there is energy release there and have somehow quantified its effect. Seriously, how can you possibly make that assertion?
Mike
Seriously Septimatic...how have you quantified this? What is glowing, how much, and for how long.
I was on about the glow sticks that were used to back up nuclear power, so I simply said all they would do, is glow....not boil water.
What glow sticks are you talking about? You're not making any sense.
-
The horse is deceased.
You may now end the beating.
-
<snip>
If you put 100 tons of those glowing lights into a massive pot you'd get a glowing pot for a short period of time, but no boiling water.
100 tons of pellets though. Hmmmm.
What the heck is that base on. You seem to be saying that there is energy release there and have somehow quantified its effect. Seriously, how can you possibly make that assertion?
Mike
Seriously Septimatic...how have you quantified this? What is glowing, how much, and for how long.
I was on about the glow sticks that were used to back up nuclear power, so I simply said all they would do, is glow....not boil water.
What glow sticks are you talking about? You're not making any sense.
I think that he's referring to the tritium night sights that I brought up earlier.
-
He is of course talking about this being fake.
https://www.thoughtco.com/blue-reactor-water-cherenkov-radiation-4037677
If only sceptitank knew anything about science.
-
He is of course talking about this being fake.
https://www.thoughtco.com/blue-reactor-water-cherenkov-radiation-4037677
If only sceptitank knew anything about science.
I took one like that at the spent fuel pool at a BWR in NJ (Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station). It's very cool and eerie at the same time.
-
The horse is deceased. You may now end the beating.
It's a pity flat-earthers can't face up to that simple thing.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
So you want someone to show you a nuclear BWR boiling water. You do realize that you have to be inside the reactor for you to see it.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
That's like saying I need to see the fuel ignite inside the cylinder before I'll believe an internal combustion engine is real. It's just plain silly.
I've worked in nuclear power most of my adult life which is how I know it's fact. You, on the other hand, know so little on the subject you and can't even discuss the most basic aspects of nuclear power. And yet, without any competent basis what so ever, you have decided it doesn't exist and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Of course, the implication being we're just plain lying.
Mike
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
You definitely do not want to see water boiling in a nuclear reactor! If nuclear fission is not a massive energy source explain what happened at Chernobyl:New Study Rewrites First Seconds of Chernobyl Accident (http://www.sci-news.com/physics/new-study-first-seconds-chernobyl-accident-05452.html)
According to an analysis published in the journal Nuclear Technology, the first of the two major explosions reported by eyewitnesses of the Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear and not a steam explosion.(http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/2017/11/image_5452-Chernobyl-Disaster.jpg)
Chernobyl disaster aftermath: reactor 4 (center), turbine building (lower left) and reactor 3 (center right). |
“But, there has also been great interest in how the accident proceeded during a few seconds around 01:23:45 local time on April 26, 1986.”
“It appears clear from several witnesses that there were two major explosions, the second, and largest, occurring a couple of seconds after the first.”
But you claim that "Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect" but the whole point is that nuclear fission is an energy source.
What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to fake that sort of thing. There seems to be nothing to gain from such a hoax.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
First of all, the energy is being released at the atomic level, so you wouldn't be able to see it anyway. Secondly, that eerie blue glow (Cherenkov radiation) is the not so subtle clue that fission is happening and radiation is being emitted.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
So you want someone to show you a nuclear BWR boiling water. You do realize that you have to be inside the reactor for you to see it.
Clever isn't it. Nobody can see this magical fissioning that boils water because it's contained and under strict security, not to mention secrecy all throughout.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
That's like saying I need to see the fuel ignite inside the cylinder before I'll believe an internal combustion engine is real. It's just plain silly.
I've worked in nuclear power most of my adult life which is how I know it's fact. You, on the other hand, know so little on the subject you and can't even discuss the most basic aspects of nuclear power. And yet, without any competent basis what so ever, you have decided it doesn't exist and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Of course, the implication being we're just plain lying.
Mike
You think you've worked in nuclear power but all you've done is work at a power plant that you think is nuclear, in my opinion.
You cannot prove it does what you're told. You seriously can't and if you can then show me how you get the physical proof.
-
“Numerous studies have been carried out of the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl-4 reactor in Ukraine. Many of them have dealt with health effects and the dispersion of radioactive nuclides and contamination of vast areas of land, primarily in Europe,” said lead author Dr. Lars-Erik De Geer, a retired nuclear physicist from the Swedish Defence Research Agency, and colleagues.
You are reliant on being fed a story line. You do not know the real facts of it except those that are told to you by whatever sources.
Unless you physically know different, then explain how you do.
“But, there has also been great interest in how the accident proceeded during a few seconds around 01:23:45 local time on April 26, 1986.”
Of course.
It doesn't mean the story is a true reflection on reality. It could quite easily be something entirely different than a so called nuclear melt down. It may have been toxic in some form but tell me this. How come people worked at the remaining so called nuclear reactors right after this disaster?
“It appears clear from several witnesses that there were two major explosions, the second, and largest, occurring a couple of seconds after the first.”
I don't doubt there was explosions but it does not have to be nuclear.
Gas explosions are common, in whatever explosive form/build up.
But you claim that "Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect" but the whole point is that nuclear fission is an energy source.
Can you show me water boiling for just 1 week on a small piece of uranium or something capable of boiling water on a small scale?
No external power source, just simple easy to see contained energy that boils water.
I bet you can't...can you?
What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to fake that sort of thing. There seems to be nothing to gain from such a hoax.
There's plenty to gain.
If the source of power is boundless and cheap then people would have cheap power.
The way to ensure people don't get cheap power is to shroud the reality of it with something told as deadly and costing so much to keep contained so people are safe. Add umpteen billions a time onto the price of one plant and bingo, people comply.
I know I know " but what cheap power could create this."
Take your pick from hydrogen and other sources...just not little metal pellets made from so called yellow cake that just fission like crazy to boil water in a big pot.
-
Nobody can see this magical fissioning that boils water because it's contained and under strict security, not to mention secrecy all throughout.
No, this "this . . . . fissioning that boils water . . . . is contained" for safety.
Look what happened at Chernobyl.
Chernobyl Accident 1986 (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx)- The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.
- The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq.
- Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.
If you want to be in a reactor to observe the water boiling, be my guest!
-
For more detail on Chernobyl see my previous post.
“Numerous studies have been carried out of the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl-4 reactor in Ukraine."
You are reliant on being fed a story line. You do not know the real facts of it except those that are told to you by whatever sources.
Unless you physically know different, then explain how you do.
What reason do you have for denying the "official versions" of the numerous nuclear accidents, with Chernobyl being just the worst.
You are simply denying it because it doesn't fit your "world view".
“But, there has also been great interest in how the accident proceeded during a few seconds around 01:23:45 local time on April 26, 1986.”
Of course.
It doesn't mean the story is a true reflection on reality. It could quite easily be something entirely different than a so called nuclear melt down. It may have been toxic in some form but tell me this. How come people worked at the remaining so called nuclear reactors right after this disaster?
All you have is "It could quite easily be something entirely different".
A nuclear accident like that was quite an embarrassment to the USSR and it would have been in there interest to hide it if they could.
But the amount of radiation released made it impossible to hide.
You ask "How come people worked at the remaining so called nuclear reactors right after this disaster?"
But they could not remain working safely and "Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning".
And those 28 probably bravely risked their own lives to do what they could to secure the damaged reactor as soon as possible.
“It appears clear from several witnesses that there were two major explosions, the second, and largest, occurring a couple of seconds after the first.”
I don't doubt there was explosions but it does not have to be nuclear.
Gas explosions are common, in whatever explosive form/build up.
But the fact that those 28 died later from radiation proves that is was a nuclear accident.
But you claim that "Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect" but the whole point is that nuclear fission is an energy source.
Can you show me water boiling for just 1 week on a small piece of uranium or something capable of boiling water on a small scale?
No external power source, just simple easy to see contained energy that boils water. I bet you can't...can you?
No, I can't and I'd be stupid to even try but there are numerous things that cannot readily be seen happening.
What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to fake that sort of thing. There seems to be nothing to gain from such a hoax.
There's plenty to gain.
If the source of power is boundless and cheap then people would have cheap power.
Sure, another "if"! But there is as yet no known "boundless and cheap" "source of power".
Still a conspiracy theorist cannot be convinced.
I know I know " but what cheap power could create this."
Take your pick from hydrogen and other sources...just not little metal pellets made from so called yellow cake that just fission like crazy to boil water in a big pot.
For hydrogen to be an energy source a supply of free hydrogen is needed and all there are no unlimited sources of free hydrogen.
Hydrogen is a very promising way of storing and transporting "energy".
So what "other sources" do you suggest.
There are quite a number of natural sources, such as solar, wind, wave and tidal, but they are by no means free to utilise.
But what real reason do you have for claiming "just not little metal pellets made from so called yellow cake that just fission".
-
Nobody can see this magical fissioning that boils water because it's contained and under strict security, not to mention secrecy all throughout.
No, this "this . . . . fissioning that boils water . . . . is contained" for safety.
Look what happened at Chernobyl.
Chernobyl Accident 1986 (http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx)- The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.
- The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind – some 5200 PBq.
- Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.
If you want to be in a reactor to observe the water boiling, be my guest!
If I want to look deep into an empty magicians hat to wonder how he/she gets the rabbit out, maybe I should look a bit deeper, eh?
Do you want to play a game of nuclear questions and answers. I ask them and you answer them with facts or accepted stories you take as facts.
Let's start with the first question. If you don't want to answer it or want to skirt round it, I'll cease asking.
Question:
If you can't see into a pot to see what reactions are, then how was it determined as to how the reactions occured to actually boil the water in terms of watching a pellet fission in water to boil it.
What container was used so they could see this?
-
All of your concerns were addressed years ago.
A cloud chamber allows you to see radiation.
Once again this was shown to you years ago.
-
For more detail on Chernobyl see my previous post.
I'm well aware of what we're told about Chernobyl. I've looked into it in fair depth in terms of going by what we're told.
It leaves more questions than provides legitimate answers as far as my sceptical mind is concerned..
“Numerous studies have been carried out of the 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl-4 reactor in Ukraine."
You are reliant on being fed a story line. You do not know the real facts of it except those that are told to you by whatever sources.
Unless you physically know different, then explain how you do.
What reason do you have for denying the "official versions" of the numerous nuclear accidents, with Chernobyl being just the worst.
You are simply denying it because it doesn't fit your "world view".
My reasons are the nuclear fission ing part of massive energy from pellets just boiling water into steam with supposedly no other external source required, nor oxygen to fuel it.
Of course it can be argued as to why but the why does not cover a reality. It covers a told story that's been adhered to by those that accept it by reading into it.
“But, there has also been great interest in how the accident proceeded during a few seconds around 01:23:45 local time on April 26, 1986.”
Of course.
It doesn't mean the story is a true reflection on reality. It could quite easily be something entirely different than a so called nuclear melt down. It may have been toxic in some form but tell me this. How come people worked at the remaining so called nuclear reactors right after this disaster?
All you have is "It could quite easily be something entirely different".
A nuclear accident like that was quite an embarrassment to the USSR and it would have been in there interest to hide it if they could.
But the amount of radiation released made it impossible to hide.
Of course that's all I have. It could very well be something entirely different and you cannot legitimately deny it based on you knowing physical facts, because you simply do not. You are reliant on what you're fed.
You ask "How come people worked at the remaining so called nuclear reactors right after this disaster?"
But they could not remain working safely and "Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning".
And those 28 probably bravely risked their own lives to do what they could to secure the damaged reactor as soon as possible.
I never said that so called reactor. I said people still went to work at all the other reactors on that site whilst this one was apparently melting down, yet the town was supposedly evacuated...yet the same people who lived in that town were going to work as normal at the plant.
Care to answer as to why that would be?
“It appears clear from several witnesses that there were two major explosions, the second, and largest, occurring a couple of seconds after the first.”
I don't doubt there was explosions but it does not have to be nuclear.
Gas explosions are common, in whatever explosive form/build up.
But the fact that those 28 died later from radiation proves that is was a nuclear accident.
No it doesn't prove anything nuclear.
It could prove people died as a result of an explosion with burns from toxic chemicals or something.
All we get told is stuff we cannot verify for ourselves, other than reliance on documentaries and films etc, which anyone knows can be manipulated into anything that is chosen to be portrayed.
But you claim that "Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect" but the whole point is that nuclear fission is an energy source.
Can you show me water boiling for just 1 week on a small piece of uranium or something capable of boiling water on a small scale?
No external power source, just simple easy to see contained energy that boils water. I bet you can't...can you?
No, I can't and I'd be stupid to even try but there are numerous things that cannot readily be seen happening.
I'm not talking about numerous things at this present time. I'm talking about so called nuclear.
You admit you cannot prove it to be a reality, at least, which is honest of you.
What I cannot understand is why anyone would want to fake that sort of thing. There seems to be nothing to gain from such a hoax.
There's plenty to gain.
If the source of power is boundless and cheap then people would have cheap power.
Sure, another "if"! But there is as yet no known "boundless and cheap" "source of power".
Still a conspiracy theorist cannot be convinced.
The "IF" is the whole scenario though, with things like this.
If it is something else then it's just another dupe on us.
I know I know " but what cheap power could create this."
Take your pick from hydrogen and other sources...just not little metal pellets made from so called yellow cake that just fission like crazy to boil water in a big pot.
For hydrogen to be an energy source a supply of free hydrogen is needed and all there are no unlimited sources of free hydrogen.
How do you know there isn't?
Hydrogen is a very promising way of storing and transporting "energy".
So what "other sources" do you suggest.
At this moment I'll stick with hydrogen, because I think it is on that line.
I could mention certain other things but it would become a mix and mash up that would skew everything and I'm trying to keep it on one set track for the time being...at least as far as my sceptical mind goes.
There are quite a number of natural sources, such as solar, wind, wave and tidal, but they are by no means free to utilise.
They are free to utilise though. The problem is, we are not allowed to as a whole.
But what real reason do you have for claiming "just not little metal pellets made from so called yellow cake that just fission".
All I have is my gut feeling based on what I read into and the reasoning that's made around how it's supposed to work yet nobody but nobody gets to see anything of reality that shows it to be, because this type of stuff is always hidden like a magicians magic circle kind of code.
It stinks to me yet I have just as much right to be sceptical when I don't see answers that give me any feeling of a semblance of truth. If I did I would accept it. I just don't get that vibe after years of looking through it all.
However, by all means you accept it and believe it 100% if you want to. I'm only in charge of my own thoughts on it.
-
Do you want to play a game of nuclear questions and answers. I ask them and you answer them with facts or accepted stories you take as facts.
Not really because you'll no more believe what I say than what others have said, so what's the point? But just this once.
Let's start with the first question. If you don't want to answer it or want to skirt round it, I'll cease asking.
Question:
If you can't see into a pot to see what reactions are,
It would make no difference whether you could see into the reactor or not. There's virtually nothing to see.
You can't see nuclear radiation (other than a few flashes in the eyes) any more than you can see radio, infrared or untraviolet radiation.
But nuclear radiation (neutrons, alpha and beta particles and gamma rays) can me measured with appropriate instruments just as radio, infrared and untraviolet radiation can.
then how was it determined as to how the reactions occured to actually boil the water in terms of watching a pellet fission in water to boil it.
So, it cannot be determined by "watching it". Even it were safe, there would be nothing to see, just the water heating and boiling.
Any measurements have to be done by instruments not human eyes.
How do you determine the strength of a TV signal from your antenna. I have a signal strength meter.
What container was used so they could see this?
You would have a very well shielded container or your would either die, as a number have done, or end up with leukemia or similar.
And there's nothing to see anyway!
For numerous measurements in engineering and science we must rely on instruments to detect and measure things.
I could ask you a much simpler one.
How do you know that the gasoline (or dieselene in my case) ignites in your cars cylinders? Have you ever seen it?
I don't know about you, but I find this photo of how they did nuclear experiments "in the old days" terrifying! (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg/752px-Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg)
A re-creation of the 1946 experiment. The half-sphere is seen, but the core inside is not.
The beryllium hemisphere is held up with a screwdriver. |
:( Laugh it off if you like :(!
And believe what you like.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
That's like saying I need to see the fuel ignite inside the cylinder before I'll believe an internal combustion engine is real. It's just plain silly.
I've worked in nuclear power most of my adult life which is how I know it's fact. You, on the other hand, know so little on the subject you and can't even discuss the most basic aspects of nuclear power. And yet, without any competent basis what so ever, you have decided it doesn't exist and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Of course, the implication being we're just plain lying.
Mike
You think you've worked in nuclear power but all you've done is work at a power plant that you think is nuclear, in my opinion.
You cannot prove it does what you're told. You seriously can't and if you can then show me how you get the physical proof.
Wrong. I know I’ve worked in nuclear power. AAMOF, your suggestion that it’s faked is impossible.
You’ve obviously haven’t thought this through and it shows your ignorance.
How can a nuclear powered submarined to remain submerged for months at a time? There’s no fossil fuel consumed and yet the steam generators produce steam non-stop from the time it leaves port until it returns. Steam that powers the electrical generators and propulsion plant.
How can all those power plants produce giga-watts of power without producing any emissions from conventional fuels? Tens of millions of people have worked in these plants over the decades and you want us to believe it’s possible to fake and not has figured it out.
Not to mention the most obvious... I work for a company that designs and builds submarines. Specifically, my area is reactor plant systems. I’m routinely involved in actual construction. I’m speaking from direct operation, maintenance, and construction.
I don’t “think” I’ve worked in nuclear. I KNOW it to be fact. You however, are drawing conclusions that you can’t possibly support; making ludicrous assertions that can’t possibly be true.
Mike
-
My reasons are the nuclear fission ing part of massive energy from pellets just boiling water into steam with supposedly no other external source required, nor oxygen to fuel it.
Scepti, let's go back to the beginning for a minute. Do you believe that large atoms, like Uranium, can be split into smaller atoms? If so, do you believe that the act of those large atoms being split releases a bit of energy?
-
My reasons are the nuclear fission ing part of massive energy from pellets just boiling water into steam with supposedly no other external source required, nor oxygen to fuel it.
Scepti, let's go back to the beginning for a minute. Do you believe that large atoms, like Uranium, can be split into smaller atoms? If so, do you believe that the act of those large atoms being split releases a bit of energy?
Markjo - do you believe there are two different types of fission, i.e. one military, explosive type to vaporize innocent people in a nano-seconds FLASH followed by radiation and another civil one to produce electricity under moderated conditions during 50 years inside a power plant?
-
My reasons are the nuclear fission ing part of massive energy from pellets just boiling water into steam with supposedly no other external source required, nor oxygen to fuel it.
Scepti, let's go back to the beginning for a minute. Do you believe that large atoms, like Uranium, can be split into smaller atoms? If so, do you believe that the act of those large atoms being split releases a bit of energy?
Markjo - do you believe there are two different types of fission, i.e. one military, explosive type to vaporize innocent people in a nano-seconds FLASH followed by radiation and another civil one to produce electricity under moderated conditions during 50 years inside a power plant?
No. I believe that military and peaceful fission are both are the same fission, just happening at different rates. Peaceful nuclear power plants work hard to control the rate of fission so that it gets hot enough to boil water (or melt salt, or whatever) but not so hot as to melt or otherwise compromise the containment system. On the other hand, atomic bombs work hard to have the fission happen as fast and energetically as possible.
-
My reasons are the nuclear fission ing part of massive energy from pellets just boiling water into steam with supposedly no other external source required, nor oxygen to fuel it.
Scepti, let's go back to the beginning for a minute. Do you believe that large atoms, like Uranium, can be split into smaller atoms? If so, do you believe that the act of those large atoms being split releases a bit of energy?
Markjo - do you believe there are two different types of fission, i.e. one military, explosive type to vaporize innocent people in a nano-seconds FLASH followed by radiation and another civil one to produce electricity under moderated conditions during 50 years inside a power plant?
Stop showing everyone how little you know about nuclear power. The moderator has nothing to do with controlling the reactor. Only an idiot would think so. Fast fission reactors don't even use a moderator.
Why is that concept so difficult for you to grasp?
Mike
-
Markjo - do you believe there are two different types of fission, i.e. one military, explosive type to vaporize innocent people in a nano-seconds FLASH followed by radiation and another civil one to produce electricity under moderated conditions during 50 years inside a power plant?
Well, Mr Anders Björkman (alias Heiwa), you've made it abundantly clear that you do not know the difference and have not the slightest intention of learning.
-
I think I saw the horse twitch . . .
(https://i.imgur.com/3ka9FzN.jpg)
-
My reasons are the nuclear fission ing part of massive energy from pellets just boiling water into steam with supposedly no other external source required, nor oxygen to fuel it.
Scepti, let's go back to the beginning for a minute. Do you believe that large atoms, like Uranium, can be split into smaller atoms? If so, do you believe that the act of those large atoms being split releases a bit of energy?
Markjo - do you believe there are two different types of fission, i.e. one military, explosive type to vaporize innocent people in a nano-seconds FLASH followed by radiation and another civil one to produce electricity under moderated conditions during 50 years inside a power plant?
No. I believe that military and peaceful fission are both are the same fission, just happening at different rates. Peaceful nuclear power plants work hard to control the rate of fission so that it gets hot enough to boil water (or melt salt, or whatever) but not so hot as to melt or otherwise compromise the containment system. On the other hand, atomic bombs work hard to have the fission happen as fast and energetically as possible.
Thanks. I evidently do not believe in the military, secret, explosive fission that transforms a bit of pure uranium or plutonium metal into pure energy in nanoseconds FLASH after having been compressed to double density for ignition, etc. used in nuclear weapons. I think fission is the splitting of atoms under controlled, moderated conditions in a pile of fissionable material to produce electricity, which cannot explode. It can overheat and melt, but then the fission stops.
-
Twitch! lol
-
Thanks. I evidently do not believe in the military, secret, explosive fission that transforms a bit of pure uranium or plutonium metal into pure energy in nanoseconds FLASH after having been compressed to double density for ignition, etc. used in nuclear weapons.
Simply because you don't understand it but your failure to understand something does not make it impossible.
I think fission is the splitting of atoms under controlled, moderated conditions in a pile of fissionable material to produce electricity, which cannot explode.
Incorrect!
It can still explode and blow bits of radioactive material all over the place as has in a minor way in a number of early "accidental criticality incidents"
and in a major way at Chernobyl. Do I have to repeat:New Study Rewrites First Seconds of Chernobyl Accident (http://www.sci-news.com/physics/new-study-first-seconds-chernobyl-accident-05452.html)
According to an analysis published in the journal Nuclear Technology, the first of the two major explosions reported by eyewitnesses of the Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear and not a steam explosion.(http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/2017/11/image_5452-Chernobyl-Disaster.jpg)
Chernobyl disaster aftermath: reactor 4 (center), turbine building (lower left) and reactor 3 (center right). |
“But, there has also been great interest in how the accident proceeded during a few seconds around 01:23:45 local time on April 26, 1986.”
“It appears clear from several witnesses that there were two major explosions, the second, and largest, occurring a couple of seconds after the first.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
According to Dr. De Geer and co-authors, the first explosive event at Chernobyl was actually a jet of debris ejected to very high altitudes by a series of nuclear explosions within the reactor. This was followed, within three seconds, by a steam explosion which ruptured the reactor and sent further debris into the atmosphere at lower altitudes.
The theory is based on new analysis of xenon isotopes detected by scientists from the V.G. Khlopin Radium Institute in Leningrad, four days after the accident, at Cherepovets, a city north of Moscow far from the major track of Chernobyl debris.
But those "nuclear explosions" were quite different from the "nuclear detonation" in a nuclear weapon. It's not my fault if you cannot understand the difference.
It can overheat and melt, but then the fission stops.
Yes, "It can overheat and melt, but" that does not stop the fission - it simply reduces the rate if the density of fissile material falls low enough.
-
Thanks. I evidently do not believe in the military, secret, explosive fission that transforms a bit of pure uranium or plutonium metal into pure energy in nanoseconds FLASH after having been compressed to double density for ignition, etc. used in nuclear weapons.
Anders, how many times do we have to explain to you that isn't how atomic bombs work?
Seriously, is there a number?
-
Thanks. I evidently do not believe in the military, secret, explosive fission that transforms a bit of pure uranium or plutonium metal into pure energy in nanoseconds FLASH after having been compressed to double density for ignition, etc. used in nuclear weapons.
Anders, how many times do we have to explain to you that isn't how atomic bombs work?
But all nuclear arms scientists and experts say (even if it is top military secret) that all nuclear arm explodes when ignited by two uncritical masses of uranium and plutonium are brought in sudden compressed contact with each other (with a free neutron in between). The two masses becomes one critical one, that in nanoseconds fission and becomes free energy in a hot FLASH and dirty mushroom cloud due to military, explosive fission. It can also be used to ignite a thermonuclear fusion bomb! Everything in the vicinity is vaporized. After that the area is contaminated by radiation that kills any survivors and the area is dead for a 1000 years. Imagine that! The enemy is dead for a 1000 years.
And markjo - you believe that nonsense.
It has of course nothing to do with peaceful, nuclear power used to heat water and produce steam and electricity in plenty civil nuclear power plants of which I own 57 EDF ones. Most of them are built 30 years ago and they all function safely and should of course continue to work for another 30 years.
-
Thanks. I evidently do not believe in the military, secret, explosive fission that transforms a bit of pure uranium or plutonium metal into pure energy in nanoseconds FLASH after having been compressed to double density for ignition, etc. used in nuclear weapons.
Simply because you don't understand it but your failure to understand something does not make it impossible.
I think fission is the splitting of atoms under controlled, moderated conditions in a pile of fissionable material to produce electricity, which cannot explode.
Incorrect!
It can still explode and blow bits of radioactive material all over the place as has in a minor way in a number of early "accidental criticality incidents"
and in a major way at Chernobyl. Do I have to repeat:New Study Rewrites First Seconds of Chernobyl Accident (http://www.sci-news.com/physics/new-study-first-seconds-chernobyl-accident-05452.html)
According to an analysis published in the journal Nuclear Technology, the first of the two major explosions reported by eyewitnesses of the Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear and not a steam explosion.(http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/2017/11/image_5452-Chernobyl-Disaster.jpg)
Chernobyl disaster aftermath: reactor 4 (center), turbine building (lower left) and reactor 3 (center right). |
“But, there has also been great interest in how the accident proceeded during a few seconds around 01:23:45 local time on April 26, 1986.”
“It appears clear from several witnesses that there were two major explosions, the second, and largest, occurring a couple of seconds after the first.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
According to Dr. De Geer and co-authors, the first explosive event at Chernobyl was actually a jet of debris ejected to very high altitudes by a series of nuclear explosions within the reactor. This was followed, within three seconds, by a steam explosion which ruptured the reactor and sent further debris into the atmosphere at lower altitudes.
The theory is based on new analysis of xenon isotopes detected by scientists from the V.G. Khlopin Radium Institute in Leningrad, four days after the accident, at Cherepovets, a city north of Moscow far from the major track of Chernobyl debris.
But those "nuclear explosions" were quite different from the "nuclear detonation" in a nuclear weapon. It's not my fault if you cannot understand the difference.
It can overheat and melt, but then the fission stops.
Yes, "It can overheat and melt, but" that does not stop the fission - it simply reduces the rate if the density of fissile material falls low enough.
Nothing nuclear exploded at Chernobyl 1986. One reactor overheated, melted and caught fire but it seems the area is full of animal and biological life today and safe to enter. Communist and Ukrainian propaganda exaggerated a lot of things then and today. Assisted by Sweden.
It is like Fukushima, Japan, 2011. No explosion. Not even fire. Just plenty heat melting the core. ... And then deadly radiation!!!! Army moving in expelling 130 000 persons ... for safety. But nobody has died of radiation at Fukushima since 2011. Radiation levels at Fukushima today are normal ... and probably was all the time. All was just propaganda to scare people. Media Fake News assisted!
-
Nothing nuclear exploded at Chernobyl 1986.
So you say but I believe the later reports of people far more qualified than you.
One reactor overheated, melted and caught fire
There were two explosions, one nuclear though not a detonation like in a nuclear weapon and that spread xenon isotopes the are a signature of a recent nuclear explosion.
but it seems the area is full of animal and biological life today and safe to enter.
Being "full of animal and biological life" is not relevant to its being safe to enter today. And if it's so nice and safe why did they go to the effort of building this massive containment structure?(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/ef9abd785b7f49ff621fd6b83f59a00a)
Chernobyl's New Safe Confinement is a giant arch shielding radioactive waste from the 1986 nuclear disaster. |
Communist and Ukrainian propaganda exaggerated a lot of things then and today. Assisted by Sweden.
Rubbish. The Ukraine is no longer communist and what is to gain from this that's worth €1 500 000.
But keep trusting in your conspiracies it seems that's keeping you amused these days.
-
Nothing nuclear exploded at Chernobyl 1986.
So you say but I believe the later reports of people far more qualified than you.
One reactor overheated, melted and caught fire
There were two explosions, one nuclear though not a detonation like in a nuclear weapon and that spread xenon isotopes the are a signature of a recent nuclear explosion.
but it seems the area is full of animal and biological life today and safe to enter.
Being "full of animal and biological life" is not relevant to its being safe to enter today. And if it's so nice and safe why did they go to the effort of building this massive containment structure?(https://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/ef9abd785b7f49ff621fd6b83f59a00a)
Chernobyl's New Safe Confinement is a giant arch shielding radioactive waste from the 1986 nuclear disaster. |
Communist and Ukrainian propaganda exaggerated a lot of things then and today. Assisted by Sweden.
Rubbish. The Ukraine is no longer communist and what is to gain from this that's worth €1 500 000.
But keep trusting in your conspiracies it seems that's keeping you amused these days.
NO, you are wrong. Ukraine is fascist today! And 100% corrupt. I was there 28 times between 1992/8 trying to get its shipbuilding industry going, but ... no chance. The Ukrainian government at Kiev closed all shipyards and chased all the Russian and Jewish technicians and workers to Crimea. 100 000 jobs lost.
You sound like a fascist. In Australia? Did your family escape from Europe around 1946.
-
Do you want to play a game of nuclear questions and answers. I ask them and you answer them with facts or accepted stories you take as facts.
Not really because you'll no more believe what I say than what others have said, so what's the point? But just this once.
I have no issues with believing anything you say, but we are not dealing with just anything that you personally say as your own genuine physical proof, relayed to me, are we?
Even you have to admit that it is possible that this nuclear stuff could be something entirely different and we are just not being allowed to get the truth.
To say any different would mean you would be lying and I won't put you down as a liar. I'd rather deal with you as a person who is intelligent and who reads enough material to come to a conclusion that the material being read is legitimate and is taken for that...for you.
However, you have no proof to actually convince me of a reality of this nuclear power. Just because I argue it does not mean that I'm deliberately going against it just for the hell of it. I've said many times that it's a collection of stuff that's turned my attention to this as sceptical. And even you have to accept this as my right even if you don't believe I should argue against it.
Let's start with the first question. If you don't want to answer it or want to skirt round it, I'll cease asking.
Question:
If you can't see into a pot to see what reactions are,
It would make no difference whether you could see into the reactor or not. There's virtually nothing to see.
You can't see nuclear radiation (other than a few flashes in the eyes) any more than you can see radio, infrared or untraviolet radiation.
But nuclear radiation (neutrons, alpha and beta particles and gamma rays) can me measured with appropriate instruments just as radio, infrared and untraviolet radiation can.
So basically there's no proof in that, at all, that says radiation is boiling water without any external assistance.
It's akin to Schrodinger's cat scenario.
then how was it determined as to how the reactions occured to actually boil the water in terms of watching a pellet fission in water to boil it.
So, it cannot be determined by "watching it". Even it were safe, there would be nothing to see, just the water heating and boiling.
Any measurements have to be done by instruments not human eyes.
How do you determine the strength of a TV signal from your antenna. I have a signal strength meter.
My signal strength is not on the agenda, so let's deal with the water boiling so called nuclear that uses no external energy, apparently.
What container was used so they could see this?
You would have a very well shielded container or your would either die, as a number have done, or end up with leukemia or similar.
And there's nothing to see anyway!
For numerous measurements in engineering and science we must rely on instruments to detect and measure things.
So still no proof, only hearsay.
I could ask you a much simpler one.
How do you know that the gasoline (or dieselene in my case) ignites in your cars cylinders? Have you ever seen it?
Yeah, I see what it does. I see how they work, physically.
I don't know about you, but I find this photo of how they did nuclear experiments "in the old days" terrifying! (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg/752px-Tickling_the_Dragons_Tail.jpg)
A re-creation of the 1946 experiment. The half-sphere is seen, but the core inside is not.
The beryllium hemisphere is held up with a screwdriver. |
I don't find that photo in the least bit terrifying, to be fair.
:( Laugh it off if you like :(!
And believe what you like.
It's not really a case of laughing it off. I'm trying to make some sense out of it all, rather than just accept it, because, like I said earlier, I've read into far too much of it to set my own alarm bells ringing and is why I'm questioning it....and.....if you like.....coming across as simply denying it altogether, which...if that's how it's taken, then fair enough, but I'm really just using it as my shield to ensure I'm not peer pressured or manipulated into reacceptance of it without firstly doing it my way, if it does come to that.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
That's like saying I need to see the fuel ignite inside the cylinder before I'll believe an internal combustion engine is real. It's just plain silly.
I've worked in nuclear power most of my adult life which is how I know it's fact. You, on the other hand, know so little on the subject you and can't even discuss the most basic aspects of nuclear power. And yet, without any competent basis what so ever, you have decided it doesn't exist and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Of course, the implication being we're just plain lying.
Mike
You think you've worked in nuclear power but all you've done is work at a power plant that you think is nuclear, in my opinion.
You cannot prove it does what you're told. You seriously can't and if you can then show me how you get the physical proof.
Wrong. I know I’ve worked in nuclear power. AAMOF, your suggestion that it’s faked is impossible.
No it's not impossible at all.
You’ve obviously haven’t thought this through and it shows your ignorance.
I have and it could well be ignorance but then again it could also be your naivety or ignorance as to the reality of it.
Merely telling me what you are and do, means little to me because when questioned on it you go into clam up mode whilst citing top secret or security or some other stuff that basically answers little to nothing.
can a nuclear powered submarined to remain submerged for months at a time?
I don't believe they do remain submerged for months at a time.
There’s no fossil fuel consumed and yet the steam generators produce steam non-stop from the time it leaves port until it returns. Steam that powers the electrical generators and propulsion plant.
It's strange how those supposed nuclear subs have other engines like diesel, plus batteries. Why would this be?
Back up to a nuclear power pot that allegedly generates motion going steam for decades on end?
It becomes more nonsensical the more it's dug into.
How can all those power plants produce giga-watts of power without producing any emissions from conventional fuels?
They do produce emissions from conventional fuels when not on submerged duty with batteries.
Not to mention there's other engines like Stirling and such that I think we've been through.
Tens of millions of people have worked in these plants over the decades and you want us to believe it’s possible to fake and not has figured it out.
I don't want you to believe anything. I'm telling you what I don't believe.
And yes it's easy to dupe millions of people with this charade.
Not to mention the most obvious... I work for a company that designs and builds submarines. Specifically, my area is reactor plant systems. I’m routinely involved in actual construction. I’m speaking from direct operation, maintenance, and construction.
I don't believe you know what you're dealing with inside of those working areas. You may believe what you are told you are...I don't know. I can only go on your word on this.
I could tell you I'm anything and look it all up. Then you've got to decide whether to believe me or not.
I don’t “think” I’ve worked in nuclear. I KNOW it to be fact.
You however, are drawing conclusions that you can’t possibly support; making ludicrous assertions that can’t possibly be true.
Mike
-
404 evidence to back up your claims not found.
-
My reasons are the nuclear fission ing part of massive energy from pellets just boiling water into steam with supposedly no other external source required, nor oxygen to fuel it.
Scepti, let's go back to the beginning for a minute. Do you believe that large atoms, like Uranium, can be split into smaller atoms? If so, do you believe that the act of those large atoms being split releases a bit of energy?
I don't believe in splitting atoms in any form.
I believe in super dense compression and release of matter against less dense matter.
-
Rubbish. The Ukraine is no longer communist and what is to gain from this that's worth €1 500 000.
But keep trusting in your conspiracies it seems that's keeping you amused these days.
NO, you are wrong. Ukraine is fascist today! And 100% corrupt. I was there 28 times between 1992/8 trying to get its shipbuilding industry going, but ... no chance. The Ukrainian government at Kiev closed all shipyards and chased all the Russian and Jewish technicians and workers to Crimea. 100 000 jobs lost.
Who cares what you could o couldn't do in 1992/8? That's totally irrelevant! Stop living in the past! That containment arch was closed in 2016!
You sound like a fascist. In Australia? Did your family escape from Europe around 1946.
So you admit you have no evidence so you attack me! Sounds like what you conspiritards would do.
But no! I'm no more fascist than you!
It's none of your business but one great-grandfather on my father's side came from Ireland and assisted in the capture on Ned Kellys in 1880.
And my mother's side came from Scotland and England. As it happens, I have dual English-Australian citizenship. But I prefer to stick to fair dinkum Aussie.
PS Just in case you haven't heard. Nuclear weapons, both A-bombs and H-bombs are a dreadful reality.
Crewed space flight and re-entry is performed fairly regularly.
Even interplanetary missions and visits to comets and asteroids have been achieved.
It's time you got into the 21st century.
-
Rubbish. The Ukraine is no longer communist and what is to gain from this that's worth €1 500 000.
But keep trusting in your conspiracies it seems that's keeping you amused these days.
NO, you are wrong. Ukraine is fascist today! And 100% corrupt. I was there 28 times between 1992/8 trying to get its shipbuilding industry going, but ... no chance. The Ukrainian government at Kiev closed all shipyards and chased all the Russian and Jewish technicians and workers to Crimea. 100 000 jobs lost.
Who cares what you could o couldn't do in 1992/8? That's totally irrelevant! Stop living in the past! That containment arch was closed in 2016!
You sound like a fascist. In Australia? Did your family escape from Europe around 1946.
So you admit you have no evidence so you attack me! Sounds like what you conspiritards would do.
But no! I'm no more fascist than you!
It's none of your business but one great-grandfather on my father's side came from Ireland and assisted in the capture on Ned Kellys in 1880.
And my mother's side came from Scotland and England. As it happens, I have dual English-Australian citizenship. But I prefer to stick to fair dinkum Aussie.
PS Just in case you haven't heard. Nuclear weapons, both A-bombs and H-bombs are a dreadful reality.
Crewed space flight and re-entry is performed fairly regularly.
Even interplanetary missions and visits to comets and asteroids have been achieved.
It's time you got into the 21st century.
As I said I was at Ukraine 1992/8 when everything was for sale. Ukraine allegedly had nuclear weapons then and they were also for sale. But the only nuclear weapons found in Ukraine were some stage props of paper and wood. So it was very easy to denuclearize Ukraine 1992. Same applies to this funny place North Korea run by some fat little communist boy dictator killing his local population that the POTUS has fallen in love with and made a deal with!
PS - just describe interplanetary missions to Moon and Mars and I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco/com/chall.htm = popular other thread above.
-
You see, it's easy to cite glowing water as some kind of nuclear water boiling but it shows nothing that shows nuclear rods boiling water, whether its in a pot or so called spent fuel pool.
Nobody can show me water boiling without energy sources causing the effect.
Unless someone wants to clearly show me.
That's like saying I need to see the fuel ignite inside the cylinder before I'll believe an internal combustion engine is real. It's just plain silly.
I've worked in nuclear power most of my adult life which is how I know it's fact. You, on the other hand, know so little on the subject you and can't even discuss the most basic aspects of nuclear power. And yet, without any competent basis what so ever, you have decided it doesn't exist and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. Of course, the implication being we're just plain lying.
Mike
You think you've worked in nuclear power but all you've done is work at a power plant that you think is nuclear, in my opinion.
You cannot prove it does what you're told. You seriously can't and if you can then show me how you get the physical proof.
Wrong. I know I’ve worked in nuclear power. AAMOF, your suggestion that it’s faked is impossible.
No it's not impossible at all.
It is impossible.
You’ve obviously haven’t thought this through and it shows your ignorance.
I have and it could well be ignorance but then again it could also be your naivety or ignorance as to the reality of it.
Merely telling me what you are and do, means little to me because when questioned on it you go into clam up mode whilst citing top secret or security or some other stuff that basically answers little to nothing.
You have never questioned me on anything that I have refused to answer citing security. I have answered every question. To say otherwise just ain’t true.
can a nuclear powered submarined to remain submerged for months at a time?
I don't believe they do remain submerged for months at a time.
It doesn’t matter whether or not you believe it. AAMOF, my longest stretch submerged is 82 days. That’s how I know its fact...BECAUSE I HAVE DONE IT. I know you think I’m a liar but it doesn’t change the truth.
There’s no fossil fuel consumed and yet the steam generators produce steam non-stop from the time it leaves port until it returns. Steam that powers the electrical generators and propulsion plant.
It's strange how those supposed nuclear subs have other engines like diesel, plus batteries. Why would this be?
Back up to a nuclear power pot that allegedly generates motion going steam for decades on end?
It becomes more nonsensical the more it's dug into.
It’s nonsensical to you because you have no idea what you’re talking about.
This a clear example illustrating how you don’t think things through when making comments. All vessels at sea, whether nuclear or conventionally powered, has backup systems for emergencies. There is nothing strange about there being diesels and batteries on submarines because just like every other vessel these are the emergency backup systems. You talk about how your logical approach is all you need and yet you haven’t considered that vessels at sea are required to have the emergency backup systems.
The diesel engine is a DC generator that’s only run for training, to charge the batteries or, for it’s primary use, as an emergency backup if the turbine generators and battery are off line. The battery is the primary back for loss of power for short term use.
There is an Emergency Propulsion Motor. On my boat I’ve only seen it used a couple of times for training and it doesn’t provide any real speed.
How can all those power plants produce giga-watts of power without producing any emissions from conventional fuels?
They do produce emissions from conventional fuels when not on submerged duty with batteries.
Not to mention there's other engines like Stirling and such that I think we've been through.
I was actually talking about commercial plants there. But, there isn’t a battery on the planet that could provide power for a submarine submerged for months...besides how the hell can you produce enough steam to power the boat with batteries. You’re the one complaining about getting more power out then you put in.
Stirling engines still require a heat source to operate and...well ya can’t do that submerged with conventional fuels. Not to mention all US Navy submarines use steam powered turbines for propulsion. Your idea of batteries or and air independent engine is a non-starter. You really don’t think shit through before you post, do you?
Tens of millions of people have worked in these plants over the decades and you want us to believe it’s possible to fake and not has figured it out.
I don't want you to believe anything. I'm telling you what I don't believe.
And yes it's easy to dupe millions of people with this charade.
Not to mention the most obvious... I work for a company that designs and builds submarines. Specifically, my area is reactor plant systems. I’m routinely involved in actual construction. I’m speaking from direct operation, maintenance, and construction.
I don't believe you know what you're dealing with inside of those working areas. You may believe what you are told you are...I don't know. I can only go on your word on this.
I could tell you I'm anything and look it all up. Then you've got to decide whether to believe me or not.
So, your down to implying that I’m lying about everything. Even though you apparently don’t have to balls to say it out loud I guess it’s your last refuge to deny the truth. You are so sure of your beliefs that it has made you biased and so closed minded you refuse to consider any possibility that threatens you pre-conceived notions of the world.
Here’s something for you to consider...the universe that God has created for us is more vast and more wonderful that your narrow little mind will allow you to understand.
Mike
-
As I said I was at Ukraine 1992/8 when everything was for sale. Ukraine allegedly had nuclear weapons then and they were also for sale. But the only nuclear weapons found in Ukraine were some stage props of paper and wood. So it was very easy to denuclearize Ukraine 1992.
So you say but so what?
Same applies to this funny place North Korea run by some fat little communist boy dictator killing his local population that the POTUS has fallen in love with and made a deal with!
So you say, but what about some evidence?
PS - just describe interplanetary missions to Moon and Mars and I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco/com/chall.htm = popular other thread above.
What's to describe? Go and read about it yourself! But no one person can plan even a small part of these missions.
NASA called on numerous experts in many fields to simply plan the trajectories needed to intercept the moon orbiting the earth rotating when the moon is orbiting in a different plane.
One person simply cannot do this sort of thing alone! No one person has the knowledge or the necessary data.
It is comparatively easy to plan a launch to a circular LEO and then a Hohmann transfer orbit to get to the radius of the moon's orbit when they are all in the same plane.
But it's out of my league to plan for all the out-of-plane transfers needed and the exact timing needed to "rendezvous" with the moon.
But just because you or I cannot on our own do it means nothing at all.
Apart from all the calculations needed there is the precise astronomical data needed for these to work - I don't have that and wouldn't know what to do with it and neither would you.
For details on that sort of planning, you might read, Spacecraft Trajectory Planning and Execution for the MESSENGER Mission (http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td3401/34_01-McAdams.pdf). Just try that sort of thing on your own!
I can't design any sort of a large passenger airliner and less still build one but I certainly can understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done and that they can fly.
I can't design any sort of a large rocket nor the required trajectories but I certainly can understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done.
I can't design any sort of a nuclear weapon nor am I able to build one but I certainly understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done.
But then I don't pretend to know everything as some around here do.
-
Not to mention there's other engines like Stirling and such that I think we've been through.
What do you mean "other engines like Stirling"?
A Stirling Cycle engine is still a heat engine and it needs a heat source (possibly oil plus oxygen) and a method getting rid of the waste heat (to the ocean if needed).
Stirling engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine)
A Stirling engine is a heat engine that operates by cyclic compression and expansion of air or other gas (the working fluid) at different temperatures, such that there is a net conversion of heat energy to mechanical work. More specifically, the Stirling engine is a closed-cycle regenerative heat engine with a permanently gaseous working fluid. Closed-cycle, in this context, means a thermodynamic system in which the working fluid is permanently contained within the system, and regenerative describes the use of a specific type of internal heat exchanger and thermal store, known as the regenerator. Strictly speaking, the inclusion of the regenerator is what differentiates a Stirling engine from other closed cycle hot air engines.
Originally conceived in 1816 as an industrial prime mover to rival the steam engine, its practical use was largely confined to low-power domestic applications for over a century.
Stirling engines have a high efficiency compared to internal combustion engines, being able to reach 50% efficiency. They are also capable of quiet operation and can use almost any heat source. The heat energy source is generated external to the Stirling engine rather than by internal combustion as with the Otto cycle or Diesel cycle engines. Because the Stirling engine is compatible with alternative and renewable energy sources it could become increasingly significant as the price of conventional fuels rises, and also in light of concerns such as depletion of oil supplies and climate change. This type of engine is currently generating interest as the core component of micro combined heat and power (CHP) units, in which it is more efficient and safer than a comparable steam engine. However, it has a low power-to-weight ratio, rendering it more suitable for use in static installations where space and weight are not at a premium. | | (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Alpha_Stirling.gif) Alpha-type Stirling engine. There are two cylinders. The expansion cylinder (red) is maintained at a high temperature while the compression cylinder (blue) is cooled. The passage between the two cylinders contains the regenerator. |
The Stirling Cycle engine is no advantage over a diesel in a submarine. It still needs oxygen (from the air) and is far more bulky than a diesel.
A Stirling Engine needs a source of heat just as a steam turbine or diesel engine does.
In the diesel engine the heat is generated inside the cylinder, so it is an Internal Combustion engine.
In the Stirling Cycle engine or steam turbine the heat is generated outside the engine, so it is an External Combustion engine but they all need heat and a temperature difference - energy.
But all propulsion systems need energy and that must be "stored" by some means be it battery, combustible material (needing oxygen) or nuclear (needing no oxygen).
-
As I said I was at Ukraine 1992/8 when everything was for sale. Ukraine allegedly had nuclear weapons then and they were also for sale. But the only nuclear weapons found in Ukraine were some stage props of paper and wood. So it was very easy to denuclearize Ukraine 1992.
So you say but so what?
Same applies to this funny place North Korea run by some fat little communist boy dictator killing his local population that the POTUS has fallen in love with and made a deal with!
So you say, but what about some evidence?
PS - just describe interplanetary missions to Moon and Mars and I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco/com/chall.htm = popular other thread above.
What's to describe? Go and read about it yourself! But no one person can plan even a small part of these missions.
NASA called on numerous experts in many fields to simply plan the trajectories needed to intercept the moon orbiting the earth rotating when the moon is orbiting in a different plane.
One person simply cannot do this sort of thing alone! No one person has the knowledge or the necessary data.
It is comparatively easy to plan a launch to a circular LEO and then a Hohmann transfer orbit to get to the radius of the moon's orbit when they are all in the same plane.
But it's out of my league to plan for all the out-of-plane transfers needed and the exact timing needed to "rendezvous" with the moon.
But just because you or I cannot on our own do it means nothing at all.
Apart from all the calculations needed there is the precise astronomical data needed for these to work - I don't have that and wouldn't know what to do with it and neither would you.
For details on that sort of planning, you might read, Spacecraft Trajectory Planning and Execution for the MESSENGER Mission (http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td3401/34_01-McAdams.pdf). Just try that sort of thing on your own!
I can't design any sort of a large passenger airliner and less still build one but I certainly can understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done and that they can fly.
I can't design any sort of a large rocket nor the required trajectories but I certainly can understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done.
I can't design any sort of a nuclear weapon nor am I able to build one but I certainly understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done.
But then I don't pretend to know everything as some around here do.
Topic is nuclear power exaggerated and I just suggest that fission works fine for years in a nuclear power plant under moderated conditions producing electricity. There are plenty nuclear power plants here in France built in the 1970/80's that work fine today and I am a happy shareholder of the EDF owning company.
France is of course also has nuclear arms since early 1960's which exploded in remote, uninhabited places like the Sahara desert and an atoll in the South Pacific. France used secret, explosive fission à la USA/UK and USSR to explode its nuclear arms. But it was just propaganda. France fooled them. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#212
-
Topic is nuclear power exaggerated and I just suggest that fission works fine for years in a nuclear power plant under moderated conditions producing electricity. There are plenty nuclear power plants here in France built in the 1970/80's that work fine today and I am a happy shareholder of the EDF owning company.
OK, who's arguing with that, except sceptimatic?
France is of course also has nuclear arms since early 1960's which exploded in remote, uninhabited places like the Sahara desert and an atoll in the South Pacific. France used secret, explosive fission à la USA/UK and USSR to explode its nuclear arms. But it was just propaganda. France fooled them. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#212
So you say, but I see not point in carrying on with this.
You and I are free to believe or not believe what we like but neither changes any of the facts of the case.
-
Topic is nuclear power exaggerated and I just suggest that fission works fine for years in a nuclear power plant under moderated conditions producing electricity. There are plenty nuclear power plants here in France built in the 1970/80's that work fine today and I am a happy shareholder of the EDF owning company.
OK, who's arguing with that, except sceptimatic?
France is of course also has nuclear arms since early 1960's which exploded in remote, uninhabited places like the Sahara desert and an atoll in the South Pacific. France used secret, explosive fission à la USA/UK and USSR to explode its nuclear arms. But it was just propaganda. France fooled them. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#212
So you say, but I see not point in carrying on with this.
You and I are free to believe or not believe what we like but neither changes any of the facts of the case.
As I always say: Only intelligent people support nuclear electric power generation in private hands to provide energy for the society based on moderated fission. And only twerps of all sorts love nuclear arms based on secret, military fission that can vaporize and radiate children, women and their homes in nano-seconds when required. How anyone can so stupid to support, develop and build nuclear arms is beyond me.
-
As I said I was at Ukraine 1992/8 when everything was for sale. Ukraine allegedly had nuclear weapons then and they were also for sale. But the only nuclear weapons found in Ukraine were some stage props of paper and wood. So it was very easy to denuclearize Ukraine 1992.
So you say but so what?
Same applies to this funny place North Korea run by some fat little communist boy dictator killing his local population that the POTUS has fallen in love with and made a deal with!
So you say, but what about some evidence?
PS - just describe interplanetary missions to Moon and Mars and I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco/com/chall.htm = popular other thread above.
What's to describe? Go and read about it yourself! But no one person can plan even a small part of these missions.
NASA called on numerous experts in many fields to simply plan the trajectories needed to intercept the moon orbiting the earth rotating when the moon is orbiting in a different plane.
One person simply cannot do this sort of thing alone! No one person has the knowledge or the necessary data.
It is comparatively easy to plan a launch to a circular LEO and then a Hohmann transfer orbit to get to the radius of the moon's orbit when they are all in the same plane.
But it's out of my league to plan for all the out-of-plane transfers needed and the exact timing needed to "rendezvous" with the moon.
But just because you or I cannot on our own do it means nothing at all.
Apart from all the calculations needed there is the precise astronomical data needed for these to work - I don't have that and wouldn't know what to do with it and neither would you.
For details on that sort of planning, you might read, Spacecraft Trajectory Planning and Execution for the MESSENGER Mission (http://techdigest.jhuapl.edu/TD/td3401/34_01-McAdams.pdf). Just try that sort of thing on your own!
I can't design any sort of a large passenger airliner and less still build one but I certainly can understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done and that they can fly.
I can't design any sort of a large rocket nor the required trajectories but I certainly can understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done.
I can't design any sort of a nuclear weapon nor am I able to build one but I certainly understand enough of the theory to believe that it can be done.
But then I don't pretend to know everything as some around here do.
Topic is nuclear power exaggerated and I just suggest that fission works fine for years in a nuclear power plant under moderated conditions producing electricity. There are plenty nuclear power plants here in France built in the 1970/80's that work fine today and I am a happy shareholder of the EDF owning company.
France is of course also has nuclear arms since early 1960's which exploded in remote, uninhabited places like the Sahara desert and an atoll in the South Pacific. France used secret, explosive fission à la USA/UK and USSR to explode its nuclear arms. But it was just propaganda. France fooled them. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#212
Fast fission reactors aren't moderated. Seriously, try getting right for once.
Mike
-
Topic is nuclear power exaggerated and I just suggest that fission works fine for years in a nuclear power plant under moderated conditions producing electricity. There are plenty nuclear power plants here in France built in the 1970/80's that work fine today and I am a happy shareholder of the EDF owning company.
OK, who's arguing with that, except sceptimatic?
France is of course also has nuclear arms since early 1960's which exploded in remote, uninhabited places like the Sahara desert and an atoll in the South Pacific. France used secret, explosive fission à la USA/UK and USSR to explode its nuclear arms. But it was just propaganda. France fooled them. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#212
So you say, but I see not point in carrying on with this.
You and I are free to believe or not believe what we like but neither changes any of the facts of the case.
As I always say: Only intelligent people support nuclear electric power generation in private hands to provide energy for the society based on moderated fission. And only twerps of all sorts love nuclear arms based on secret, military fission that can vaporize and radiate children, women and their homes in nano-seconds when required. How anyone can so stupid to support, develop and build nuclear arms is beyond me.
Nobody love nuclear arms you idiot. That doesn't change the fact that they exist.
-
Only intelligent people support nuclear electric power generation in private hands to provide energy for the society based on moderated fission.
I'm curious.
How do you explain nuclear electric power generation in fast neutron reactors that do not use moderated fission?
I've a suspicion that you haven't a clue what moderation does.
And only twerps of all sorts love nuclear arms based on secret,
Thanks for that. By you logic I'm not a "twerp" because I do not "love nuclear arms".
military fission that can vaporize and radiate children, women and their homes in nano-seconds when required.
Now that might be horrible but is so more more horrible than "children, women and their homes" being "vaporized" slowly and left horribly burnt and disfigured?
Both are horrible but both have happened in war. Like it or not war can be hell on earth!
Nuclear weapons are horrible but so are napalm, incendiary bombs, time bombs, cluster bombs and chemical weapons but all have been used.
How anyone can so stupid to support, develop and build nuclear arms is beyond me.
So, sure nuclear arms are horrible and I suppose people have been "stupid to support, develop and build nuclear arms" but during wartime people grasp at any means to try to defeat the enemy.
And being a horrible devastating weapon is not an argument against the reality of nuclear weapons.
Stupid or not and horrible or not, nuclear weapons have been developed.
Your inability to understand their detonation and your claim there are impossible mean nothing in the real world.
Bye bye!
-
I must be a twerp, because I love nuclear arms. What is more amazing then the pure power released by a nuclear explosion?
-
Surviving the fiery fury of atomspheric reentry.
-
I must be a twerp, because I love nuclear arms. What is more amazing then the pure power released by a nuclear explosion?
Sure it's awe-inspiring to observe, like this bomb:
TSAR BOMBA
Most Horrific Man-made Explosion in History
USSR Hydrogen Bomb | |
Tzar Bomba location from Google Earth |
-
Only intelligent people support nuclear electric power generation in private hands to provide energy for the society based on moderated fission.
I'm curious.
How do you explain nuclear electric power generation in fast neutron reactors that do not use moderated fission?
I've a suspicion that you haven't a clue what moderation does.
And only twerps of all sorts love nuclear arms based on secret,
Thanks for that. By you logic I'm not a "twerp" because I do not "love nuclear arms".
military fission that can vaporize and radiate children, women and their homes in nano-seconds when required.
Now that might be horrible but is so more more horrible than "children, women and their homes" being "vaporized" slowly and left horribly burnt and disfigured?
Both are horrible but both have happened in war. Like it or not war can be hell on earth!
Nuclear weapons are horrible but so are napalm, incendiary bombs, time bombs, cluster bombs and chemical weapons but all have been used.
How anyone can so stupid to support, develop and build nuclear arms is beyond me.
So, sure nuclear arms are horrible and I suppose people have been "stupid to support, develop and build nuclear arms" but during wartime people grasp at any means to try to defeat the enemy.
And being a horrible devastating weapon is not an argument against the reality of nuclear weapons.
Stupid or not and horrible or not, nuclear weapons have been developed.
Your inability to understand their detonation and your claim there are impossible mean nothing in the real world.
Bye bye!
As I always say - twerps think it is normal to vaporize children, women and small towns by nuclear arms in war developed by certain people and then decided by some other people. But the good news are - it was just propaganda to scare you.
-
As I always say - twerps think it is normal to vaporize children, women and small towns by nuclear arms in war developed by certain people and then decided by some other people.
Luckily that lets me and any right minded person off the hook.
I don't think it's normal to "normal to vaporize children, women and small towns" but what in war is normal?
But the good news are - it was just propaganda to scare you.
So you keep saying but I take no notice of that because you are unable to understand so many things that I find your word useless.
-
Only intelligent people support nuclear electric power generation in private hands to provide energy for the society based on moderated fission.
I'm curious.
How do you explain nuclear electric power generation in fast neutron reactors that do not use moderated fission?
I've a suspicion that you haven't a clue what moderation does.
<snip>
He won't answer that question. You're right...he doesn't understand what role moderation has in reactor operation and why it's not used in fast fission reactors. Hell, until recently he denied that that fast fission even existed. I forced him to admit there were such things as fast fission reactors and yet he still keeps saying that crap about "moderated fission".
He almost never answers direct questions because he doesn't have the level of knowledge to carry on an intelligent conversation on the subject of nuclear power. He just keeps pointing his web site...the typical straw man from a guy who has no real idea what he's talking about. Which is one of the reasons he was removed as a petitioner by AE911.
Mike
-
As I always say - twerps think it is normal to vaporize children, women and small towns by nuclear arms in war developed by certain people and then decided by some other people.
Luckily that lets me and any right minded person off the hook.
I don't think it's normal to "normal to vaporize children, women and small towns" but what in war is normal?
But the good news are - it was just propaganda to scare you.
So you keep saying but I take no notice of that because you are unable to understand so many things that I find your word useless.
Thanks for asking what is normal in war. There are various conventions and it seems it is allowed to kill enemy soldiers in uniform and inside enemy vehicles. Dropping atomic bombs on children and women is not allowed.
FYI I have done military service with objective to stop the enemy. My weapon was the sea mine. It was launched to explode below enemy ships and sink them and kill the crew. As soon as a war was on, we could dispose the sea mine anywhere, e.g. just outside the enemy ports.
Those were the times. 1970 I was officer in charge of such an operation. NATO, WP and Finland were invited to watch. I informed them that Sweden could put sea mines all over the Baltic Sea and stop any enemy anywhere. Result, No enemy ever tried to attack Sweden since 1970. Of course, what I said was pure PROPAGANDA. It is normal in war ... and peace.
-
Only intelligent people support nuclear electric power generation in private hands to provide energy for the society based on moderated fission.
I'm curious.
How do you explain nuclear electric power generation in fast neutron reactors that do not use moderated fission?
I've a suspicion that you haven't a clue what moderation does.
<snip>
He won't answer that question. You're right...he doesn't understand what role moderation has in reactor operation and why it's not used in fast fission reactors. Hell, until recently he denied that that fast fission even existed. I forced him to admit there were such things as fast fission reactors and yet he still keeps saying that crap about "moderated fission".
He almost never answers direct questions because he doesn't have the level of knowledge to carry on an intelligent conversation on the subject of nuclear power. He just keeps pointing his web site...the typical straw man from a guy who has no real idea what he's talking about. Which is one of the reasons he was removed as a petitioner by AE911.
Mike
And there he goes again. Pops in, answers an obviously rhetorical question, and then leaves. Then he can say he answers questions when he really doesn't.
AAMOF, his own posts show he doesn’t know squat about how reactors work so Anders is flat out terrified to answer questions about it.
Mike
-
<< I believe I asked you a question. How about answering mine before I waste time replying to you.
Here it is again:Only intelligent people support nuclear electric power generation in private hands to provide energy for the society based on moderated fission.
I'm curious.
How do you explain nuclear electric power generation in fast neutron reactors that do not use moderated fission?
I've a suspicion that you haven't a clue what moderation does.
-
Thanks for asking what is normal in war. There are various conventions and it seems it is allowed to kill enemy soldiers in uniform and inside enemy vehicles. Dropping atomic bombs on children and women is not allowed.
Then you admit that atomic bombs work, otherwise there would be no convention against dropping them on women and children.
-
Thanks for asking what is normal in war. There are various conventions and it seems it is allowed to kill enemy soldiers in uniform and inside enemy vehicles. Dropping atomic bombs on children and women is not allowed.
Then you admit that atomic bombs work, otherwise there would be no convention against dropping them on women and children.
No, I suggest that small towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings August 1945 and that a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death in the attacks. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere and there was no radiation of any kind. It was all military propaganda to finish WW2. The Japanese played along with the scam. Just visit their a-bomb museums at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Just nonsense lies about FLASHES, mushroom clouds, radiation and 100 000's peoples killed vaporized or radiated seen by fake witnesses. Or visit the a-bomb museum at Albuquerque, NM, USA paid for by federal means. Just full of lies of the clowns that invented and tested the fake a-bomb nearby. So this communist Kim dictator of North Korea has no nuclear weapons 2018. But he has concentrations camps and prisons with millions of political prisoners today that USA doesn't do anything about. It is sad.
-
Thanks for asking what is normal in war. There are various conventions and it seems it is allowed to kill enemy soldiers in uniform and inside enemy vehicles. Dropping atomic bombs on children and women is not allowed.
Then you admit that atomic bombs work, otherwise there would be no convention against dropping them on women and children.
No, I suggest that small towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings August 1945 and that a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death in the attacks.
Do you think that being burned to death by napalm carpet bombing is any less horrific than being vaporized by an atomic bomb?
-
No, I suggest that small towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings August 1945 and that a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death in the attacks. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere and there was no radiation of any kind.
Not a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death!
Try 70,000–80,000 people from the immediate blast and firestorm alone in just Hiroshima and somewhat fewer in Nagasaki.
That was followed by many more from burns and radiationin the next couple of weeks.
No-one dies from radiation due to bombing by conventional weapons - NOBODY!
All this was from ONE BOMB over each city and there were never the hundreds of planes over Hiroshima or Nagasaki needed for carpet bombing!
When comes to death toll Tokyo, being a much larger city, faired far worse with around 100,000 deaths and 1,000,000 displaced.
BUT, the took about 14 raids and over 1800 aircraft.
Still, carry on believing your fiction about nuclear weapons, nuclear power and space explorations if it keeps you happy in your final years.
-
No, I suggest that small towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings August 1945 and that a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death in the attacks. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere and there was no radiation of any kind.
Not a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death!
Try 70,000–80,000 people from the immediate blast and firestorm alone in just Hiroshima and somewhat fewer in Nagasaki.
That was followed by many more from burns and radiationin the next couple of weeks.
No-one dies from radiation due to bombing by conventional weapons - NOBODY!
All this was from ONE BOMB over each city and there were never the hundreds of planes over Hiroshima or Nagasaki needed for carpet bombing!
When comes to death toll Tokyo, being a much larger city, faired far worse with around 100,000 deaths and 1,000,000 displaced.
BUT, the took about 14 raids and over 1800 aircraft.
Still, carry on believing your fiction about nuclear weapons, nuclear power and space explorations if it keeps you happy in your final years.
Well, there are no records of 70,00-80,000 persons being vaporized at Hiroshima in a FLASH and that similar amounts of people later died of radiation, so those figures are just invented. But it is clear that the town was burnt down by one raid and about 60 airplanes. The town was 95% small houses built of wood and paper. Most people managed to escape to surrounding mountains and on boats going to sea and islands there. And very soon people returned and cleared the streets so that the tramways could run again and that rebuilding could start by the owners of the building plots. No radiation.
There was war and censorship and media just printed what they were told. Then there were seven years of US occupation and anyone no agreeing with an atomic bomb having exploded were ... badly treated. On the other hand if you agreed to become a surviving witness that saw the FLASH, etc, you were well paid. No easy for an honest person. I describe more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
Why should I believe that bit of your story when you are so ignorant about nuclear power and space exploration, so:
Carry on believing your fiction about nuclear weapons, nuclear power and space explorations if it keeps you happy in your final years.
-
I thought the fire was caused by Mrs. O'Reary's Cow.
-
I thought the fire was caused by Mrs. O'Reary's Cow.
What! Don't say it kicked that candlestick over again? I told you to tie that leg-rope better.
PS Yes, Mr Bullwinkle, I used a leg-rope on the cow when I milked it by hand.
But, confession time, one day I forgot to let that cow put of the bail when I went to work, poor cow!
-
A cow kick carries nuclear power force. And that's no exaggeration.
-
No, I suggest that small towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings August 1945 and that a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death in the attacks. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere and there was no radiation of any kind.
Not a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death!
Try 70,000–80,000 people from the immediate blast and firestorm alone in just Hiroshima and somewhat fewer in Nagasaki.
That was followed by many more from burns and radiationin the next couple of weeks.
No-one dies from radiation due to bombing by conventional weapons - NOBODY!
All this was from ONE BOMB over each city and there were never the hundreds of planes over Hiroshima or Nagasaki needed for carpet bombing!
When comes to death toll Tokyo, being a much larger city, faired far worse with around 100,000 deaths and 1,000,000 displaced.
BUT, the took about 14 raids and over 1800 aircraft.
Still, carry on believing your fiction about nuclear weapons, nuclear power and space explorations if it keeps you happy in your final years.
Well, there are no records of 70,00-80,000 persons being vaporized at Hiroshima in a FLASH and that similar amounts of people later died of radiation, so those figures are just invented. But it is clear that the town was burnt down by one raid and about 60 airplanes. The town was 95% small houses built of wood and paper. Most people managed to escape to surrounding mountains and on boats going to sea and islands there. And very soon people returned and cleared the streets so that the tramways could run again and that rebuilding could start by the owners of the building plots. No radiation.
There was war and censorship and media just printed what they were told. Then there were seven years of US occupation and anyone no agreeing with an atomic bomb having exploded were ... badly treated. On the other hand if you agreed to become a surviving witness that saw the FLASH, etc, you were well paid. No easy for an honest person. I describe more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Vaporized or not 70,000-80,000 died in the initial blast at Hiroshima. That many or more during one night in the bombing of Tokyo. However, that took 279 B-29s, dropping nearly half a million canisters of Napalm in a total of nearly 1700 tons of ordinance, and lasted over two hours.
The attack on Hiroshima was a single bomb lasted minutes. There’s no evidence to support a single thing you say about Hiroshima. AAMOF, your fire-bombing assertion doesn’t even make any sense just based on the personal and official accounts of the two bombings. If you knew how to do proper research and draw reasoned conclusions you would already know this.
Mike
-
No, I suggest that small towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings August 1945 and that a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death in the attacks. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere and there was no radiation of any kind.
Not a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death!
Try 70,000–80,000 people from the immediate blast and firestorm alone in just Hiroshima and somewhat fewer in Nagasaki.
That was followed by many more from burns and radiationin the next couple of weeks.
No-one dies from radiation due to bombing by conventional weapons - NOBODY!
All this was from ONE BOMB over each city and there were never the hundreds of planes over Hiroshima or Nagasaki needed for carpet bombing!
When comes to death toll Tokyo, being a much larger city, faired far worse with around 100,000 deaths and 1,000,000 displaced.
BUT, the took about 14 raids and over 1800 aircraft.
Still, carry on believing your fiction about nuclear weapons, nuclear power and space explorations if it keeps you happy in your final years.
Well, there are no records of 70,00-80,000 persons being vaporized at Hiroshima in a FLASH and that similar amounts of people later died of radiation, so those figures are just invented. But it is clear that the town was burnt down by one raid and about 60 airplanes. The town was 95% small houses built of wood and paper. Most people managed to escape to surrounding mountains and on boats going to sea and islands there. And very soon people returned and cleared the streets so that the tramways could run again and that rebuilding could start by the owners of the building plots. No radiation.
There was war and censorship and media just printed what they were told. Then there were seven years of US occupation and anyone no agreeing with an atomic bomb having exploded were ... badly treated. On the other hand if you agreed to become a surviving witness that saw the FLASH, etc, you were well paid. No easy for an honest person. I describe more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Vaporized or not 70,000-80,000 died in the initial blast at Hiroshima. That many or more during one night in the bombing of Tokyo. However, that took 279 B-29s, dropping nearly half a million canisters of Napalm in a total of nearly 1700 tons of ordinance, and lasted over two hours.
The attack on Hiroshima was a single bomb lasted minutes. There’s no evidence to support a single thing you say about Hiroshima. AAMOF, your fire-bombing assertion doesn’t even make any sense just based on the personal and official accounts of the two bombings. If you knew how to do proper research and draw reasoned conclusions you would already know this.
Mike
But where is the evidence that 70,000-80,000 died in and initial atomic blast at Hiroshima?
-
No, I suggest that small towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings August 1945 and that a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death in the attacks. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere and there was no radiation of any kind.
Not a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death!
Try 70,000–80,000 people from the immediate blast and firestorm alone in just Hiroshima and somewhat fewer in Nagasaki.
That was followed by many more from burns and radiationin the next couple of weeks.
No-one dies from radiation due to bombing by conventional weapons - NOBODY!
All this was from ONE BOMB over each city and there were never the hundreds of planes over Hiroshima or Nagasaki needed for carpet bombing!
When comes to death toll Tokyo, being a much larger city, faired far worse with around 100,000 deaths and 1,000,000 displaced.
BUT, the took about 14 raids and over 1800 aircraft.
Still, carry on believing your fiction about nuclear weapons, nuclear power and space explorations if it keeps you happy in your final years.
Well, there are no records of 70,00-80,000 persons being vaporized at Hiroshima in a FLASH and that similar amounts of people later died of radiation, so those figures are just invented. But it is clear that the town was burnt down by one raid and about 60 airplanes. The town was 95% small houses built of wood and paper. Most people managed to escape to surrounding mountains and on boats going to sea and islands there. And very soon people returned and cleared the streets so that the tramways could run again and that rebuilding could start by the owners of the building plots. No radiation.
There was war and censorship and media just printed what they were told. Then there were seven years of US occupation and anyone no agreeing with an atomic bomb having exploded were ... badly treated. On the other hand if you agreed to become a surviving witness that saw the FLASH, etc, you were well paid. No easy for an honest person. I describe more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Vaporized or not 70,000-80,000 died in the initial blast at Hiroshima. That many or more during one night in the bombing of Tokyo. However, that took 279 B-29s, dropping nearly half a million canisters of Napalm in a total of nearly 1700 tons of ordinance, and lasted over two hours.
The attack on Hiroshima was a single bomb lasted minutes. There’s no evidence to support a single thing you say about Hiroshima. AAMOF, your fire-bombing assertion doesn’t even make any sense just based on the personal and official accounts of the two bombings. If you knew how to do proper research and draw reasoned conclusions you would already know this.
Mike
But where is the evidence that 70,000-80,000 died in and initial atomic blast at Hiroshima?
It's well documented in both Japan and the United States. Of course you have the research skills of an eighth grader so I'm not surprised you don't know that.
-
No, I suggest that small towns of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed by napalm carpet bombings August 1945 and that a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death in the attacks. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere and there was no radiation of any kind.
Not a couple of 1000's of Japanese were burnt to death!
Try 70,000–80,000 people from the immediate blast and firestorm alone in just Hiroshima and somewhat fewer in Nagasaki.
That was followed by many more from burns and radiationin the next couple of weeks.
No-one dies from radiation due to bombing by conventional weapons - NOBODY!
All this was from ONE BOMB over each city and there were never the hundreds of planes over Hiroshima or Nagasaki needed for carpet bombing!
When comes to death toll Tokyo, being a much larger city, faired far worse with around 100,000 deaths and 1,000,000 displaced.
BUT, the took about 14 raids and over 1800 aircraft.
Still, carry on believing your fiction about nuclear weapons, nuclear power and space explorations if it keeps you happy in your final years.
Well, there are no records of 70,00-80,000 persons being vaporized at Hiroshima in a FLASH and that similar amounts of people later died of radiation, so those figures are just invented. But it is clear that the town was burnt down by one raid and about 60 airplanes. The town was 95% small houses built of wood and paper. Most people managed to escape to surrounding mountains and on boats going to sea and islands there. And very soon people returned and cleared the streets so that the tramways could run again and that rebuilding could start by the owners of the building plots. No radiation.
There was war and censorship and media just printed what they were told. Then there were seven years of US occupation and anyone no agreeing with an atomic bomb having exploded were ... badly treated. On the other hand if you agreed to become a surviving witness that saw the FLASH, etc, you were well paid. No easy for an honest person. I describe more at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Vaporized or not 70,000-80,000 died in the initial blast at Hiroshima. That many or more during one night in the bombing of Tokyo. However, that took 279 B-29s, dropping nearly half a million canisters of Napalm in a total of nearly 1700 tons of ordinance, and lasted over two hours.
The attack on Hiroshima was a single bomb lasted minutes. There’s no evidence to support a single thing you say about Hiroshima. AAMOF, your fire-bombing assertion doesn’t even make any sense just based on the personal and official accounts of the two bombings. If you knew how to do proper research and draw reasoned conclusions you would already know this.
Mike
But where is the evidence that 70,000-80,000 died in and initial atomic blast at Hiroshima?
It's well documented in both Japan and the United States. Of course you have the research skills of an eighth grader so I'm not surprised you don't know that.
I worked five years in Japan 1972/6 and visited Japan several times afterwards but have never found any evidence or documentation of Japanese being killed at Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945. Of course there are testimonies of young Japanese having seen the FLASHES and 100's of their schoolmates being vaporized but ... I don't believe these small children.
-
I don't believe these small children.
And I don't believe you so we're square!
-
I worked five years in Japan 1972/6 and visited Japan several times afterwards but have never found any evidence or documentation of Japanese being killed at Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945.
What sort of evidence would you need to convince you that atomic bombs were used 30 years earlier?
Of course there are testimonies of young Japanese having seen the FLASHES and 100's of their schoolmates being vaporized but ... I don't believe these small children.
Anders, relatively few people were actually vaporized. Most of the initial casualties were caused by burns or being crushed by fallen buildings.
The real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative.
(http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/imgContent/200708230003.jpg)
1. Very large numbers of person were crushed in their homes and in the buildings in which they were working. Their skeletons could be seen in the debris and ashes for almost 1,500 meters from the center of the blast, particularly in the downwind directions.
2. Large numbers of the population walked for considerable distances after the detonation before they collapsed and died.
3. Large numbers developed vomiting and bloody and watery diarrhea (vomitus and bloody fecees were found on the floor in many of the aid stations), associated with extreme weakness. They died in the first and second weeks after the bombs were dropped.
4. During this same period deaths from internal injuries and from burns were common. Either the ehat from the fires or infrared radiation from the detonations caused many burns, particularly on bare skin or under dark clothing.
-
I worked five years in Japan 1972/6 and visited Japan several times afterwards but have never found any evidence or documentation of Japanese being killed at Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945.
What sort of evidence would you need to convince you that atomic bombs were used 30 years earlier?
Of course there are testimonies of young Japanese having seen the FLASHES and 100's of their schoolmates being vaporized but ... I don't believe these small children.
Anders, relatively few people were actually vaporized. Most of the initial casualties were caused by burns or being crushed by fallen buildings.
The real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative.
(http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/imgContent/200708230003.jpg)
1. Very large numbers of person were crushed in their homes and in the buildings in which they were working. Their skeletons could be seen in the debris and ashes for almost 1,500 meters from the center of the blast, particularly in the downwind directions.
2. Large numbers of the population walked for considerable distances after the detonation before they collapsed and died.
3. Large numbers developed vomiting and bloody and watery diarrhea (vomitus and bloody fecees were found on the floor in many of the aid stations), associated with extreme weakness. They died in the first and second weeks after the bombs were dropped.
4. During this same period deaths from internal injuries and from burns were common. Either the ehat from the fires or infrared radiation from the detonations caused many burns, particularly on bare skin or under dark clothing.
Hm, the Hiroshima August 6 1945 atomic FLASH lasted nano-seconds and after it 70,000 Japanese were vaporized and the whole town was gone, you think. And there were survivors that testified that another 70,000 Japanese died of nuclear radiation months later, while the Hiroshima town was rebuilt in record time ... under US occupation forces control. US censorship was not on top but local mafia/yakuza assisted ... like today 2018. There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation. Only twerps like you believe in nuclear weapons. Wake up!
-
I worked five years in Japan 1972/6 and visited Japan several times afterwards but have never found any evidence or documentation of Japanese being killed at Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945.
What sort of evidence would you need to convince you that atomic bombs were used 30 years earlier?
Of course there are testimonies of young Japanese having seen the FLASHES and 100's of their schoolmates being vaporized but ... I don't believe these small children.
Anders, relatively few people were actually vaporized. Most of the initial casualties were caused by burns or being crushed by fallen buildings.
The real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative.
(http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/imgContent/200708230003.jpg)
1. Very large numbers of person were crushed in their homes and in the buildings in which they were working. Their skeletons could be seen in the debris and ashes for almost 1,500 meters from the center of the blast, particularly in the downwind directions.
2. Large numbers of the population walked for considerable distances after the detonation before they collapsed and died.
3. Large numbers developed vomiting and bloody and watery diarrhea (vomitus and bloody fecees were found on the floor in many of the aid stations), associated with extreme weakness. They died in the first and second weeks after the bombs were dropped.
4. During this same period deaths from internal injuries and from burns were common. Either the ehat from the fires or infrared radiation from the detonations caused many burns, particularly on bare skin or under dark clothing.
Hm, the Hiroshima August 6 1945 atomic FLASH lasted nano-seconds and after it 70,000 Japanese were vaporized and the whole town was gone, you think.
No, the flash did not last nano-seconds. No, 70,000 people were not vaporized. No, the whole town was not gone. For crying out loud, how can you get so many things wrong so many times?
And there were survivors that testified that another 70,000 Japanese died of nuclear radiation months later, while the Hiroshima town was rebuilt in record time ...
How long did it take to rebuild Europe after WWII?
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
-
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Because people keep responding to him.
-
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Because people keep responding to him.
So what caused him to post the stupid things the first time.
-
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Because people keep responding to him.
So what caused him to post the stupid things the first time.
Attention.
-
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Because people keep responding to him.
So what caused him to post the stupid things the first time.
Attention.
That still doesn't change the fact that he is a idiot.
-
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Because people keep responding to him.
So what caused him to post the stupid things the first time.
Attention.
That still doesn't change the fact that he is a idiot.
I never claimed otherwise.
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
There are full archives in the US and Japan detailing all aspects of the bombings including death tolls.
For you to say otherwise means you’re either an incompetent researcher or just a fucking liar.
Mike
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
There are full archives in the US and Japan detailing all aspects of the bombings including death tolls.
For you to say otherwise means you’re either an incompetent researcher or just a fucking liar.
Mike
Well, just study the records and you find they are 100% falsifications. It was easily done in occupied Japan 1945/52 with strict censorship in place. Actually the Japanese agreed to everything the Americans proposed so the show could go on. It still goes on.
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
There are full archives in the US and Japan detailing all aspects of the bombings including death tolls.
For you to say otherwise means you’re either an incompetent researcher or just a fucking liar.
Mike
Well, just study the records and you find they are 100% falsifications.
Prove it and prove that all nuclear explosions were fakes.
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
You're saying that there are no records, but if you do find any records then they were just made up? Seriously, why do you say such stupid things?
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
You're saying that there are no records, but if you do find any records then they were just made up? Seriously, why do you say such stupid things?
Stupid things? I have visited the Nagasaki atomic bomb museum three times (repairing ships in the port) and it is full of falsified records and testimonies of an alleged a-bomb attack August 9 1945. But only a suburb of western Nagasaki and some shipyards were burnt down by napalm summer 1945 and it was quickly rebuilt 1946. The museum is a shame full of lies. Central Nagasaki was not damaged at all during the war. And no nuclear radiation has ever been found at Nagasaki. Do you know why the Japanese keep this museum full of lies?
-
I have visited the Nagasaki atomic bomb museum three times (repairing ships in the port) and it is full of falsified records and testimonies of an alleged a-bomb attack August 9 1945.
I have visited Heiwa's website three times and it is full of falsified records which is clear evidence that his records are false. I have reread this post three times and it is full of truth. This is proof that what I've posted here is true.
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
You're saying that there are no records, but if you do find any records then they were just made up? Seriously, why do you say such stupid things?
Stupid things? I have visited the Nagasaki atomic bomb museum three times (repairing ships in the port) and it is full of falsified records and testimonies of an alleged a-bomb attack August 9 1945.
What evidence do you have that those records and testimonies have been falsified?
But only a suburb of western Nagasaki and some shipyards were burnt down by napalm summer 1945 and it was quickly rebuilt 1946.
What evidence do you have that napalm was used?
The museum is a shame full of lies. Central Nagasaki was not damaged at all during the war.
What evidence do you have that the museum is full of lies? Were you in Central Nagasaki during the war?
And no nuclear radiation has ever been found at Nagasaki.
Were you in Nagasaki right after the bombing to check radiation levels? The atomic bombs used against Japan were air blast explosions, so relatively little residual radiation would be expected.
Do you know why the Japanese keep this museum full of lies?
Maybe the Japanese museum is truthful and you are the one who is full of lies.
-
I just found this on the internet:
I have visited Heiwa's website three times and it is full of falsified records which is clear evidence that his records are false. I have reread this post three times and it is full of truth. This is proof that what I've posted here is true.
It must be true.
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
You're saying that there are no records, but if you do find any records then they were just made up? Seriously, why do you say such stupid things?
Stupid things? I have visited the Nagasaki atomic bomb museum three times (repairing ships in the port) and it is full of falsified records and testimonies of an alleged a-bomb attack August 9 1945.
What evidence do you have that those records and testimonies have been falsified?
But only a suburb of western Nagasaki and some shipyards were burnt down by napalm summer 1945 and it was quickly rebuilt 1946.
What evidence do you have that napalm was used?
The museum is a shame full of lies. Central Nagasaki was not damaged at all during the war.
What evidence do you have that the museum is full of lies? Were you in Central Nagasaki during the war?
And no nuclear radiation has ever been found at Nagasaki.
Were you in Nagasaki right after the bombing to check radiation levels? The atomic bombs used against Japan were air blast explosions, so relatively little residual radiation would be expected.
Do you know why the Japanese keep this museum full of lies?
Maybe the Japanese museum is truthful and you are the one who is full of lies.
I describe my findings about a-bombs at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I wasn't even born 1945. I was born 1946. But I was lucky to work in Japan May 1972 - November 1976 and learnt a lot ... and maybe Japan learnt something from me?
One reason I ended up in Japan was good advice of a friend of mine. Nobel Prize winner physics 1923 Manne Siegbahn. Already 1945 Manne had been asked to build a Swedish a-bomb and become head of Swedish military research to destroy the enemy. Manne agreed subject all his works being peer reviewed and made public. Why would these important matters be top secret? So Manne didn't get the job. He didn't need it. He was rich since 1923. Anyway, 1964 Manne indicated to me to avoid physics, nuclear physics and similar as a career. Most jobs were badly paid teachers positions, etc. So I studied shipbuilding, structural design, etc. A success. You sound like a loser markjo with your stupid posts.
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
You're saying that there are no records, but if you do find any records then they were just made up? Seriously, why do you say such stupid things?
Stupid things? I have visited the Nagasaki atomic bomb museum three times (repairing ships in the port) and it is full of falsified records and testimonies of an alleged a-bomb attack August 9 1945.
What evidence do you have that those records and testimonies have been falsified?
But only a suburb of western Nagasaki and some shipyards were burnt down by napalm summer 1945 and it was quickly rebuilt 1946.
What evidence do you have that napalm was used?
The museum is a shame full of lies. Central Nagasaki was not damaged at all during the war.
What evidence do you have that the museum is full of lies? Were you in Central Nagasaki during the war?
And no nuclear radiation has ever been found at Nagasaki.
Were you in Nagasaki right after the bombing to check radiation levels? The atomic bombs used against Japan were air blast explosions, so relatively little residual radiation would be expected.
Do you know why the Japanese keep this museum full of lies?
Maybe the Japanese museum is truthful and you are the one who is full of lies.
I describe my findings about a-bombs at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I wasn't even born 1945. I was born 1946. But I was lucky to work in Japan May 1972 - November 1976 and learnt a lot ... and maybe Japan learnt something from me?
One reason I ended up in Japan was good advice of a friend of mine. Nobel Prize winner physics 1923 Manne Siegbahn. Already 1945 Manne had been asked to build a Swedish a-bomb and become head of Swedish military research to destroy the enemy. Manne agreed subject all his works being peer reviewed and made public. Why would these important matters be top secret? So Manne didn't get the job. He didn't need it. He was rich since 1923. Anyway, 1964 Manne indicated to me to avoid physics, nuclear physics and similar as a career. Most jobs were badly paid teachers positions, etc. So I studied shipbuilding, structural design, etc. A success. You sound like a loser markjo with your stupid posts.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason he told you to avoid nuclear physics is because he thought you were too stupid to understand it?
-
... and maybe Japan learnt something from me?
Be more careful handing out work visas?
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
There are full archives in the US and Japan detailing all aspects of the bombings including death tolls.
For you to say otherwise means you’re either an incompetent researcher or just a fucking liar.
Mike
Well, just study the records and you find they are 100% falsifications. It was easily done in occupied Japan 1945/52 with strict censorship in place. Actually the Japanese agreed to everything the Americans proposed so the show could go on. It still goes on.
You say there is no documentation and I say there is and all you can come up with is it's fake. You have zero proof of that but since you can't refute it you just lie.
You are a proven fuckin' liar. That's why you post here. It's the only place that hasn't banned you for all your lies and spamming the board.
Mike
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
You're saying that there are no records, but if you do find any records then they were just made up? Seriously, why do you say such stupid things?
Stupid things? I have visited the Nagasaki atomic bomb museum three times (repairing ships in the port) and it is full of falsified records and testimonies of an alleged a-bomb attack August 9 1945.
What evidence do you have that those records and testimonies have been falsified?
But only a suburb of western Nagasaki and some shipyards were burnt down by napalm summer 1945 and it was quickly rebuilt 1946.
What evidence do you have that napalm was used?
The museum is a shame full of lies. Central Nagasaki was not damaged at all during the war.
What evidence do you have that the museum is full of lies? Were you in Central Nagasaki during the war?
And no nuclear radiation has ever been found at Nagasaki.
Were you in Nagasaki right after the bombing to check radiation levels? The atomic bombs used against Japan were air blast explosions, so relatively little residual radiation would be expected.
Do you know why the Japanese keep this museum full of lies?
Maybe the Japanese museum is truthful and you are the one who is full of lies.
I describe my findings about a-bombs at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
I wasn't even born 1945. I was born 1946. But I was lucky to work in Japan May 1972 - November 1976 and learnt a lot ... and maybe Japan learnt something from me?
One reason I ended up in Japan was good advice of a friend of mine. Nobel Prize winner physics 1923 Manne Siegbahn. Already 1945 Manne had been asked to build a Swedish a-bomb and become head of Swedish military research to destroy the enemy. Manne agreed subject all his works being peer reviewed and made public. Why would these important matters be top secret? So Manne didn't get the job. He didn't need it. He was rich since 1923. Anyway, 1964 Manne indicated to me to avoid physics, nuclear physics and similar as a career. Most jobs were badly paid teachers positions, etc. So I studied shipbuilding, structural design, etc. A success. You sound like a loser markjo with your stupid posts.
Did it ever occur to you that the reason he told you to avoid nuclear physics is because he thought you were too stupid to understand it?
No, we discussed theoretical physics in principle 1964 and if it was something for me. I only learnt later he had turned down the top job to develop a Swedish a-bomb 1945. Theoretical physics in Sweden 1964 was rockets and space travel and similar nonsense. It was obvious already then it was not possible to get out of any Earth orbit. Another big thing was building nuclear power plants all over Sweden ... and then run them. But who wanted to run a nuclear power plant in the countryside? Not me. So I went into shipbuilding. The perfect choice. Jobs anywhere! And there we are today.
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
There are full archives in the US and Japan detailing all aspects of the bombings including death tolls.
For you to say otherwise means you’re either an incompetent researcher or just a fucking liar.
Mike
Well, just study the records and you find they are 100% falsifications. It was easily done in occupied Japan 1945/52 with strict censorship in place. Actually the Japanese agreed to everything the Americans proposed so the show could go on. It still goes on.
You say there is no documentation and I say there is and all you can come up with is it's fake. You have zero proof of that but since you can't refute it you just lie.
You are a proven fuckin' liar. That's why you post here. It's the only place that hasn't banned you for all your lies and spamming the board.
Mike
Mikrobrain!
Please. I have worked in Japan for years and visited it many times and visited their a-bomb places afterwards. There is no evidence anywhere that Japan was a-bombed 1945. But it took some time for me to grasp how US got away with the fraud. And now I present my findings at http://heiwaco.com and offer anyone €1M to prove I am wrong.
Why do you get so upset about it? You say you have sailed on US nuclear subs, that you witnessed the 911 2001 attack on NY and that you now build nuclear subs. Aha, you are part of the military industrial complex stealing money from US tax payers. Does it make you happy? You must be a twerp!
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
There are full archives in the US and Japan detailing all aspects of the bombings including death tolls.
For you to say otherwise means you’re either an incompetent researcher or just a fucking liar.
Mike
Well, just study the records and you find they are 100% falsifications. It was easily done in occupied Japan 1945/52 with strict censorship in place. Actually the Japanese agreed to everything the Americans proposed so the show could go on. It still goes on.
You say there is no documentation and I say there is and all you can come up with is it's fake. You have zero proof of that but since you can't refute it you just lie.
You are a proven fuckin' liar. That's why you post here. It's the only place that hasn't banned you for all your lies and spamming the board.
Mike
Mikrobrain!
Please. I have worked in Japan for years and visited it many times and visited their a-bomb places afterwards. There is no evidence anywhere that Japan was a-bombed 1945. But it took some time for me to grasp how US got away with the fraud. And now I present my findings at http://heiwaco.com and offer anyone €1M to prove I am wrong.
Why do you get so upset about it? You say you have sailed on US nuclear subs, that you witnessed the 911 2001 attack on NY and that you now build nuclear subs. Aha, you are part of the military industrial complex stealing money from US tax payers. Does it make you happy? You must be a twerp!
Please nothing...I don't give a shit how long you say you were in Japan. Nothing you say can be trusted.
You're a liar, it's proven, and everybody knows it.
Mike
-
There are no records of any Hiroshima people being killed by atomic bombs and radiation.
Why do you say such stupid things? Seriously, why?
Beacuse there are no records of any people killed by atomic bombs and radiation in Japan! It was all made up by US military as propaganda 1945/52 during the occupation. Have you ever been to Japan?
There are full archives in the US and Japan detailing all aspects of the bombings including death tolls.
For you to say otherwise means you’re either an incompetent researcher or just a fucking liar.
Mike
Well, just study the records and you find they are 100% falsifications. It was easily done in occupied Japan 1945/52 with strict censorship in place. Actually the Japanese agreed to everything the Americans proposed so the show could go on. It still goes on.
You say there is no documentation and I say there is and all you can come up with is it's fake. You have zero proof of that but since you can't refute it you just lie.
You are a proven fuckin' liar. That's why you post here. It's the only place that hasn't banned you for all your lies and spamming the board.
Mike
Mikrobrain!
Please. I have worked in Japan for years and visited it many times and visited their a-bomb places afterwards. There is no evidence anywhere that Japan was a-bombed 1945. But it took some time for me to grasp how US got away with the fraud. And now I present my findings at http://heiwaco.com and offer anyone €1M to prove I am wrong.
Why do you get so upset about it? You say you have sailed on US nuclear subs, that you witnessed the 911 2001 attack on NY and that you now build nuclear subs. Aha, you are part of the military industrial complex stealing money from US tax payers. Does it make you happy? You must be a twerp!
Please nothing...I don't give a shit how long you say you were in Japan. Nothing you say can be trusted.
You're a liar, it's proven, and everybody knows it.
Mike
Mikrobrain,
You sound like a loser. Me a proven liar? ROTFL!
-
Yes, Heiwa, you are a proven liar and it is damn funny.
-
Mikrobrain,
You sound like a loser. Me a proven liar? ROTFL!
Two links show how you lied about your money. Nobody believes you have it because of lies like this.
Proven liar!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg2058488#msg2058488
Here's you lying about being severely brain damaged for most of your adult life, curing yourself of said brain damage...oh and while you were brain damaged you supposedly got a masters in engineering and had a 200+ IQ.
Proven liar!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg2015759#msg2015759
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71351.msg1933278#msg1933278
Here’s some more of your lies about you supposed peer reviewed paper that was never actually peer reviewed.
Proven liar!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg2061933#msg2061933
Here’s a general compilation of your lies and the supporting links.
Proven liar!
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
You are a proven liar Bitch!!
Keep it up and I'll post even more links of your lies.
Mike
-
ROTFL!
This is exactly what a liar would do when exposed as a liar!
-
Mikrobrain,
You sound like a loser. Me a proven liar? ROTFL!
Two links show how you lied about your money. Nobody believes you have it because of lies like this.
Proven liar!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg2058488#msg2058488
Here's you lying about being severely brain damaged for most of your adult life, curing yourself of said brain damage...oh and while you were brain damaged you supposedly got a masters in engineering and had a 200+ IQ.
Proven liar!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg2015759#msg2015759
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71351.msg1933278#msg1933278
Here’s some more of your lies about you supposed peer reviewed paper that was never actually peer reviewed.
Proven liar!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62555.msg2061933#msg2061933
Here’s a general compilation of your lies and the supporting links.
Proven liar!
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home/anders-bjorkman-s-world
You are a proven liar Bitch!!
Keep it up and I'll post even more links of your lies.
Mike
Mikrobrain - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance having problems with nuclear bombs, manned space trips, a famous ferry accident, 911 and fusion on Earth. I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
-
What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
What's wrong is the fact that none of your findings are based on any sort of scientific or engineering research.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
It is easier to say what isn't wrong with all your findings.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
It is easier to say what isn't wrong with all your findings.
Pls do! I pay you €1M for it at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
It is easier to say what isn't wrong with all your findings.
Pls do! I pay you €1M for it at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm
Here you go:
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
I've done that already...others have also pointed out you obvious flaws. Members in the various forums you've been banned from have schooled you on the inadequacies of your crackpot theories. You have ignored/dismissed/derided everyone who tried. There's no use discussing it with you because you don't care what anyone has to say.
You have ignored and refused to answer any direct questions on anything related to your challenges. So why should we bother discussing your crap.
Mike
-
You have ignored and refused to answer any direct questions on anything related to your challenges.
So why should we bother discussing your crap.
Hmmm ::)
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
I've done that already...others have also pointed out you obvious flaws. Members in the various forums you've been banned from have schooled you on the inadequacies of your crackpot theories. You have ignored/dismissed/derided everyone who tried. There's no use discussing it with you because you don't care what anyone has to say.
You have ignored and refused to answer any direct questions on anything related to your challenges. So why should we bother discussing your crap.
Mike
Hm, there are 10 000 posts about my Challenges at this forum and I try to reply to all comments.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
I've done that already...others have also pointed out you obvious flaws. Members in the various forums you've been banned from have schooled you on the inadequacies of your crackpot theories. You have ignored/dismissed/derided everyone who tried. There's no use discussing it with you because you don't care what anyone has to say.
You have ignored and refused to answer any direct questions on anything related to your challenges. So why should we bother discussing your crap.
Mike
Hm, there are 10 000 posts about my Challenges at this forum and I try to reply to all comments.
So what? When you do reply you dismiss or completely ignore most of the post and usually just tell the poster that they should "study" you web site and tell you what's wrong with it.
That's your usual go to tactic. Most of the time you just put it back on the other guy and avoid and direct discussion. Everyone sees it.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
I've done that already...others have also pointed out you obvious flaws. Members in the various forums you've been banned from have schooled you on the inadequacies of your crackpot theories. You have ignored/dismissed/derided everyone who tried. There's no use discussing it with you because you don't care what anyone has to say.
You have ignored and refused to answer any direct questions on anything related to your challenges. So why should we bother discussing your crap.
Mike
Hm, there are 10 000 posts about my Challenges at this forum and I try to reply to all comments.
So what? When you do reply you dismiss or completely ignore most of the post and usually just tell the poster that they should "study" you web site and tell you what's wrong with it.
That's your usual go to tactic. Most of the time you just put it back on the other guy and avoid and direct discussion. Everyone sees it.
Tactic? I just reply to posts as best as I can and refer people to my popular website http://heiwaco.com . Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
I've done that already...others have also pointed out you obvious flaws. Members in the various forums you've been banned from have schooled you on the inadequacies of your crackpot theories. You have ignored/dismissed/derided everyone who tried. There's no use discussing it with you because you don't care what anyone has to say.
You have ignored and refused to answer any direct questions on anything related to your challenges. So why should we bother discussing your crap.
Mike
Hm, there are 10 000 posts about my Challenges at this forum and I try to reply to all comments.
So what? When you do reply you dismiss or completely ignore most of the post and usually just tell the poster that they should "study" you web site and tell you what's wrong with it.
That's your usual go to tactic. Most of the time you just put it back on the other guy and avoid and direct discussion. Everyone sees it.
Tactic? I just reply to posts as best as I can and refer people to my popular website http://heiwaco.com . Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
ROFL......... Nobody.... LMFAO......
Are you high?
-
Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
MicroIntelligence - you sound like a typical case of cognitive dissonance with your inability to understand the operation of nuclear bombs, manned space trips, 911 and fusion on Earth.
I explain it all at http://heiwaco.com
Still trolling for customers, I see.
Not really. I just promote my interesting findings about various matters at no cost. I am semi-retired and make my money today on the stock exchange. It is easier than crawling around inside ships looking for defects and ... much more profitable! But then I wouldn't have met all these people telling me about fake a-bombs and fake human space trips and invented Arabs attacking USA with planes full of passengers. Only twerps believe in such stories.
Your "findings" are crap. I have serious doubts you're even an engineer.
You sound like a twerp. What is wrong with all my findings at http://heiwaco.com ?
I've done that already...others have also pointed out you obvious flaws. Members in the various forums you've been banned from have schooled you on the inadequacies of your crackpot theories. You have ignored/dismissed/derided everyone who tried. There's no use discussing it with you because you don't care what anyone has to say.
You have ignored and refused to answer any direct questions on anything related to your challenges. So why should we bother discussing your crap.
Mike
Hm, there are 10 000 posts about my Challenges at this forum and I try to reply to all comments.
So what? When you do reply you dismiss or completely ignore most of the post and usually just tell the poster that they should "study" you web site and tell you what's wrong with it.
That's your usual go to tactic. Most of the time you just put it back on the other guy and avoid and direct discussion. Everyone sees it.
Tactic? I just reply to posts as best as I can and refer people to my popular website http://heiwaco.com . Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
What, are you drunk?!?
Show me a single person here doesn't have a problem with the crap on your website. Just one if you can.
-
Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
-
Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
You aren't the only "expert" on maritime safety. Numerous experts disagree with your assertions. Get over yourself. You are full of shit to the fullest. Why don't you go design a tanker that no one will use.
-
Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
You aren't the only "expert" on maritime safety. Numerous experts disagree with your assertions. Get over yourself. You are full of shit to the fullest. Why don't you go design a tanker that no one will use.
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea. They are full of shit using your words and paid by politicians and similar to lie and to protect particular interests, e.g. criminal activities. I name them at http://heiwaco.com
-
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com.
The topic of this thread just happens to be Nuclear Power Exaggerated and I fail to see the relevance of that to "ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea" - whatever that means.
Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?
Only Anders Björkman as far as I can find, though the "in their right mind" might be questionable.
-
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com.
The topic of this thread just happens to be Nuclear Power Exaggerated and I fail to see the relevance of that to "ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea" - whatever that means.
Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?
Only Anders Björkman as far as I can find, though the "in their right mind" might be questionable.
Well, I own 7552 shares of French EDF company, which owns 58 nuclear power plants in France and more elsewhere and I am a strong supporter of nuclear power (for electricity generation) since many years. There are twerps that want to close my nuclear plants but most of them were built 1970/80's using good established technology then and they have a very good safety record and ready to run another 30 years from now.
Re "Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?" you have to study http://heiwaco.com/news.htm about those criminal clowns.
-
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com.
The topic of this thread just happens to be Nuclear Power Exaggerated and I fail to see the relevance of that to "ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea" - whatever that means.
Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?
Only Anders Björkman as far as I can find, though the "in their right mind" might be questionable.
Re "Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?" you have to study http://heiwaco.com/news.htm about those criminal clowns.
But none of them ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors". Only Anders Björkman has ever suggested such a thing.
-
Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
You aren't the only "expert" on maritime safety. Numerous experts disagree with your assertions. Get over yourself. You are full of shit to the fullest. Why don't you go design a tanker that no one will use.
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea. They are full of shit using your words and paid by politicians and similar to lie and to protect particular interests, e.g. criminal activities. I name them at http://heiwaco.com
So, all those experts who disagree with you are just part of conspiracy to lie about these accidents at sea? You amassing quite the list of conspiracy theories.
Mike
-
Nobody seems to find anything wrong there!
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com .
You aren't the only "expert" on maritime safety. Numerous experts disagree with your assertions. Get over yourself. You are full of shit to the fullest. Why don't you go design a tanker that no one will use.
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea. They are full of shit using your words and paid by politicians and similar to lie and to protect particular interests, e.g. criminal activities. I name them at http://heiwaco.com
And this proves just how diluted you are.
-
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com.
The topic of this thread just happens to be Nuclear Power Exaggerated and I fail to see the relevance of that to "ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea" - whatever that means.
Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?
Only Anders Björkman as far as I can find, though the "in their right mind" might be questionable.
Well, I own 7552 shares of French EDF company, which owns 58 nuclear power plants in France and more elsewhere and I am a strong supporter of nuclear power (for electricity generation) since many years. There are twerps that want to close my nuclear plants but most of them were built 1970/80's using good established technology then and they have a very good safety record and ready to run another 30 years from now.
Re "Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?" you have to study http://heiwaco.com/news.htm about those criminal clowns.
You own 7552 shares of EDF France which has 3,010,267,676 Total Shares. You own a whopping 0.000250874% of shares.
-
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com.
The topic of this thread just happens to be Nuclear Power Exaggerated and I fail to see the relevance of that to "ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea" - whatever that means.
Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?
Only Anders Björkman as far as I can find, though the "in their right mind" might be questionable.
Well, I own 7552 shares of French EDF company, which owns 58 nuclear power plants in France and more elsewhere and I am a strong supporter of nuclear power (for electricity generation) since many years. There are twerps that want to close my nuclear plants but most of them were built 1970/80's using good established technology then and they have a very good safety record and ready to run another 30 years from now.
Re "Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?" you have to study http://heiwaco.com/news.htm about those criminal clowns.
You own 7552 shares of EDF France which has 3,010,267,676 Total Shares. You own a whopping 0.000250874% of shares.
So what? I can attend the EDF meetings, ask questions, collect dividends, etc. BTW - are there so many shares around? 3,010,267,676?
Anyway, EDF is a major player in the nuclear power business and I am happy to be a part of it.
-
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea.
Do you think that you're the only real expert of safety at sea, or are there a few others?
-
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com.
The topic of this thread just happens to be Nuclear Power Exaggerated and I fail to see the relevance of that to "ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea" - whatever that means.
Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?
Only Anders Björkman as far as I can find, though the "in their right mind" might be questionable.
Well, I own 7552 shares of French EDF company, which owns 58 nuclear power plants in France and more elsewhere and I am a strong supporter of nuclear power (for electricity generation) since many years. There are twerps that want to close my nuclear plants but most of them were built 1970/80's using good established technology then and they have a very good safety record and ready to run another 30 years from now.
Re "Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?" you have to study http://heiwaco.com/news.htm about those criminal clowns.
You own 7552 shares of EDF France which has 3,010,267,676 Total Shares. You own a whopping 0.000250874% of shares.
So what? I can attend the EDF meetings, ask questions, collect dividends, etc. BTW - are there so many shares around? 3,010,267,676?
Anyway, EDF is a major player in the nuclear power business and I am happy to be a part of it.
You don't even know enough about EDF to know how many outstanding shares there are. Are you drunk when you attend these meetings. It took me literally 30 seconds to find out how many outstanding shares there are...I keep forgetting about your shitty research skills.
-
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea.
Do you think that you're the only real expert of safety at sea, or are there a few others?
No and Yes.
-
Is that meant to be a joke? You just ignore all the things found wrong.
No, I am not joking. I just dislike people that suggest that ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea. These people are criminals and should be in jail. I identify other similar gangsters at my popular website http://heiwaco.com.
The topic of this thread just happens to be Nuclear Power Exaggerated and I fail to see the relevance of that to "ferries float on bow visors (!) which can drop off without anybody noticing at sea" - whatever that means.
Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?
Only Anders Björkman as far as I can find, though the "in their right mind" might be questionable.
Well, I own 7552 shares of French EDF company, which owns 58 nuclear power plants in France and more elsewhere and I am a strong supporter of nuclear power (for electricity generation) since many years. There are twerps that want to close my nuclear plants but most of them were built 1970/80's using good established technology then and they have a very good safety record and ready to run another 30 years from now.
Re "Who, in their right mind, ever suggested that "ferries float on bow visors"?" you have to study http://heiwaco.com/news.htm about those criminal clowns.
You own 7552 shares of EDF France which has 3,010,267,676 Total Shares. You own a whopping 0.000250874% of shares.
So what? I can attend the EDF meetings, ask questions, collect dividends, etc. BTW - are there so many shares around? 3,010,267,676?
Anyway, EDF is a major player in the nuclear power business and I am happy to be a part of it.
You don't even know enough about EDF to know how many outstanding shares there are. Are you drunk when you attend these meetings. It took me literally 30 seconds to find out how many outstanding shares there are...I keep forgetting about your shitty research skills.
You are right that I haven't counted all the EDF shares. I have only counted mine. And yes, drinks are served at the meetings ... afterwards. https://www.edf.fr/en/the-edf-group/dedicated-sections/finance/financial-information/the-edf-share/edf-share-profile
-
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea.
Do you think that you're the only real expert of safety at sea, or are there a few others?
No and Yes.
Do any of these other experts agree with your conclusions about the Estonia (or much of anything else)?
-
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea.
Do you think that you're the only real expert of safety at sea, or are there a few others?
No and Yes.
Do any of these other experts agree with your conclusions about the Estonia (or much of anything else)?
It is not easy. Plenty people agreeing with me about the Estonia incident 1994 suddenly just died.
Re fake atomic bombs, fake human space travel and 911 I am not alone at all. Only twerps believe in nuclear weapons, human space travel and Arabs attacking USA 911 2001. I explain it at my website.
-
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea.
Do you think that you're the only real expert of safety at sea, or are there a few others?
No and Yes.
Do any of these other experts agree with your conclusions about the Estonia (or much of anything else)?
It is not easy. Plenty people agreeing with me about the Estonia incident 1994 suddenly just died.
And yet they let the most vocal critic live. Interesting.
Re fake atomic bombs, fake human space travel and 911 I am not alone at all. Only twerps believe in nuclear weapons, human space travel and Arabs attacking USA 911 2001. I explain it at my website.
I think that you have a different definition for the word "explain" than the rest of the world does. You don't explain as much as you ridicule the "official story" and dismiss any evidence that doesn't support your personal opinion. Perhaps if you were to put some of your engineering expertise to work and provide clear, concise and accurate technical analysis to support your opinions, then you might not be the laughing stock that you are today.
-
You are right that people disagree with me, but they are not real experts of safety at sea.
Do you think that you're the only real expert of safety at sea, or are there a few others?
No and Yes.
Do any of these other experts agree with your conclusions about the Estonia (or much of anything else)?
It is not easy. Plenty people agreeing with me about the Estonia incident 1994 suddenly just died.
And yet they let the most vocal critic live. Interesting.
Re fake atomic bombs, fake human space travel and 911 I am not alone at all. Only twerps believe in nuclear weapons, human space travel and Arabs attacking USA 911 2001. I explain it at my website.
I think that you have a different definition for the word "explain" than the rest of the world does. You don't explain as much as you ridicule the "official story" and dismiss any evidence that doesn't support your personal opinion. Perhaps if you were to put some of your engineering expertise to work and provide clear, concise and accurate technical analysis to support your opinions, then you might not be the laughing stock that you are today.
Thanks for your advice. I do not ridicule any 'official story' though. I just prove any 'official story' is physically impossible. And I haven't met anyone laughing at my explanations. People part of the cover-up get upset, some violent, but nobody laughs. Serious people I know are very grateful for my work. It is one reason why I carry on.
-
Physically impossible means something different to you than to the rest of us though.
-
I do not ridicule any 'official story' though. I just prove any 'official story' is physically impossible.
No, you don't!
All you prove is that the great all-knowing Anders Bjorkman (alias Heiwa) can't understand how things work so to "save face" pretends that they can't work.
Look what I found on a "Google search". Some ignoramus posts this in an attempt to "disprove fission"!
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Fission_bombs) cannot really explain how a nuclear atomic bomb works, unless you believe that a very nasty, military type of explosive fission producing destruction, invented by an American clown under military secrecy 1942/5 exists:| | Until destruction is desired, the bomb is kept subcritical - in the case of a uranium bomb, it is achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size or mass. No fission occurs! To produce destruction, the pieces of uranium are brought together rapidly into compressed contact with each other - to become a critical mass with a free neutron in between - which drives the instantaneous explosive fission FLASH of the nuclear weapon into the atmosphere. It lasts some nano-seconds and vaporizes and radiates innocent people that happen to be in the way. It cannot be stopped after being started. |
I find it hard to imagine a more stupid statement than your "become a critical mass with a free neutron in between".
Try "one every 5-10 nanoseconds" (https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/atomic/hfatman.html) once the initiator is activated and that is for the earliest "urchin" initiators.
This total ignoramus seem to think that the ultimate authority on nuclear fission detonation is, wait for it, Wikipedia!
Sure he refers to How Nuclear Bombs Work by William Harris, Craig Freudenrich Ph.D. and John Fuller (http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb5.htm) but just riducules what these physicists write.
There's nothing more in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018, by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) than someone claiming some expertise in marine safety pretending to know more about nuclear physics than nuclear physicists.
A "Nuclear Physicist" Anders Björkman sure ain't and from other stuff he writes a "Rocket Scientist" Anders Björkman sure ain't!
And I for one would far rather believe "Nuclear Physicists" when it comes to the operation of nuclear weapons and "Rocket Scientists" when it comes to space exploration.
Run away Mr Anders Björkman and try your con-game somewhere else!
-
I do not ridicule any 'official story' though. I just prove any 'official story' is physically impossible.
No, you don't!
All you prove is that the great all-knowing Anders Bjorkman (alias Heiwa) can't understand how things work so to "save face" pretends that they can't work.
Look what I found on a "Google search". Some ignoramus posts this in an attempt to "disprove fission"!
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Fission_bombs) cannot really explain how a nuclear atomic bomb works, unless you believe that a very nasty, military type of explosive fission producing destruction, invented by an American clown under military secrecy 1942/5 exists:| | Until destruction is desired, the bomb is kept subcritical - in the case of a uranium bomb, it is achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size or mass. No fission occurs! To produce destruction, the pieces of uranium are brought together rapidly into compressed contact with each other - to become a critical mass with a free neutron in between - which drives the instantaneous explosive fission FLASH of the nuclear weapon into the atmosphere. It lasts some nano-seconds and vaporizes and radiates innocent people that happen to be in the way. It cannot be stopped after being started. |
I find it hard to imagine a more stupid statement than your "become a critical mass with a free neutron in between".
Try "one every 5-10 nanoseconds" (https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/atomic/hfatman.html) once the initiator is activated and that is for the earliest "urchin" initiators.
This total ignoramus seem to think that the ultimate authority on nuclear fission detonation is, wait for it, Wikipedia!
Sure he refers to How Nuclear Bombs Work by William Harris, Craig Freudenrich Ph.D. and John Fuller (http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb5.htm) but just riducules what these physicists write.
There's nothing more in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018, by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) than someone claiming some expertise in marine safety pretending to know more about nuclear physics than nuclear physicists.
A "Nuclear Physicist" Anders Björkman sure ain't and from other stuff he writes a "Rocket Scientist" Anders Björkman sure ain't!
And I for one would far rather believe "Nuclear Physicists" when it comes to the operation of nuclear weapons and "Rocket Scientists" when it comes to space exploration.
Run away Mr Anders Björkman and try your con-game somewhere else!
Thanks for linking to me suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience. Now a question for you. Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found. Only twerps believe that nuclear weapons are real. But nuclear power for electricity/heat generation is real. See the difference?
-
Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found.
Because you're an attention whore.
-
Now a question for you. Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found.
I have a better question for you. Why do you ask interested parties to point out any errors when you refuse to acknowledge any of the errors that get pointed out?
-
Thanks for linking to me suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience.
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. All you are doing is "suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience" but
never do you anywhere prove that "atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience".
All you do is to show that you don't understand nuclear physics then ridicule nuclear weapons - that isn't proof or even evidence.
Now a question for you. Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found. Only twerps believe that nuclear weapons are real. But nuclear power for electricity/heat generation is real. See the difference?
No, I don't "See the difference". You have proven that you don't understand either nuclear detonation or controlled nuclear fission.
You always claim that controlled nuclear fission requires moderation but controlled nuclear fission is not controlled by moderation.
-
Thanks for linking to me suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience.
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. All you are doing is "suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience" but
never do you anywhere prove that "atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience".
All you do is to show that you don't understand nuclear physics then ridicule nuclear weapons - that isn't proof or even evidence.
Now a question for you. Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found. Only twerps believe that nuclear weapons are real. But nuclear power for electricity/heat generation is real. See the difference?
No, I don't "See the difference". You have proven that you don't understand either nuclear detonation or controlled nuclear fission.
You always claim that controlled nuclear fission requires moderation but controlled nuclear fission is not controlled by moderation.
Yes, I do not believe in nuclear detonation. M/ Siegbahn, Nobel prize winner 1923, didn't either when asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945. He would do it but all work, info and tests had to be public, he said. It wasn't popular. It must be secret. Like my friend WM that 1946 was asked to mine uranium at Sachsen, East Germany, by Stalin/KGB. If you didn't obey you were shot. Stalin needed the uranium to build an a-bomb and the Germans in Sachsen had it ... Stalin thought. So WM secretly produced fake uranium ore so that Stalin could build and test a fake a-bomb 1949. The only private company in East Germany at the time did it - Wismut AG. The owner was no other than KGB itself! Having met and known these people I am convinced that a-bombs are just propaganda to scare twerps of all kind.
-
Yes, I do not believe in nuclear detonation. M/ Siegbahn, Nobel prize winner 1923, didn't either when asked to build a Swedish a-bomb 1945.
I see no justification for any claim that Sweden could not build a nuclear bomb, just that they had not. And remember that.The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (about $22 billion in 2016 dollars).
What did Sweden spend in the "the Swedish nuclear weapons program"? And remember that it was to be integrated with nuclear power generation to produce the plutonium.
Technically it would have been possible to manufacture a single nuclear explosive device given sufficient plutonium of weapons-grade quality, but a single device would not have constituted a full weapons program.
By all accounts the planned program would have included about 100 nuclear warheads. Within the framework of such a large-scale serial production program,
it would probably have taken Sweden several years to manufacture its first nuclear device.
I see it as more a combination of politics and the international disarmament discussions and nuclear nonproliferation discussions that stopped Sweden going further.
He would do it but all work, info and tests had to be public, he said. It wasn't popular. It must be secret. Like my friend WM that 1946 was asked to mine uranium at Sachsen, East Germany, by Stalin/KGB. If you didn't obey you were shot. Stalin needed the uranium to build an a-bomb and the Germans in Sachsen had it ... Stalin thought. So WM secretly produced fake uranium ore so that Stalin could build and test a fake a-bomb 1949. The only private company in East Germany at the time did it - Wismut AG. The owner was no other than KGB itself! Having met and known these people I am convinced that a-bombs are just propaganda to scare twerps of all kind.
We gather that you are "convinced that a-bombs are just propaganda to scare twerps of all kind".
You seem also convinced the crewed space missions and deep space missions are impossible for no other reason than your inability to understand on your own, with no research, re-entry, orbital dynamics and planetary motion.
So, I take little notice of what you claim is impossible.
-
I do not ridicule any 'official story' though. I just prove any 'official story' is physically impossible.
No, you don't!
All you prove is that the great all-knowing Anders Bjorkman (alias Heiwa) can't understand how things work so to "save face" pretends that they can't work.
Look what I found on a "Google search". Some ignoramus posts this in an attempt to "disprove fission"!
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Fission_bombs) cannot really explain how a nuclear atomic bomb works, unless you believe that a very nasty, military type of explosive fission producing destruction, invented by an American clown under military secrecy 1942/5 exists:| | Until destruction is desired, the bomb is kept subcritical - in the case of a uranium bomb, it is achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size or mass. No fission occurs! To produce destruction, the pieces of uranium are brought together rapidly into compressed contact with each other - to become a critical mass with a free neutron in between - which drives the instantaneous explosive fission FLASH of the nuclear weapon into the atmosphere. It lasts some nano-seconds and vaporizes and radiates innocent people that happen to be in the way. It cannot be stopped after being started. |
I find it hard to imagine a more stupid statement than your "become a critical mass with a free neutron in between".
Try "one every 5-10 nanoseconds" (https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/atomic/hfatman.html) once the initiator is activated and that is for the earliest "urchin" initiators.
This total ignoramus seem to think that the ultimate authority on nuclear fission detonation is, wait for it, Wikipedia!
Sure he refers to How Nuclear Bombs Work by William Harris, Craig Freudenrich Ph.D. and John Fuller (http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb5.htm) but just riducules what these physicists write.
There's nothing more in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018, by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) than someone claiming some expertise in marine safety pretending to know more about nuclear physics than nuclear physicists.
A "Nuclear Physicist" Anders Björkman sure ain't and from other stuff he writes a "Rocket Scientist" Anders Björkman sure ain't!
And I for one would far rather believe "Nuclear Physicists" when it comes to the operation of nuclear weapons and "Rocket Scientists" when it comes to space exploration.
Run away Mr Anders Björkman and try your con-game somewhere else!
Thanks for linking to me suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience. Now a question for you. Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found. Only twerps believe that nuclear weapons are real. But nuclear power for electricity/heat generation is real. See the difference?
Dude, you understand so little about nuclear reactions it isn't even funny anymore. So stop making claims you can't support.
Mike
-
I do not ridicule any 'official story' though. I just prove any 'official story' is physically impossible.
No, you don't!
All you prove is that the great all-knowing Anders Bjorkman (alias Heiwa) can't understand how things work so to "save face" pretends that they can't work.
Look what I found on a "Google search". Some ignoramus posts this in an attempt to "disprove fission"!
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Fission_bombs) cannot really explain how a nuclear atomic bomb works, unless you believe that a very nasty, military type of explosive fission producing destruction, invented by an American clown under military secrecy 1942/5 exists:| | Until destruction is desired, the bomb is kept subcritical - in the case of a uranium bomb, it is achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size or mass. No fission occurs! To produce destruction, the pieces of uranium are brought together rapidly into compressed contact with each other - to become a critical mass with a free neutron in between - which drives the instantaneous explosive fission FLASH of the nuclear weapon into the atmosphere. It lasts some nano-seconds and vaporizes and radiates innocent people that happen to be in the way. It cannot be stopped after being started. |
I find it hard to imagine a more stupid statement than your "become a critical mass with a free neutron in between".
Try "one every 5-10 nanoseconds" (https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/atomic/hfatman.html) once the initiator is activated and that is for the earliest "urchin" initiators.
This total ignoramus seem to think that the ultimate authority on nuclear fission detonation is, wait for it, Wikipedia!
Sure he refers to How Nuclear Bombs Work by William Harris, Craig Freudenrich Ph.D. and John Fuller (http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb5.htm) but just riducules what these physicists write.
There's nothing more in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018, by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) than someone claiming some expertise in marine safety pretending to know more about nuclear physics than nuclear physicists.
A "Nuclear Physicist" Anders Björkman sure ain't and from other stuff he writes a "Rocket Scientist" Anders Björkman sure ain't!
And I for one would far rather believe "Nuclear Physicists" when it comes to the operation of nuclear weapons and "Rocket Scientists" when it comes to space exploration.
Run away Mr Anders Björkman and try your con-game somewhere else!
Thanks for linking to me suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience. Now a question for you. Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found. Only twerps believe that nuclear weapons are real. But nuclear power for electricity/heat generation is real. See the difference?
Dude, you understand so little about nuclear reactions it isn't even funny anymore. So stop making claims you can't support.
Mike
Mikrobrain! Who do you think will be impressed by your crazy posts calling me a dude?
-
I do not ridicule any 'official story' though. I just prove any 'official story' is physically impossible.
No, you don't!
All you prove is that the great all-knowing Anders Bjorkman (alias Heiwa) can't understand how things work so to "save face" pretends that they can't work.
Look what I found on a "Google search". Some ignoramus posts this in an attempt to "disprove fission"!
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission#Fission_bombs) cannot really explain how a nuclear atomic bomb works, unless you believe that a very nasty, military type of explosive fission producing destruction, invented by an American clown under military secrecy 1942/5 exists:| | Until destruction is desired, the bomb is kept subcritical - in the case of a uranium bomb, it is achieved by keeping the fuel in a number of separate pieces, each below the critical size or mass. No fission occurs! To produce destruction, the pieces of uranium are brought together rapidly into compressed contact with each other - to become a critical mass with a free neutron in between - which drives the instantaneous explosive fission FLASH of the nuclear weapon into the atmosphere. It lasts some nano-seconds and vaporizes and radiates innocent people that happen to be in the way. It cannot be stopped after being started. |
I find it hard to imagine a more stupid statement than your "become a critical mass with a free neutron in between".
Try "one every 5-10 nanoseconds" (https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/atomic/hfatman.html) once the initiator is activated and that is for the earliest "urchin" initiators.
This total ignoramus seem to think that the ultimate authority on nuclear fission detonation is, wait for it, Wikipedia!
Sure he refers to How Nuclear Bombs Work by William Harris, Craig Freudenrich Ph.D. and John Fuller (http://science.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb5.htm) but just riducules what these physicists write.
There's nothing more in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018, by Anders Björkman, M.Sc. (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) than someone claiming some expertise in marine safety pretending to know more about nuclear physics than nuclear physicists.
A "Nuclear Physicist" Anders Björkman sure ain't and from other stuff he writes a "Rocket Scientist" Anders Björkman sure ain't!
And I for one would far rather believe "Nuclear Physicists" when it comes to the operation of nuclear weapons and "Rocket Scientists" when it comes to space exploration.
Run away Mr Anders Björkman and try your con-game somewhere else!
Thanks for linking to me suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience. Now a question for you. Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found. Only twerps believe that nuclear weapons are real. But nuclear power for electricity/heat generation is real. See the difference?
Dude, you understand so little about nuclear reactions it isn't even funny anymore. So stop making claims you can't support.
Mike
Mikrobrain! Who do you think will be impressed by your crazy posts calling me a dude?
Calling you dude?!?!!? That's your take away from my post? Interesting.
-
Maybe I missed the part of the post. But why is this a thing? Why is nuclear power a question?
-
Maybe I missed the part of the post. But why is this a thing? Why is nuclear power a question?
Just read post #1. There it is suggested that the a-bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki never took place. It was just propaganda. I explain it at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm . But many FE supporters, aka twerps love a-bombs and disagree ... and there we are today.
-
Maybe I missed the part of the post. But why is this a thing? Why is nuclear power a question?
There are some here that don't believe in atoms so by extension, atomic power; and by extension atomic weapons.
Kinda like Anders Björkman (AKA Heiwa) who believes in nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
I would recommend you NOT go to his site no matter how many times he tells you to...and will tell you to a lot. Instead go the internet archive and they will have his most up to date version as well as all the previous versions of his silly website. To see how he makes up shit and changes the conditions of his challenges because someone found a loophole is hilarious.
Mike
-
Wow! .... Just Wow!
I am not a flat Earther nor a... I don't know "nukes not real guy." I guess.
I generally just read Because I find the way other people view these things fascinating.
I did look at the website. But didn't really see any real proof. But I generally don't believe everything I read on the internet either.
-
Wow! .... Just Wow!
I am not a flat Earther nor a... I don't know "nukes not real guy." I guess.
I generally just read Because I find the way other people view these things fascinating.
I did look at the website. But didn't really see any real proof. But I generally don't believe everything I read on the internet either.
There is not proof on his site. Only ramblings and reprint of other peoples stuff. You will not find a single instance where he attempts to show what’s wrong with the current theory...only his conclusions based on a flawed understanding of how nuclear reactions work.
Mike
-
Thanks for linking to me suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience.
Yes, you've hit the nail on the head. All you are doing is "suggesting atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience" but
never do you anywhere prove that "atomic bomb physics is pseudoscience".
All you do is to show that you don't understand nuclear physics then ridicule nuclear weapons - that isn't proof or even evidence.
Now a question for you. Why would I publish what I do under my own name also asking interested parties to point out any errors found. Only twerps believe that nuclear weapons are real. But nuclear power for electricity/heat generation is real. See the difference?
No, I don't "See the difference". You have proven that you don't understand either nuclear detonation or controlled nuclear fission.
You always claim that controlled nuclear fission requires moderation but controlled nuclear fission is not controlled by moderation.
Ate you just now coming to this conclusion? Or are you always saying it?
I dont really follow closely enough to know...
But for reelz, ,As soon as I heard him, two years ago, cite something not being possible because it didnt make sense... I checked out.
-
Maybe I missed the part of the post. But why is this a thing? Why is nuclear power a question?
There are some here that don't believe in atoms so by extension, atomic power; and by extension atomic weapons.
Kinda like Anders Björkman (AKA Heiwa) who believes in nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
I would recommend you NOT go to his site no matter how many times he tells you to...and will tell you to a lot. Instead go the internet archive and they will have his most up to date version as well as all the previous versions of his silly website. To see how he makes up shit and changes the conditions of his challenges because someone found a loophole is hilarious.
Mike
But I believe in atoms and explain why at http://heiwaco.com .
-
Explains means nothing when you can’t show it to be true.
-
Maybe I missed the part of the post. But why is this a thing? Why is nuclear power a question?
There are some here that don't believe in atoms so by extension, atomic power; and by extension atomic weapons.
Kinda like Anders Björkman (AKA Heiwa) who believes in nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
I would recommend you NOT go to his site no matter how many times he tells you to...and will tell you to a lot. Instead go the internet archive and they will have his most up to date version as well as all the previous versions of his silly website. To see how he makes up shit and changes the conditions of his challenges because someone found a loophole is hilarious.
Mike
But I believe in atoms and explain why at http://heiwaco.com .
I never said you didn't believe in atoms. But, then again you knew that. It's just another chance for a shameless plug you stupid website.
BTW, you explain stuff on your site but you prove nothing.
Mike
-
Maybe I missed the part of the post. But why is this a thing? Why is nuclear power a question?
There are some here that don't believe in atoms so by extension, atomic power; and by extension atomic weapons.
Kinda like Anders Björkman (AKA Heiwa) who believes in nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
I would recommend you NOT go to his site no matter how many times he tells you to...and will tell you to a lot. Instead go the internet archive and they will have his most up to date version as well as all the previous versions of his silly website. To see how he makes up shit and changes the conditions of his challenges because someone found a loophole is hilarious.
Mike
But I believe in atoms and explain why at http://heiwaco.com .
I never said you didn't believe in atoms. But, then again you knew that. It's just another chance for a shameless plug you stupid website.
BTW, you explain stuff on your site but you prove nothing.
Mike
Mikrobrain,
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere. Of course there are plenty people around having dropped a-bombs to tell the world, having seen from ground dropped a-bombs and survived, having designed, built and tested a-bombs but it seems they are all paid actors.
And when I try to have an intelligent and peaceful discussion about the matter mostly only a-bomb loving twerps show up.
-
Maybe I missed the part of the post. But why is this a thing? Why is nuclear power a question?
There are some here that don't believe in atoms so by extension, atomic power; and by extension atomic weapons.
Kinda like Anders Björkman (AKA Heiwa) who believes in nuclear power but not nuclear weapons.
I would recommend you NOT go to his site no matter how many times he tells you to...and will tell you to a lot. Instead go the internet archive and they will have his most up to date version as well as all the previous versions of his silly website. To see how he makes up shit and changes the conditions of his challenges because someone found a loophole is hilarious.
Mike
But I believe in atoms and explain why at http://heiwaco.com .
I never said you didn't believe in atoms. But, then again you knew that. It's just another chance for a shameless plug you stupid website.
BTW, you explain stuff on your site but you prove nothing.
Mike
Mikrobrain,
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere. Of course there are plenty people around having dropped a-bombs to tell the world, having seen from ground dropped a-bombs and survived, having designed, built and tested a-bombs but it seems they are all paid actors.
And when I try to have an intelligent and peaceful discussion about the matter mostly only a-bomb loving twerps show up.
You haven't met anyone because you have talked to anyone who has witnessed a detonation. You just make shit up, draw conclusions from that shit, and then declare that nuclear weapons don’t exist.
IOW, You haven't met anyone because you haven’t done any real research.
Mike
-
he's been told multiple times about the thousands of people that witnessed detonations from Vegas in the 50's but he's never bothered to talk to any of them. Heiwa sucks at research.
-
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere.
What kind of proof would you accept?
-
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere.
What kind of proof would you accept?
A Nuc in his front yard.
-
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere.
What kind of proof would you accept?
Anything that gives reason for believing that nuclear weapons can be ignited.
-
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere.
What kind of proof would you accept?
Anything that gives reason for believing that nuclear weapons can be ignited.
What about a mixture of tritium and deuterium, both from lithium deuteride?
We are such gullible people to believe this sort of propaganda!
The World's Biggest Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped - Tsar Bomba
Don't you feel so sorry for us?
Idiots deny everything that they are too dumb to understand!
See if your poor excuse for a brain can comprehend the significance of these photos.
The exposure time of these photos is 10ns:(https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_titulos/ciencia_uranium06.gif) (https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium06.htm)
10-nanosecond long images taken 1 millisecond after various nuclear explosions
(http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb8.jpg)
This image captures two common elements: the spikes (called "rope tricks") and an uneven surface shape.
At this stage of the detonation the surface of the fireball has a temperature of 20,000 degrees, three times hotter than the sun's surface. At such temperatures the amount of thermal radiation (light) given off is so enormous anything it touches is vaporized ahead of the expanding fireball. The three spikes in this image result from the guide wires supporting the tower on which the bomb was located absorbing enough heat to turn into light emitting plasma. Because thermal radiation travels faster than the fireball, the spikes extend out ahead of it.
Experiments with different support wires showed that if they were painted black to better absorb radiation they were longer. If painted with a reflective silver paint they don't appear at all.
One might expect an explosive fireball to expand in a perfect sphere. Actually, variations in the density of the bomb's surrounding case create the mottlings and and complex shapes in many of these images.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb7.jpg)
The support tower in the image above provides a convenient size scale. Most of the above images capture the fireball when it is 100 feet in diameter, typically 0.001 seconds after the control operator pressed the "fire" button.
<< See all the other pretty scary pictures in: Ultra-Fast Nuclear Detonation Pictures (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/abombs.html) >>
-
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere.
What kind of proof would you accept?
Anything that gives reason for believing that nuclear weapons can be ignited.
What about a mixture of tritium and deuterium, both from lithium deuteride?
We are such gullible people to believe this sort of propaganda!
The World's Biggest Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped - Tsar Bomba
Don't you feel so sorry for us?
Idiots deny everything that they are too dumb to understand!
See if your poor excuse for a brain can comprehend the significance of these photos.
The exposure time of these photos is 10ns:(https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_titulos/ciencia_uranium06.gif) (https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium06.htm)
10-nanosecond long images taken 1 millisecond after various nuclear explosions
(http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb8.jpg)
This image captures two common elements: the spikes (called "rope tricks") and an uneven surface shape.
At this stage of the detonation the surface of the fireball has a temperature of 20,000 degrees, three times hotter than the sun's surface. At such temperatures the amount of thermal radiation (light) given off is so enormous anything it touches is vaporized ahead of the expanding fireball. The three spikes in this image result from the guide wires supporting the tower on which the bomb was located absorbing enough heat to turn into light emitting plasma. Because thermal radiation travels faster than the fireball, the spikes extend out ahead of it.
Experiments with different support wires showed that if they were painted black to better absorb radiation they were longer. If painted with a reflective silver paint they don't appear at all.
One might expect an explosive fireball to expand in a perfect sphere. Actually, variations in the density of the bomb's surrounding case create the mottlings and and complex shapes in many of these images.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb7.jpg)
The support tower in the image above provides a convenient size scale. Most of the above images capture the fireball when it is 100 feet in diameter, typically 0.001 seconds after the control operator pressed the "fire" button.
<< See all the other pretty scary pictures in: Ultra-Fast Nuclear Detonation Pictures (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/abombs.html) >>
Thanks, but photos with exposure time 10 ns of alleged nuclear explosions is not what I asked for. The question is how to ignite a military, explosive fission. Two critical masses becoming one + a neutron?
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
-
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere.
What kind of proof would you accept?
Anything that gives reason for believing that nuclear weapons can be ignited.
You are supposedly an engineer. Why do you always use such imprecise terms like "ignited"? To be more precise, "ignited" is the incorrect term.
I say it's because you have no idea how nuclear reactions work. I
I'm also beginning to think you're not an engineer at all.
Mike
-
I haven't met anyone that can prove that USA has ever exploded an a-bomb anywhere.
What kind of proof would you accept?
Anything that gives reason for believing that nuclear weapons can be ignited.
What about a mixture of tritium and deuterium, both from lithium deuteride?
We are such gullible people to believe this sort of propaganda!
The World's Biggest Nuclear Bomb Ever Dropped - Tsar Bomba
Don't you feel so sorry for us?
Idiots deny everything that they are too dumb to understand!
See if your poor excuse for a brain can comprehend the significance of these photos.
The exposure time of these photos is 10ns:(https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_titulos/ciencia_uranium06.gif) (https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium06.htm)
10-nanosecond long images taken 1 millisecond after various nuclear explosions
(http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb8.jpg)
This image captures two common elements: the spikes (called "rope tricks") and an uneven surface shape.
At this stage of the detonation the surface of the fireball has a temperature of 20,000 degrees, three times hotter than the sun's surface. At such temperatures the amount of thermal radiation (light) given off is so enormous anything it touches is vaporized ahead of the expanding fireball. The three spikes in this image result from the guide wires supporting the tower on which the bomb was located absorbing enough heat to turn into light emitting plasma. Because thermal radiation travels faster than the fireball, the spikes extend out ahead of it.
Experiments with different support wires showed that if they were painted black to better absorb radiation they were longer. If painted with a reflective silver paint they don't appear at all.
One might expect an explosive fireball to expand in a perfect sphere. Actually, variations in the density of the bomb's surrounding case create the mottlings and and complex shapes in many of these images.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb7.jpg)
The support tower in the image above provides a convenient size scale. Most of the above images capture the fireball when it is 100 feet in diameter, typically 0.001 seconds after the control operator pressed the "fire" button.
<< See all the other pretty scary pictures in: Ultra-Fast Nuclear Detonation Pictures (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/abombs.html) >>
The question is how to ignite a military, explosive fission. Two critical masses becoming one + a neutron?
Don't blame me for your inability to read!
You have had explained numerous times and been given references showing that nuckear weapons are not detonated simply by "Two critical masses becoming one + a neutron".
Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
Go to school to learn how to read then read what I wrote above again. Then read the references you've already been given.
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
LOL.
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
possible
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
-
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
Bullwinkle was joking, as he usually is, in case you didn't realise it.
-
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
Bullwinkle was joking, as he usually is, in case you didn't realise it.
Bullwinkle is a joke so he can joke about nuclear bomb factories. But the latter do not exist. So where is the joke?
-
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
Bullwinkle was joking, as he usually is, in case you didn't realise it.
Bullwinkle is a joke so he can joke about nuclear bomb factories. But the latter do not exist. So where is the joke?
Says the idiot who has been proven wrong on countless occasions but refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong.
-
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
Bullwinkle was joking, as he usually is, in case you didn't realise it.
Bullwinkle is a joke so he can joke about nuclear bomb factories. But the latter do not exist. So where is the joke?
Says the idiot who has been proven wrong on countless occasions but refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong.
Well, only twerps suffering from cognitive dissonance consider me an idiot as they cannot show I am wrong since many years - in spite of a €1M reward.
-
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
Bullwinkle was joking, as he usually is, in case you didn't realise it.
Bullwinkle is a joke so he can joke about nuclear bomb factories. But the latter do not exist. So where is the joke?
http://heiwaco.com
-
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
Bullwinkle was joking, as he usually is, in case you didn't realise it.
Bullwinkle is a joke so he can joke about nuclear bomb factories. But the latter do not exist. So where is the joke?
Says the idiot who has been proven wrong on countless occasions but refuses to acknowledge that he is wrong.
Well, only twerps suffering from cognitive dissonance consider me an idiot as they cannot show I am wrong since many years - in spite of a €1M reward.
I know you're an idiot and I also know for a fact you have no idea how to diagnose anyone with anything. IOW, stop telling people they have cognitive dissonance when you have no idea what you're talking about.
Mike
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
possible
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
Rockey Flats met zero of your claims.
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
possible
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
You post the stupidest shit.
There are twenty production facilities in the US and everyone knows where they are.
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
possible
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
You post the stupidest shit.
There are twenty production facilities in the US and everyone knows where they are.
So list them!
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
possible
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
You post the stupidest shit.
There are twenty production facilities in the US and everyone knows where they are.
So list them!
WOW!! You mean to tell us that you have thoroughly researched nuclear weapons and you don’t already know where these facilities are? Seriously, if you had any fuckin’ clue what you are talking about you would already know the answer. You don’t even know the most basic information and yet, you want people to take you seriously. Your shoddy research at work again.
Here’s a short list of active facilities. They all have websites look ‘em up. You want more do your own research...if you can.
Los Alamos National Laboratory; Los Alamos, New Mexico
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Livermore, California
Sandia National Laboratories; Livermore, California
Sandia National Laboratories; Albuquerque, New Mexico
Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Y-12 National Security Complex; Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; Carlsbad, New Mexico
Pantex; Amarillo, Texas
Fernald Site; Cincinnati, Ohio
Paducah Plant; Paducah, Kentucky
Portsmouth Plant; Portsmouth, Ohio
Kansas City Plant; Kansas City, Missouri
Mound Plant; Miamisburg, Ohio
Pinellas Plant; Largo, Florida
Savannah River Site; Aiken, South Carolina
-
Why are you arguing with Heiwa?
-
Why are you arguing with Heiwa?
I have my reasons.
-
Why are you arguing with Heiwa?
I have my reasons.
I'm sure you do.
(https://thefireescapeartist.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/someone-is-wrong-on-internet.png?w=273&h=300)
Heiwa is an obnoxious sociophatic weirdo who has been doing this shit for decades across various fora. He just does it for attention.
You'd be better off arguing nuclear physics with your dog.
-
Why are you arguing with Heiwa?
I have my reasons.
I'm sure you do.
(https://thefireescapeartist.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/someone-is-wrong-on-internet.png?w=273&h=300)
Heiwa is an obnoxious sociophatic weirdo who has been doing this shit for decades across various fora. He just does it for attention.
You'd be better off arguing nuclear physics with your dog.
I think Heiwa suffered a mental break back during the late 90s and has been trying to validate his life ever since. If he finds enough people to believe him, he won't think his whole life was a waste. It is quite sad actually.
-
Why are you arguing with Heiwa?
I have my reasons.
I'm sure you do.
(https://thefireescapeartist.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/someone-is-wrong-on-internet.png?w=273&h=300)
Heiwa is an obnoxious sociophatic weirdo who has been doing this shit for decades across various fora. He just does it for attention.
You'd be better off arguing nuclear physics with your dog.
Yes but my dog didn't call my me a liar, my brother a liar, my friends liars, or name a friend of mine on his website and call him a terrorist and a 9/11 conspirator because he is a reporter on ABC news in NYC.
If it bothers you so much, don't read my posts.
-
Why are you arguing with Heiwa?
I have my reasons.
I'm sure you do.
(https://thefireescapeartist.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/someone-is-wrong-on-internet.png?w=273&h=300)
Heiwa is an obnoxious sociophatic weirdo who has been doing this shit for decades across various fora. He just does it for attention.
You'd be better off arguing nuclear physics with your dog.
Yes but my dog didn't call my me a liar, my brother a liar, my friends liars, or name a friend of mine on his website and call him a terrorist and a 9/11 conspirator because he is a reporter on ABC news in NYC.
If it bothers you so much, don't read my posts.
I doubt that it bothers him all that much. I think that was just reminding you of the futility of arguing with Anders.
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
possible
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
You post the stupidest shit.
There are twenty production facilities in the US and everyone knows where they are.
So list them!
WOW!! You mean to tell us that you have thoroughly researched nuclear weapons and you don’t already know where these facilities are? Seriously, if you had any fuckin’ clue what you are talking about you would already know the answer. You don’t even know the most basic information and yet, you want people to take you seriously. Your shoddy research at work again.
Here’s a short list of active facilities. They all have websites look ‘em up. You want more do your own research...if you can.
Los Alamos National Laboratory; Los Alamos, New Mexico
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Livermore, California
Sandia National Laboratories; Livermore, California
Sandia National Laboratories; Albuquerque, New Mexico
Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Y-12 National Security Complex; Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; Carlsbad, New Mexico
Pantex; Amarillo, Texas
Fernald Site; Cincinnati, Ohio
Paducah Plant; Paducah, Kentucky
Portsmouth Plant; Portsmouth, Ohio
Kansas City Plant; Kansas City, Missouri
Mound Plant; Miamisburg, Ohio
Pinellas Plant; Largo, Florida
Savannah River Site; Aiken, South Carolina
Thanks. But they cannot provide any evidence that their nuclear products can explode and how to ignite them.
-
I know how fission is started and works in a nuclear power plant as I am shareholder of EDF owning 58 such plants, so that is not a problem. Question is - how to ignite a nuclear bomb?
possible
Apparently, buy stock in a nuclear bomb factory.
Not possible. All nuclear bomb factories are government owned and hidden away in remote, almost secret locations.
You post the stupidest shit.
There are twenty production facilities in the US and everyone knows where they are.
So list them!
WOW!! You mean to tell us that you have thoroughly researched nuclear weapons and you don’t already know where these facilities are? Seriously, if you had any fuckin’ clue what you are talking about you would already know the answer. You don’t even know the most basic information and yet, you want people to take you seriously. Your shoddy research at work again.
Here’s a short list of active facilities. They all have websites look ‘em up. You want more do your own research...if you can.
Los Alamos National Laboratory; Los Alamos, New Mexico
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Livermore, California
Sandia National Laboratories; Livermore, California
Sandia National Laboratories; Albuquerque, New Mexico
Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Y-12 National Security Complex; Oak Ridge, Tennessee
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant; Carlsbad, New Mexico
Pantex; Amarillo, Texas
Fernald Site; Cincinnati, Ohio
Paducah Plant; Paducah, Kentucky
Portsmouth Plant; Portsmouth, Ohio
Kansas City Plant; Kansas City, Missouri
Mound Plant; Miamisburg, Ohio
Pinellas Plant; Largo, Florida
Savannah River Site; Aiken, South Carolina
Thanks. But they cannot provide any evidence that their nuclear products can explode and how to ignite them.
Of course, they can’t tell you have to initiate a nuclear explosion. And, you know it’s because it is classified so stop asking people to provide you information you very well know is illegal to provide.
BTW, learn to do your own research.
Mike
-
But they cannot provide any evidence that their nuclear products can explode and how to ignite them.
(https://i.imgur.com/n6rMQWt.jpg)
-
Thanks. But they cannot provide any evidence that their nuclear products can explode.
Incorrect they can and have provided such evidence!
Here is some "evidence that their nuclear products can explode":
the manhattan project trinity test | |
10 MOST UNBELIEVABLE Explosions in Human History | |
«Tsar Bomba». Test the most power explosion in history
by Телеканал Звезда |
But they cannot provide any evidence . . . . how to ignite detonate them.
Incorrect they can and have provided such evidence!There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
You do know all about "fast (neutron) fission" and "slow (neutron) fission"?
There is no secret, military type of fission that works in a nano-seconds FLASH after two subcritical bits of metal are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between producing a mushroom cloud.
Really? Your "nano-seconds FLASH" is totally ridiculous!
Only an ignorant self-opinionated twerp would come out that sort of rubbish.
There is a lot more to designing a successful fission weapon and early fission can force the subcritical apart prematurely.
Little boy (Hiroshima) took a few milliseconds to "assemble" the fissile material and so achieved an efficiency of under 1.4%.
An "assembly" time of about 1 microsecond is desirable.
A Pu-239 weapon cannot simply bring two subcritical pieces together as Pu-240 impurities would initiate premature fission and blow it apart with little fission.
So instead a thin shell of plutonium was collapsed around a Be/Po-210 initiator by two layers of high explosive.
The shock wave is sufficient to compress the plutonium to about 4 times normal density, achieving a sufficiently fast "assembly time" before the fission reaction starts the "disassembly" process.
As a result Fat man (Nagasaki) achieved a 17% efficiency from the fission of plutonium a bit more yield from the uranium damper.
All these details are public domain, but details of initiator design are, I gather, not so easy to get hold of.
Of course you know all this and your expertise in nuclear engineering can debunk it all
but I'd take no more notice of that than I would of your denial of gravity assist or re-entry from orbit.
Of course it's just as well that any Tom, Dick or Anders can build a successful nuclear weapon.
Bang, bang newclear injunier,
from an ignorant twerp!
Here go and learn something for once in your life! The Physices Hypertextbook, Nuclear Weapons (https://physics.info/weapons/) or (https://cnduk.org/wp/wp-content/themes/cnd/dist/images/logo.png) How do nuclear weapons work? (https://cnduk.org/how-do-nuclear-weapons-work/)
But, luckily there's not enough of the technical information in there for an irresponsible twerp like you to build a weapon! You've already admitted to trying to procure uranium.
An I couldn't care less what one of the inhabitants of Lesser Conspiritardia might believe or not believe!
-
Thanks. But they cannot provide any evidence that their nuclear products can explode.
Incorrect they can and have provided such evidence!
Here is some "evidence that their nuclear products can explode":
the manhattan project trinity test | |
10 MOST UNBELIEVABLE Explosions in Human History | |
//// The Largest Nuclear Bomb //// Tsar Bomba |
But they cannot provide any evidence . . . . how to ignite detonate them.
Incorrect they can and have provided such evidence!There is only one type of fission and it works slowly under moderated conditions in a laboratory or a peaceful nuclear power plant. Neutrons split atom cores and energy is released.
You do know all about "fast (neutron) fission" and "slow (neutron) fission"?
There is no secret, military type of fission that works in a nano-seconds FLASH after two subcritical bits of metal are suddenly compressed together with a neutron in between producing a mushroom cloud.
Really? Your "nano-seconds FLASH" is totally ridiculous!
Only an ignorant self-opinionated twerp would come out that sort of rubbish.
There is a lot more to designing a successful fission weapon and early fission can force the subcritical apart prematurely.
Little boy (Hiroshima) took a few milliseconds to "assemble" the fissile material and so achieved an efficiency of under 1.4%.
An "assembly" time of about 1 microsecond is desirable.
A Pu-239 weapon cannot simply bring two subcritical pieces together as Pu-240 impurities would initiate premature fission and blow it apart with little fission.
So instead a thin shell of plutonium was collapsed around a Be/Po-210 initiator by two layers of high explosive.
The shock wave is sufficient to compress the plutonium to about 4 times normal density, achieving a sufficiently fast "assembly time" before the fission reaction starts the "disassembly" process.
As a result Fat man (Nagasaki) achieved a 17% efficiency from the fission of plutonium a bit more yield from the uranium damper.
All these details are public domain, but details of initiator design are, I gather, not so easy to get hold of.
Of course you know all this and your expertise in nuclear engineering can debunk it all
but I'd take no more notice of that than I would of your denial of gravity assist or re-entry from orbit.
Of course it's just as well that any Tom, Dick or Anders can build a successful nuclear weapon.
Bang, bang newclear injunier,
from an ignorant twerp!
Here go and learn something for once in your life! The Physices Hypertextbook, Nuclear Weapons (https://physics.info/weapons/) or (https://cnduk.org/wp/wp-content/themes/cnd/dist/images/logo.png) How do nuclear weapons work? (https://cnduk.org/how-do-nuclear-weapons-work/)
But, luckily there's not enough of the technical information in there for an irresponsible twerp like you to build a weapon! You've already admitted to trying to procure uranium.
An I couldn't care less what one of the inhabitants of Lesser Conspiritardia might believe or not believe!
Thanks, but blurry films of explosions don't prove anything. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com
-
Thanks, but blurry films of explosions don't prove anything.
They provide far more evidence than your site does!
I explain why at http://heiwaco.com
No you don't! All you have is rubbish like And he could never explain how to ignite such a WMD! Compress uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between?
Only ignoramuses make claims like that.
Then your failed attempts a buying illegal uranium.
-
Thanks, but blurry films of explosions don't prove anything.
They provide far more evidence than your site does!
I explain why at http://heiwaco.com
No you don't! All you have is rubbish like And he could never explain how to ignite such a WMD! Compress uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between?
Only ignoramuses make claims like that.
Then your failed attempts a buying illegal uranium.
Hm. You must be sick. Consider visiting a doctor.
-
<< Heiwa's sane old trash deleted >>
Only an ignoramuses would claim that a nuclear detonation can be initiated like this.And he could never explain how to ;D ;D ignite ;D ;D such a WMD! Compress uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between?
Of course "he could never explain how to ignite such a WMD" the way you claim.
One ignites a fire but detonates a high explosive or nuclear weapon!
-
You'd be better off arguing nuclear physics with your dog.
Yes but my dog didn't call my me a liar, my brother a liar, my friends liars, or name a friend of mine on his website and call him a terrorist and a 9/11 conspirator because he is a reporter on ABC news in NYC.
This is precisely my point and why you would be better off arguing with your dog.
If it bothers you so much, don't read my posts.
It doesn't bother me at all, and I found a lot of your posts really interesting.
If you want to "get back" at Heiwa, then just ignore him. He does all this for attention.
-
<< Heiwa's sane old trash deleted >>
Only an ignoramuses would claim that a nuclear detonation can be initiated like this.And he could never explain how to ;D ;D ignite ;D ;D such a WMD! Compress uranium metal to double density with a neutron in between?
Of course "he could never explain how to ignite such a WMD" the way you claim.
One ignites a fire but detonates a high explosive or nuclear weapon!
You are right. But is really uranium a high explosive? It is just pure metal, IMO. How can a metal detonate? I agree that uranium can fission in a nuclear power plant but it cannot detonate there.
Only military twerps believe in nuclear detonations and you sound like one.
-
Anders,
You're retarded. Everyone knows you're retarded. When your time comes, you will be gone and your insane rantings will disappear with you. On that day, the retardation which is Heiwa and your crap website will end.
Please continue on, every day is another day closer to when you will be forgotten.
Until that day, I will continue to mess with you and show you how stupid you are.
So to summarize, Nuclear Weapons work, Gravity can bring down a building, Space Travel to the Moon has happened, and the Estonia sank after the bow visor was torn off from rough seas. Nothing you say and post on your website can prove otherwise as there is nothing to prove otherwise.
I will post to you again shortly.
You're a retarded conspiracy theorist.
-NSS
-
Of course "he could never explain how to ignite such a WMD" the way you claim.
One ignites a fire but detonates a high explosive or nuclear weapon!
You are right. But is really uranium a high explosive? It is just pure metal, IMO. How can a metal detonate? I agree that uranium can fission in a nuclear power plant but it cannot detonate there.
Please learn to read! I said "One . . . . detonates a high explosive OR nuclear weapon!"
I did not anywhere claim that "uranium is a high explosive" but when 235U or 239Pu become super-critical they certainly detonate and very rapidly for a fire-ball.
See if your poor excuse for a brain can comprehend the significance of these photos taken 1 ms after detonation.
The exposure time of these photos is 10ns:(https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_titulos/ciencia_uranium06.gif) (https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium06.htm)
10-nanosecond long images taken 1 millisecond after various nuclear explosions
(http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb8.jpg)
This image captures two common elements: the spikes (called "rope tricks") and an uneven surface shape.
At this stage of the detonation the surface of the fireball has a temperature of 20,000 degrees, three times hotter than the sun's surface. At such temperatures the amount of thermal radiation (light) given off is so enormous anything it touches is vaporized ahead of the expanding fireball. The three spikes in this image result from the guide wires supporting the tower on which the bomb was located absorbing enough heat to turn into light emitting plasma. Because thermal radiation travels faster than the fireball, the spikes extend out ahead of it.
Experiments with different support wires showed that if they were painted black to better absorb radiation they were longer. If painted with a reflective silver paint they don't appear at all.
One might expect an explosive fireball to expand in a perfect sphere. Actually, variations in the density of the bomb's surrounding case create the mottlings and and complex shapes in many of these images.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb7.jpg)
The support tower in the image above provides a convenient size scale. Most of the above images capture the fireball when it is 100 feet in diameter, typically 0.001 seconds after the control operator pressed the "fire" button.
<< See all the other pretty scary pictures in: Ultra-Fast Nuclear Detonation Pictures (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/abombs.html) >>
Those are not caused by any ordinary high explosive!
-
Of course "he could never explain how to ignite such a WMD" the way you claim.
One ignites a fire but detonates a high explosive or nuclear weapon!
You are right. But is really uranium a high explosive? It is just pure metal, IMO. How can a metal detonate? I agree that uranium can fission in a nuclear power plant but it cannot detonate there.
Please learn to read! I said "One . . . . detonates a high explosive OR nuclear weapon!"
I did not anywhere claim that "uranium is a high explosive" but when 235U or 239Pu become super-critical they certainly detonate and very rapidly for a fire-ball.
See if your poor excuse for a brain can comprehend the significance of these photos taken 1 ms after detonation.
The exposure time of these photos is 10ns:(https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_titulos/ciencia_uranium06.gif) (https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_uranium06.htm)
10-nanosecond long images taken 1 millisecond after various nuclear explosions
(http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb8.jpg)
This image captures two common elements: the spikes (called "rope tricks") and an uneven surface shape.
At this stage of the detonation the surface of the fireball has a temperature of 20,000 degrees, three times hotter than the sun's surface. At such temperatures the amount of thermal radiation (light) given off is so enormous anything it touches is vaporized ahead of the expanding fireball. The three spikes in this image result from the guide wires supporting the tower on which the bomb was located absorbing enough heat to turn into light emitting plasma. Because thermal radiation travels faster than the fireball, the spikes extend out ahead of it.
Experiments with different support wires showed that if they were painted black to better absorb radiation they were longer. If painted with a reflective silver paint they don't appear at all.
One might expect an explosive fireball to expand in a perfect sphere. Actually, variations in the density of the bomb's surrounding case create the mottlings and and complex shapes in many of these images.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/images/abomb7.jpg)
The support tower in the image above provides a convenient size scale. Most of the above images capture the fireball when it is 100 feet in diameter, typically 0.001 seconds after the control operator pressed the "fire" button.
<< See all the other pretty scary pictures in: Ultra-Fast Nuclear Detonation Pictures (http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/abombs.html) >>
Those are not caused by any ordinary high explosive!
Well, I have done military service and I know how to detonate high explosives using all sorts of equipment, incl. igniting a fuse to destroy various things incl. killing the enemy soldiers. My weapon was the sea mine that was activated when the enemy ship tried to pass it. I can show many pictures of sea mines exploding after activation.
However, I do not believe in pictures of small pieces of uranium metal suddenly - POUFF - becoming free energy + a dirty mushroom cloud full of radioactive, other material killing any person in the vicinity after some mysterious activation/ignition of the whole thing. Only twerps believe in military, explosive fission developed 1942/5 by Nobel prize winners, etc. I knew one Nobel Prize winner that was asked to build an a-bomb 1945. He agreed ... subject to everything incl. testing being peer reviewed and made public, etc. He didn't get the job. It had to be secret! National security, you know!
-
Those are not caused by any ordinary high explosive!
Well, I have done military service and I know how to detonate high explosives using all sorts of equipment, incl. igniting a fuse to destroy various things incl. killing the enemy soldiers. My weapon was the sea mine that was activated when the enemy ship tried to pass it. I can show many pictures of sea mines exploding after activation.
Totally irrelevant!
However, I do not believe in pictures of small pieces of uranium metal suddenly - POUFF - becoming free energy + a dirty mushroom cloud full of radioactive, other material killing any person in the vicinity after some mysterious activation/ignition of the whole thing.
Don't blame me for your own ignorance.
I knew one Nobel Prize winner that was asked to build an a-bomb 1945. He agreed ... subject to everything incl. testing being peer reviewed and made public, etc. He didn't get the job. It had to be secret! National security, you know!
So?
That's also irrelevant because Sweden's decision to abandon their nuclear project was more a political.
The main reasons were the talks about nuclear disarmament and the the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
But India, Pakistan, China, North Korea and possibly Israel have developed their own weapons but, of course you don't believe that either.
You refuse the believe that nuclear detonation simply because you can't understand how it can happen.
Just as you refuse to believe in either crewed space missions or planetary because you cannot understand how it could be done.
But that's irrelevant because these things were never planned and implemented by one person but in these cases originally by hundreds of thousands of people.
You are no better than the flat-earthers here that refuse to believe the reality of all space missions simple because it doesn't fit their "world view".
PS Think of a new word for "we enlightened ones"!
Your twerp :) has become such a "badge of honour ;)" that one member has taken it as his "username".
Bye bye from another proud twerp
-
Those are not caused by any ordinary high explosive!
Well, I have done military service and I know how to detonate high explosives using all sorts of equipment, incl. igniting a fuse to destroy various things incl. killing the enemy soldiers. My weapon was the sea mine that was activated when the enemy ship tried to pass it. I can show many pictures of sea mines exploding after activation.
Totally irrelevant!
However, I do not believe in pictures of small pieces of uranium metal suddenly - POUFF - becoming free energy + a dirty mushroom cloud full of radioactive, other material killing any person in the vicinity after some mysterious activation/ignition of the whole thing.
Don't blame me for your own ignorance.
I knew one Nobel Prize winner that was asked to build an a-bomb 1945. He agreed ... subject to everything incl. testing being peer reviewed and made public, etc. He didn't get the job. It had to be secret! National security, you know!
So?
That's also irrelevant because Sweden's decision to abandon their nuclear project was more a political.
The main reasons were the talks about nuclear disarmament and the the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
But India, Pakistan, China, North Korea and possibly Israel have developed their own weapons but, of course you don't believe that either.
You refuse the believe that nuclear detonation simply because you can't understand how it can happen.
Just as you refuse to believe in either crewed space missions or planetary because you cannot understand how it could be done.
But that's irrelevant because these things were never planned and implemented by one person but in these cases originally by hundreds of thousands of people.
You are no better than the flat-earthers here that refuse to believe the reality of all space missions simple because it doesn't fit their "world view".
PS Think of a new word for "we enlightened ones"!
Your twerp :) has become such a "badge of honour ;)" that one member has taken it as his "username".
Bye bye from another proud twerp
So long.
-
I knew one Nobel Prize winner that was asked to build an a-bomb 1945. He agreed ... subject to everything incl. testing being peer reviewed and made public, etc. He didn't get the job. It had to be secret! National security, you know!
Why do you want terrorists to have access to information on how to build a bomb that can destroy a large city and kill millions of people? Are you a terrorist?
-
I knew one Nobel Prize winner that was asked to build an a-bomb 1945. He agreed ... subject to everything incl. testing being peer reviewed and made public, etc. He didn't get the job. It had to be secret! National security, you know!
Why do you want terrorists to have access to information on how to build a bomb that can destroy a large city and kill millions of people? Are you a terrorist?
No. But scientists and military people developing nuclear weapons are. Luckily nuclear weapons are just propaganda so don't worry about it.
-
So long.
As they say, "Good riddance to . . . . . ".
Wish I could say, "It's been good to . . . . . . ".
Though you've always been a thorough gentleman unlike many of those residents of the land of Flatardia.
-
So long.
As they say, "Good riddance to . . . . . ".
Wish I could say, "It's been good to . . . . . . ".
Though you've always been a thorough gentleman unlike many of those residents of the land of Flatardia.
Hm, I am actually a conservative libertarian allowing all people to believe and do what they like as long as they do not hurt me. I really feel sorry for twerps loving nuclear weapons and humans in space and believing fairy tales of lost bow visors and Arabs landing planes in buildings of all sorts.
-
So long.
As they say, "Good riddance to . . . . . ".
Wish I could say, "It's been good to . . . . . . ".
Though you've always been a thorough gentleman unlike many of those residents of the land of Flatardia.
Hm, I am actually a conservative libertarian allowing all people to believe and do what they like as long as they do not hurt me. I really feel sorry for twerps loving nuclear weapons and humans in space and believing fairy tales of lost bow visors and Arabs landing planes in buildings of all sorts.
Well, that leaves me out! I'm don't "love nuclear weapons" and I don't love war, murder or terrorism but there're all, like nuclear weapons, facts of life in this modern age.
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Or assert that "Arabs" aren't willing and capable of "landing planes in buildings"? That's racism of course they are just as capable as any other nationality!
And why feel sorry for "feel sorry for" believing in "humans in space"?
Only dyed in-the-wool inhabitants of Flatardia could deny "humans in space" and interplanetary space missions for that matter - it looks like you are one after all.
Like this one - launched on an Ariane 5, I hope you note!Japan, Europe send spacecraft on 7-year journey to Mercury (http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201810200036.html)
(https://www.mcclatchy-wires.com/incoming/o3nupi/picture220356090/alternates/LANDSCAPE_1140/France_Mercury_13495.jpg)
The Ariane 5 rocket carrying BepiColombo lifts off from its launch pad at Kourou in French
Guiana for the mission to Mercury on Oct. 20. (The European Space Agency via AP)
Japanese and European space agencies said an Ariane 5 rocket successfully lifted a spacecraft carrying two probes into orbit Saturday for a joint mission to Mercury, the closest planet to the sun.
The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the European Space Agency said the unmanned BepiColombo spacecraft successfully separated and was sent into orbit from French Guiana as planned to begin a seven-year journey to Mercury.
They said the spacecraft, named after Italian scientist Giuseppe "Bepi" Colombo, was in the right orbit and has sent the first signal after the liftoff.
ESA says the 1.3 billion-euro ($1.5 billion) mission is one of the most challenging in its history. Mercury's extreme temperatures, the intense gravity pull of the sun and blistering solar radiation make for hellish conditions.
The BepiColombo spacecraft will have to follow an elliptical path that involves a fly-by of Earth, two of Venus and six of Mercury itself so it can slow down before arriving at its destination in December 2025.
When it arrives, BepiColombo will release two probes--Bepi and Mio--that will independently investigate the surface and magnetic field of Mercury. The probes are designed to cope with temperatures varying from 430 degrees Celsius on the side facing the sun, and -180 degrees Celsius in Mercury's shadow.
The ESA-developed Bepi will operate in Mercury's inner orbit, and JAXA's Mio will be in the outer orbit to gather data that would reveal the internal structure of the planet, its surface and geological evolution.
<< Read the rest in the link above. >>
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
-
123
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
No, it was not possible. The watch man S. Linde didn't hear anything. Poor guy. He was later jailed in Finland for drug smuggling. But still lucky. Others had worse luck!
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
No, it was not possible. The watch man S. Linde didn't hear anything. Poor guy. He was later jailed in Finland for drug smuggling. But still lucky. Others had worse luck!
Awwww. The watchman didn't hear anything. There it is, the absolute proof that the Estonia started taking on water and listing without making a noise. Insane theory confirmed. Oh wait, no it wasn't.
I like how you introduce a new point when your previous points fail. Loud bangs were reported by those that did survive, but I guess their accounts mean nothing, because the watchman said he didn't hear anything.
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
No, it was not possible. The watch man S. Linde didn't hear anything. Poor guy. He was later jailed in Finland for drug smuggling. But still lucky. Others had worse luck!
Awwww. The watchman didn't hear anything. There it is, the absolute proof that the Estonia started taking on water and listing without making a noise. Insane theory confirmed. Oh wait, no it wasn't.
I like how you introduce a new point when your previous points fail. Loud bangs were reported by those that did survive, but I guess their accounts mean nothing, because the watchman said he didn't hear anything.
Hm, so the watchman Silver Linde didn't notice anything behind the ramp on deck 2. He returned to the bridge deck 8 and met somebody there and discussed and then, after 10 minutres, was ordered to return down again to deck 2 and check another time. But he had forgotten the key! So he went to the information deck on deck 4 AND the ship suddenly capsized. You sound like ... a stupid liar ...
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
Well, can you prove it?
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
Well, can you prove it?
I don't have to prove it, the official report says as such. As you claim otherwise, can you prove it didn't?
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
Well, can you prove it?
I don't have to prove it, the official report says as such. As you claim otherwise, can you prove it didn't?
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt32.htm
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
Well, can you prove it?
I don't have to prove it, the official report says as such. As you claim otherwise, can you prove it didn't?
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt32.htm
I'm sorry, but I don't see anywhere on that page where you personally inspected the Estonia's bow visor and latching mechanism to ensure that they were in proper working order before its ill fated last trip.
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
Well, can you prove it?
I don't have to prove it, the official report says as such. As you claim otherwise, can you prove it didn't?
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt32.htm
I'm sorry, but I don't see anywhere on that page where you personally inspected the Estonia's bow visor and latching mechanism to ensure that they were in proper working order before its ill fated last trip.
The article is about loads acting on bow visors above waterline and forces transmitted to the ship.
Impact loads are of short duration and are heard and felt so you slow down. It is as simple as that.
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
Well, can you prove it?
I don't have to prove it, the official report says as such. As you claim otherwise, can you prove it didn't?
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt32.htm
I'm sorry, but I don't see anywhere on that page where you personally inspected the Estonia's bow visor and latching mechanism to ensure that they were in proper working order before its ill fated last trip.
The article is about loads acting on bow visors above waterline and forces transmitted to the ship.
Impact loads are of short duration and are heard and felt so you slow down. It is as simple as that.
That article assumes that the visor and locking mechanism are in good working order. How do you know that the visor and locking mechanism were in good working order one the Estonia at the time of the sinking?
-
Why would you claim that "lost bow visors" can't sink a car ferry in high seas.
Reason is that at the time I operated 10 ships with bow visors and I tested them in very severe weather and high speeds myself. I didn't lose any bow visors, because before it could happen some waves slammed hard into my bow visors sending spray all over the ships. The slams were very noisy - 120 dB - and all aboard woke up. The slams also shock the ships - they vibrated like a viola and people were thrown around. So you had to slow down. But no bow visors were lost in my full scale tests. The famous bow visor of the M/S Estonia 1994 was blown off the ship at the bottom of the sea using explosives.
So you operated a ferry in a reckless manner and dangerous conditions and claim to be an expert in sea safety.
No, I knew the bow visors were strong to withstand any wave impacts. The tests were just to record the noise and vibrations of the wave impacts. I was inside a visor at one test. Have you ever been on a ship in a severe storm? Normally you slow down.
Yes I've been in a ship during a severe storm and yes they normally reduce speed, but the Estonia didn't......hmmm. The calculated force from the speed of the ship and storm exceeded the design specifications of the bow visor.
Well, can you prove it?
I don't have to prove it, the official report says as such. As you claim otherwise, can you prove it didn't?
http://heiwaco.tripod.com/epunkt32.htm
I'm sorry, but I don't see anywhere on that page where you personally inspected the Estonia's bow visor and latching mechanism to ensure that they were in proper working order before its ill fated last trip.
The article is about loads acting on bow visors above waterline and forces transmitted to the ship.
Impact loads are of short duration and are heard and felt so you slow down. It is as simple as that.
That article assumes that the visor and locking mechanism are in good working order. How do you know that the visor and locking mechanism were in good working order one the Estonia at the time of the sinking?
If you read a little more you'll find that the visor locks were not used at all but that the visor was secured by the hydraulics (and its own weight). The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
That's right, what you write are conspiracies.
I don't care what you call yourself, and you spelled retarded wrong.
Yes you are popular among whack job conspiracy theorists.
You've never heard me speak so you can't possible know what I sound like. As well how do you know what a loser sounds like. Never mind, you listen to yourself all the time. Which still leads us back to you haven't heard me speak anything, as I've only typed responses on this forum to you.
I know what it is. You use a text to speech and you use your voice in the application. No wonder you think everyone sounds like a twerp and a loser, you are just hearing yourself.
If you aren't using text to speech, you should lay off the magic mushrooms. Of course that would explain quite a bit about your postings and website.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
That's right, what you write are conspiracies.
I don't care what you call yourself, and you spelled retarded wrong.
Yes you are popular among whack job conspiracy theorists.
You've never heard me speak so you can't possible know what I sound like. As well how do you know what a loser sounds like. Never mind, you listen to yourself all the time. Which still leads us back to you haven't heard me speak anything, as I've only typed responses on this forum to you.
I know what it is. You use a text to speech and you use your voice in the application. No wonder you think everyone sounds like a twerp and a loser, you are just hearing yourself.
If you aren't using text to speech, you should lay off the magic mushrooms. Of course that would explain quite a bit about your postings and website.
Thanks! I have never heard your voice or seen you, so I just read what you write here and I conclude you are wrong, when it concerns my findings. And I cannot understand why you get so up set about it.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
That's right, what you write are conspiracies.
I don't care what you call yourself, and you spelled retarded wrong.
Yes you are popular among whack job conspiracy theorists.
You've never heard me speak so you can't possible know what I sound like. As well how do you know what a loser sounds like. Never mind, you listen to yourself all the time. Which still leads us back to you haven't heard me speak anything, as I've only typed responses on this forum to you.
I know what it is. You use a text to speech and you use your voice in the application. No wonder you think everyone sounds like a twerp and a loser, you are just hearing yourself.
If you aren't using text to speech, you should lay off the magic mushrooms. Of course that would explain quite a bit about your postings and website.
Thanks! I have never heard your voice or seen you, so I just read what you write here and I conclude you are wrong, when it concerns my findings. And I cannot understand why you get so up set about it.
I'm far from upset, Heiwa. I enjoy calling you out for being a loon and a conspiracy theorist. Your delusions run so deep, that I know that you will never give in to reason. So you are endless entertainment. One day your stupidity will end. Even though I will lose out on the entertainment value, knowing that the delusion that is Heiwa and that your website will die with you will be enough to give me a smile on my face to replace the entertainment lost.
It's a win win for me.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
That's right, what you write are conspiracies.
I don't care what you call yourself, and you spelled retarded wrong.
Yes you are popular among whack job conspiracy theorists.
You've never heard me speak so you can't possible know what I sound like. As well how do you know what a loser sounds like. Never mind, you listen to yourself all the time. Which still leads us back to you haven't heard me speak anything, as I've only typed responses on this forum to you.
I know what it is. You use a text to speech and you use your voice in the application. No wonder you think everyone sounds like a twerp and a loser, you are just hearing yourself.
If you aren't using text to speech, you should lay off the magic mushrooms. Of course that would explain quite a bit about your postings and website.
Thanks! I have never heard your voice or seen you, so I just read what you write here and I conclude you are wrong, when it concerns my findings. And I cannot understand why you get so up set about it.
I'm far from upset, Heiwa. I enjoy calling you out for being a loon and a conspiracy theorist. Your delusions run so deep, that I know that you will never give in to reason. So you are endless entertainment. One day your stupidity will end. Even though I will lose out on the entertainment value, knowing that the delusion that is Heiwa and that your website will die with you will be enough to give me a smile on my face to replace the entertainment lost.
It's a win win for me.
You sound like a really bad loser.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
That's right, what you write are conspiracies.
I don't care what you call yourself, and you spelled retarded wrong.
Yes you are popular among whack job conspiracy theorists.
You've never heard me speak so you can't possible know what I sound like. As well how do you know what a loser sounds like. Never mind, you listen to yourself all the time. Which still leads us back to you haven't heard me speak anything, as I've only typed responses on this forum to you.
I know what it is. You use a text to speech and you use your voice in the application. No wonder you think everyone sounds like a twerp and a loser, you are just hearing yourself.
If you aren't using text to speech, you should lay off the magic mushrooms. Of course that would explain quite a bit about your postings and website.
Thanks! I have never heard your voice or seen you, so I just read what you write here and I conclude you are wrong, when it concerns my findings. And I cannot understand why you get so up set about it.
I'm far from upset, Heiwa. I enjoy calling you out for being a loon and a conspiracy theorist. Your delusions run so deep, that I know that you will never give in to reason. So you are endless entertainment. One day your stupidity will end. Even though I will lose out on the entertainment value, knowing that the delusion that is Heiwa and that your website will die with you will be enough to give me a smile on my face to replace the entertainment lost.
It's a win win for me.
You sound like a really bad loser.
Back to the sounding again. You should seriously stop listening to your own voice, then you won't think everyone sounds like a loser.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
That's right, what you write are conspiracies.
I don't care what you call yourself, and you spelled retarded wrong.
Yes you are popular among whack job conspiracy theorists.
You've never heard me speak so you can't possible know what I sound like. As well how do you know what a loser sounds like. Never mind, you listen to yourself all the time. Which still leads us back to you haven't heard me speak anything, as I've only typed responses on this forum to you.
I know what it is. You use a text to speech and you use your voice in the application. No wonder you think everyone sounds like a twerp and a loser, you are just hearing yourself.
If you aren't using text to speech, you should lay off the magic mushrooms. Of course that would explain quite a bit about your postings and website.
Thanks! I have never heard your voice or seen you, so I just read what you write here and I conclude you are wrong, when it concerns my findings. And I cannot understand why you get so up set about it.
I'm far from upset, Heiwa. I enjoy calling you out for being a loon and a conspiracy theorist. Your delusions run so deep, that I know that you will never give in to reason. So you are endless entertainment. One day your stupidity will end. Even though I will lose out on the entertainment value, knowing that the delusion that is Heiwa and that your website will die with you will be enough to give me a smile on my face to replace the entertainment lost.
It's a win win for me.
You sound like a really bad loser.
Back to the sounding again. You should seriously stop listening to your own voice, then you won't think everyone sounds like a loser.
I never listen to my own voice. Others do.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
That's right, what you write are conspiracies.
I don't care what you call yourself, and you spelled retarded wrong.
Yes you are popular among whack job conspiracy theorists.
You've never heard me speak so you can't possible know what I sound like. As well how do you know what a loser sounds like. Never mind, you listen to yourself all the time. Which still leads us back to you haven't heard me speak anything, as I've only typed responses on this forum to you.
I know what it is. You use a text to speech and you use your voice in the application. No wonder you think everyone sounds like a twerp and a loser, you are just hearing yourself.
If you aren't using text to speech, you should lay off the magic mushrooms. Of course that would explain quite a bit about your postings and website.
Thanks! I have never heard your voice or seen you, so I just read what you write here and I conclude you are wrong, when it concerns my findings. And I cannot understand why you get so up set about it.
I'm far from upset, Heiwa. I enjoy calling you out for being a loon and a conspiracy theorist. Your delusions run so deep, that I know that you will never give in to reason. So you are endless entertainment. One day your stupidity will end. Even though I will lose out on the entertainment value, knowing that the delusion that is Heiwa and that your website will die with you will be enough to give me a smile on my face to replace the entertainment lost.
It's a win win for me.
You sound like a really bad loser.
Back to the sounding again. You should seriously stop listening to your own voice, then you won't think everyone sounds like a loser.
I never listen to my own voice. Others do.
That's a lie. Everyone listens to their own voice.
-
The ramp was also not locked but secured with ropes around the top.
I see potential for failure right here. Frayed ropes are likely what set off the whole chain reaction.
I explain everything at http://heiwaco.com/ekatastrofkurs.htm . You can also download it as a pdf.
You explain nothing at your conspiracy theory website. You provide nothing but conspiracy and conjecture.
No, I actually explain how experts of all sorts lie about safety at sea, nuclear weapons and space travel at http://heiwaco.com . I also explain why. They are paid for it.
Nope, you just post nonsense and conspiracy theory. You prove nothing. You are a conspiracy theorist and not even a good one at that.
No - I just describe the conspiracies behind fake nuclear weapons, fake space trips and some accident investigations. I am a conservative libertarian and almost retired from 50+ years in business. And I am quite popular in many circles. You sound like a loser.
That's right, what you write are conspiracies.
I don't care what you call yourself, and you spelled retarded wrong.
Yes you are popular among whack job conspiracy theorists.
You've never heard me speak so you can't possible know what I sound like. As well how do you know what a loser sounds like. Never mind, you listen to yourself all the time. Which still leads us back to you haven't heard me speak anything, as I've only typed responses on this forum to you.
I know what it is. You use a text to speech and you use your voice in the application. No wonder you think everyone sounds like a twerp and a loser, you are just hearing yourself.
If you aren't using text to speech, you should lay off the magic mushrooms. Of course that would explain quite a bit about your postings and website.
Thanks! I have never heard your voice or seen you, so I just read what you write here and I conclude you are wrong, when it concerns my findings. And I cannot understand why you get so up set about it.
I'm far from upset, Heiwa. I enjoy calling you out for being a loon and a conspiracy theorist. Your delusions run so deep, that I know that you will never give in to reason. So you are endless entertainment. One day your stupidity will end. Even though I will lose out on the entertainment value, knowing that the delusion that is Heiwa and that your website will die with you will be enough to give me a smile on my face to replace the entertainment lost.
It's a win win for me.
You sound like a really bad loser.
Back to the sounding again. You should seriously stop listening to your own voice, then you won't think everyone sounds like a loser.
I never listen to my own voice. Others do.
That's a lie. Everyone listens to their own voice.
No, I only hear with my ears.
-
I never listen to my own voice. Others do.
It's kinda sad that you believe anyone outside of this site has any idea what your challenges are about. Those that do also know all about your lies.
-
I never listen to my own voice. Others do.
It's kinda sad that you believe anyone outside of this site has any idea what your challenges are about. Those that do also know all about your lies.
Microbrain - my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm since many years and 1000's of people have downloaded them? And a few have actually tried to win them. But then I explained to them why it was impossible. You never understood it for obvious reasons, sailor.
-
Microbrain! Are you still around?
-
I never listen to my own voice. Others do.
It's kinda sad that you believe anyone outside of this site has any idea what your challenges are about. Those that do also know all about your lies.
Microbrain - my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm since many years and 1000's of people have downloaded them? And a few have actually tried to win them. But then I explained to them why it was impossible. You never understood it for obvious reasons, sailor.
You have no integrity. Even if someone submitted and proved you wrong you would claim it doesn't and not pay the money. You live in delusion. I feel sorry for your family. Dealing with a mentally deficient family member can be difficult.
-
I never listen to my own voice. Others do.
It's kinda sad that you believe anyone outside of this site has any idea what your challenges are about. Those that do also know all about your lies.
Microbrain - my Challenges are at http://heiwaco.com/chall.htm since many years and 1000's of people have downloaded them? And a few have actually tried to win them. But then I explained to them why it was impossible. You never understood it for obvious reasons, sailor.
You have no integrity. Even if someone submitted and proved you wrong you would claim it doesn't and not pay the money. You live in delusion. I feel sorry for your family. Dealing with a mentally deficient family member can be difficult.
Well, IMHO you are sick.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
Why would I be envious of someone who is deluded? And speaking of bumming on a flat earth forum, have you asked your ASI what you are doing here?
-
And speaking of bumming on a flat earth forum, have you asked your ASI what you are doing here?
I dont need to ask the ASI for everything. Least of all your trivial questions
-
And speaking of bumming on a flat earth forum, have you asked your ASI what you are doing here?
I dont need to ask the ASI for everything. Least of all your trivial questions
So you don't deny you are bumming on a flat earth forum.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
Has? I live a great life with beautiful women, good food, champagne, caviar and lobster now and then and sports and a little culture at Monte Carlo and Nice. Can't complain at all.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
Has? I live a great life with beautiful women, good food, champagne, caviar and lobster now and then and sports and a little culture at Monte Carlo and Nice. Can't complain at all.
Has indeed. And you continue to do so. None of these twerps will ever hold a candle to you even in 1000 lifetimes.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
Has? I live a great life with beautiful women, good food, champagne, caviar and lobster now and then and sports and a little culture at Monte Carlo and Nice. Can't complain at all.
Has indeed. And you continue to do so. None of these twerps will ever hold a candle to you even in 1000 lifetimes.
You can "live" in any manner that you want in your mind. Doesn't make it true.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
Has? I live a great life with beautiful women, good food, champagne, caviar and lobster now and then and sports and a little culture at Monte Carlo and Nice. Can't complain at all.
Has indeed. And you continue to do so. None of these twerps will ever hold a candle to you even in 1000 lifetimes.
You can "live" in any manner that you want in your mind. Doesn't make it true.
Have you not seen the photos of Heiwas kitchen? His Nespresso? That guy lives in opulent luxury. How do you live?
-
You can "live" in any manner that you want in your mind. Doesn't make it true.
Have you not seen the photos of Heiwas kitchen? His Nespresso? That guy lives in opulent luxury. How do you live?
And that is totally irrelevant to the topic, Nuclear Power Exaggerated, or to whether his claims in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) are factual.
Have you look at opulent luxury of the lifestyles of some of the biggest crooks and especially the great white collar criminals?
-
You can "live" in any manner that you want in your mind. Doesn't make it true.
Have you not seen the photos of Heiwas kitchen? His Nespresso? That guy lives in opulent luxury. How do you live?
And that is totally irrelevant to the topic, Nuclear Power Exaggerated, or to whether his claims in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) are factual.
Have you look at opulent luxury of the lifestyles of some of the biggest crooks and especially the great white collar criminals?
Are you insinuating Heiwa is a white collar crook? You're just jealous
-
And that is totally irrelevant to the topic, Nuclear Power Exaggerated, or to whether his claims in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) are factual.
Have you look at opulent luxury of the lifestyles of some of the biggest crooks and especially the great white collar criminals?
Are you insinuating Heiwa is a white collar crook?
I neither said nor implied anything of the sort - end of story.
-
And that is totally irrelevant to the topic, Nuclear Power Exaggerated, or to whether his claims in The atomic bomb hoax 1945-2018 (http://heiwaco.com/bomb1.htm) are factual.
Have you look at opulent luxury of the lifestyles of some of the biggest crooks and especially the great white collar criminals?
Are you insinuating Heiwa is a white collar crook?
I neither said nor implied anything of the sort - end of story.
So you admit then that Heiwa is a stand up gentlemen, that nuclear bombs are fake, asstronuts never pissed on the moon, bow visors dont fall off ships, Skyscrapers do not collapse from top down and that electricity generation through nuclear fusion is a hoax
Right. Thanks. Finally, some grace from you. Maybe you are not such a twerp
-
I neither said nor implied anything of the sort - end of story.
So you admit then that Heiwa is a stand up gentlemen gentleman.
that nuclear bombs are fake, asstronuts never pissed on the moon, bow visors dont fall off ships, Skyscrapers do not collapse from top down and that electricity generation through nuclear fusion is a hoax
No, I admitted nothing of the sort Herr Twisty Trollmeister!
A "stand up gentleman" can easily be wrong.
Right. Thanks. Finally, some grace from you. Maybe you are not such a twerp
Don't you believe it! Not towards you anyway, unless you change your Modus Operandi.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
Has? I live a great life with beautiful women, good food, champagne, caviar and lobster now and then and sports and a little culture at Monte Carlo and Nice. Can't complain at all.
Has indeed. And you continue to do so. None of these twerps will ever hold a candle to you even in 1000 lifetimes.
You can "live" in any manner that you want in your mind. Doesn't make it true.
Have you not seen the photos of Heiwas kitchen? His Nespresso? That guy lives in opulent luxury. How do you live?
How do you know that is Heiwa's kitchen and Nespresso? Do you think that all mental health facilities are damp nasty stone block walls or padded cells? This isn't One Who Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.
-
So you admit then that Heiwa is a stand up gentlemen...
Nope. Anders is a stubborn old dog that refuses to learn any new tricks.
... that nuclear bombs are fake ...
Tell that to the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. ::)
... asstronuts never pissed on the moon...
Of course not. They pissed in their space suits.
... bow visors dont fall off ships ...
Not usually. But bow visors being torn off when moving too fast in rough seas might be a different story.
... Skyscrapers do not collapse from top down ...
A French demolition company proved that they can.
... and that electricity generation through nuclear fusion is a hoax
I'm sorry, but I didn't realize that anyone claimed that they have generated electricity from fusion yet. I was under the impression that it's still a future goal. That isn't the same as a hoax.
Right. Thanks. Finally, some grace from you. Maybe you are not such a twerp
Nah, just a massive straw man from you and Anders.
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
Has? I live a great life with beautiful women, good food, champagne, caviar and lobster now and then and sports and a little culture at Monte Carlo and Nice. Can't complain at all.
Has indeed. And you continue to do so. None of these twerps will ever hold a candle to you even in 1000 lifetimes.
You can "live" in any manner that you want in your mind. Doesn't make it true.
Have you not seen the photos of Heiwas kitchen? His Nespresso? That guy lives in opulent luxury. How do you live?
You consider that opulent?
Looks like a middle class household to me.
Mike
-
Well, IMHO you are sick.
Surely you're not still here dropping that average IQ of that place a good 10 points by your very presence? And that's no mean feat on a Flat Earth site.
He does claim to have a 200+ IQ...while at the same time being severely brain damaged...that he later cured himself of.
Well, you have to study http://heiwaco.com how I seduced a quite, military girl 1964 at the military testing in Sweden. First day of the tests was physical ... and I was in good shape. And I spotted this girl X watching us future heroes or KIA's in action. And X explained to me the next day IQ system. So I scored a 100% = 200 IQ the next day. Or, I just went for 150! Anyway, I got a nice post in the Swedish Navy so I could live happily ever after. Only idiots became soldiers to be shot in any front line.
You are a moron extraordinaire.
You sound envious. Heiwa has lived an actual life and you are just bumming on a flat earth forum.
Has? I live a great life with beautiful women, good food, champagne, caviar and lobster now and then and sports and a little culture at Monte Carlo and Nice. Can't complain at all.
Has indeed. And you continue to do so. None of these twerps will ever hold a candle to you even in 1000 lifetimes.
You can "live" in any manner that you want in your mind. Doesn't make it true.
Have you not seen the photos of Heiwas kitchen? His Nespresso? That guy lives in opulent luxury. How do you live?
You consider that opulent?
Looks like a middle class household to me.
Mike
Maybe you should try to win one of his challenges and you can have a cool blue kitchen too.
-
Maybe you should try to win one of his challenges and you can have a cool blue kitchen too.
Totally irrelevant to the topic, which is, "Nuclear Power Exaggerated".
-
Maybe you should try to win one of his challenges and you can have a cool blue kitchen too.
Totally irrelevant to the topic, which is, "Nuclear Power Exaggerated".
After over 4100 posts on the topic are you memberating me into saying I am not allowed to deviate a tad from the discussion? Why am I the only person your memberate? Also, this topic and Heiwas involvement in it IS related to his challenge. Suggesting someone win it is NOT so far removed from the topic I need your memberation
I see you have nothing to offer the topic except some stupid petty dismissal of my post. Shill a little harder
-
After over 4100 posts on the topic are you memberating me into saying I am not allowed to deviate a tad from the discussion? Why am I the only person your memberate? Also, this topic and Heiwas involvement in it IS related to his challenge. Suggesting someone win it is NOT so far removed from the topic I need your memberation
I did not memberate you. I simply advised you politely that the topic is: "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"
I see you have nothing to offer the topic except some stupid petty dismissal of my post.
So sorry about my dismissal of "stupid petty . . . post". But if you make stupid petty posts, what do you expect? A medal! Had you bothered to check you would have noticed that I have put plenty effort into serious posts quite on topic or at least on Heiwa's posts about the topic.
It's not my problem if you are totally ignorant on topics like this - that's your problem.
-
After over 4100 posts on the topic are you memberating me into saying I am not allowed to deviate a tad from the discussion? Why am I the only person your memberate? Also, this topic and Heiwas involvement in it IS related to his challenge. Suggesting someone win it is NOT so far removed from the topic I need your memberation
I did not memberate you. I simply advised you politely that the topic is: "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"
I see you have nothing to offer the topic except some stupid petty dismissal of my post.
So sorry about my dismissal of "stupid petty . . . post". But if you make stupid petty posts, what do you expect? A medal! Had you bothered to check you would have noticed that I have put plenty effort into serious posts quite on topic or at least on Heiwa's posts about the topic.
It's not my problem if you are totally ignorant on topics like this - that's your problem.
I never said my posts were stupid and petty. I said your memberating attacks on my posts were stupid and petty. Learn some reading comprehension
If you cant - that's your problem
-
I never said my posts were stupid and petty.
No I said that your "posts were stupid and petty".I said your memberating attacks on my posts were stupid and petty. Learn some reading comprehension
My reading comprehension is fine, It's your ignorance of the topic I was pointing out.
I know what you said and I explained that I was not memberating. I was simply informing you of the topic which you seemed to have forgotten.
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, complete morons saying some really retarded shit can be funny. But I tend to abide the supporting of another's delusions and wild conspiracies.
-
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
It's dull as fuck.
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, complete morons saying some really retarded shit can be funny. But I tend to abide the supporting of another's delusions and wild conspiracies.
Well, POTUS Donald T met Kim at a Singapore summit last summer and made a deal - to save USA from nuclear destruction - but nobody seems to appreciate it. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Do you know of any other reactions that only work when moderated?
An example would be pouring water on a camp fire to get it started. This obviously doesn’t work.
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
Hm, any idiot should know the photo is fake. But you markjo thinks the photo is real. So IMHO you are not very clever.
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
Hm, any idiot should know the photo is fake. But you markjo thinks the photo is real. So IMHO you are not very clever.
Only an idiot would claim a photo is fake without any proof. You don't have a leg to stand on and put people down for no reason.
-
In fairness, it could be a 'real' photo, but a few seconds after the shot was taken, the empty rocket burnt out and crashed back to the ground. It's not implausible the North Koreans would fake a launch to take a picture for propaganda. They have been caught out making fake buildings to make their country look more impressive to outsiders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_Village_(North_Korea)
Only a twerp reads North Korean propaganda and takes it seriously
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
Hm, any idiot should know the photo is fake. But you markjo thinks the photo is real. So IMHO you are not very clever.
I think that the photo is real because I'm not an idiot. You, on the other hand, admit that you're an idiot because you know that the photo is fake. It seems that you're the one who isn't so clever. :P
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
Hm, any idiot should know the photo is fake. But you markjo thinks the photo is real. So IMHO you are not very clever.
I think that the photo is real because I'm not an idiot. You, on the other hand, admit that you're an idiot because you know that the photo is fake. It seems that you're the one who isn't so clever. :P
What is it about that photo that has you conclude beyond doubt there is a nuclear bomb on that rocket?
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
Hm, any idiot should know the photo is fake. But you markjo thinks the photo is real. So IMHO you are not very clever.
I think that the photo is real because I'm not an idiot. You, on the other hand, admit that you're an idiot because you know that the photo is fake. It seems that you're the one who isn't so clever. :P
What is it about that photo that has you conclude beyond doubt there is a nuclear bomb on that rocket?
Who said there was a nuclear bomb on the rocket? Even North Korea didn't claim that.
-
What is it about that photo that has you conclude beyond doubt there is a nuclear bomb on that rocket?
Who said there was a nuclear bomb on the rocket? Even North Korea didn't claim that.
Maybe it was the
opinion of the smartest person in the infinite universe in the opinion of the smartest person in the infinite universe.
that said "said there was a nuclear bomb on the rocket".
But he knows what you intended to write even though you forgot to write it because the Asinine Shifter's Imagination (his ASI) told him so.
Now I'm totally confused. Shifter only posts here to be a "A source of innocent merriment, Of innocent merriment!"
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
Hm, any idiot should know the photo is fake. But you markjo thinks the photo is real. So IMHO you are not very clever.
I think that the photo is real because I'm not an idiot. You, on the other hand, admit that you're an idiot because you know that the photo is fake. It seems that you're the one who isn't so clever. :P
What is it about that photo that has you conclude beyond doubt there is a nuclear bomb on that rocket?
Who said there was a nuclear bomb on the rocket? Even North Korea didn't claim that.
Hm, as I recall, emperor Kim III suggested he was testing and watching his ICBMs being launched like that. POTUS D Trump got nervous and a deal was made and the WORLD WAS SAVED. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
-
Hm, as I recall, emperor Kim III suggested he was testing and watching his ICBMs being launched like that. POTUS D Trump got nervous and a deal was made and the WORLD WAS SAVED. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
As I recall, your retarded.
-
Hm, as I recall, emperor Kim III suggested he was testing and watching his ICBMs being launched like that. POTUS D Trump got nervous and a deal was made and the WORLD WAS SAVED. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
As I recall, your retarded.
? Me? I am in good shape. Just had a good dinner. Caviar + champagne! Lobster + vodka! Cheese + Petrus 16. And a coffee, ++++
-
Hm, as I recall, emperor Kim III suggested he was testing and watching his ICBMs being launched like that. POTUS D Trump got nervous and a deal was made and the WORLD WAS SAVED. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
As I recall, your retarded.
? Me? I am in good shape. Just had a good dinner. Caviar + champagne! Lobster + vodka! Cheese + Petrus 16. And a coffee, ++++
It's ok Heiwa. You don't have to lie anymore. We all know you live in a mental ward.
-
Hm, as I recall, emperor Kim III suggested he was testing and watching his ICBMs being launched like that. POTUS D Trump got nervous and a deal was made and the WORLD WAS SAVED. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
As I recall, your retarded.
? Me? I am in good shape. Just had a good dinner. Caviar + champagne! Lobster + vodka! Cheese + Petrus 16. And a coffee, ++++
It's ok Heiwa. You don't have to lie anymore. We all know you live in a mental ward.
? I have a game of tennis tomorrow at 10.30 o'clock and I live in a top floor pent house with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. Are you certain you are mentally fit?
-
Hm, as I recall, emperor Kim III suggested he was testing and watching his ICBMs being launched like that. POTUS D Trump got nervous and a deal was made and the WORLD WAS SAVED. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
As I recall, your retarded.
? Me? I am in good shape. Just had a good dinner. Caviar + champagne! Lobster + vodka! Cheese + Petrus 16. And a coffee, ++++
It's ok Heiwa. You don't have to lie anymore. We all know you live in a mental ward.
? I have a game of tennis tomorrow at 10.30 o'clock and I live in a top floor pent house with a view of the Mediterranean Sea. Are you certain you are mentally fit?
Well that's nice. They let you play tennis. Of course you live on the top floor. They don't let mental patients on the lower floors, it would easy for them to escape.
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
Hm, any idiot should know the photo is fake. But you markjo thinks the photo is real. So IMHO you are not very clever.
I think that the photo is real because I'm not an idiot. You, on the other hand, admit that you're an idiot because you know that the photo is fake. It seems that you're the one who isn't so clever. :P
What is it about that photo that has you conclude beyond doubt there is a nuclear bomb on that rocket?
Who said there was a nuclear bomb on the rocket? Even North Korea didn't claim that.
Hm, as I recall, emperor Kim III suggested he was testing and watching his ICBMs being launched like that. POTUS D Trump got nervous and a deal was made and the WORLD WAS SAVED. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Testing of the ICBM does not involve loading a nuclear bomb on the rocket. And the question wasn't directed toward you (not that you answered the question anyway). Please learn how to read quotes.
-
Now, what about some information from you on the topic "Nuclear Power Exaggerated"?
I couldn't articulate it better than it's already out at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
There is nothing there but the sounds of gagging. Why don't you summarize it for us so we don't draw incorrect conclusions.
(http://heiwaco.com/NK.gif)
The picture is published everywhere. It shows the back of a fat idiot - Kim III - with funny ears/suit sitting in a chair looking away on something? In the background some fireworks take off. Don't ask me what the 'table lamp/microphone' left is for. This clown is supposed to be the new Asian Saddam Hussein prepared to wipe out the world. Only MSM twerps believe the nonsense and copy/paste it.
Tell me his description isn't funny as hell lol
Yes, and it's also a perfect example of why his site should not be taken seriously.
Hm, any idiot should know the photo is fake. But you markjo thinks the photo is real. So IMHO you are not very clever.
I think that the photo is real because I'm not an idiot. You, on the other hand, admit that you're an idiot because you know that the photo is fake. It seems that you're the one who isn't so clever. :P
What is it about that photo that has you conclude beyond doubt there is a nuclear bomb on that rocket?
Who said there was a nuclear bomb on the rocket? Even North Korea didn't claim that.
Hm, as I recall, emperor Kim III suggested he was testing and watching his ICBMs being launched like that. POTUS D Trump got nervous and a deal was made and the WORLD WAS SAVED. http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
Testing of the ICBM does not involve loading a nuclear bomb on the rocket. And the question wasn't directed toward you (not that you answered the question anyway). Please learn how to read quotes.
(http://heiwaco.com/nknovtest.gif)
28 November 2017 North Korea launched an ICBM 4 475 kilometers (!) up in the sky, which then, after 53 minutes mostly flying in vacuum space including a re-entry through the atmosphere, crashed 950 kilometers north in Korea proper or in the Japan Sea ... in the middle of the night ...we were told! US Secretary of Defense James Mattis no less witnessed the show himself. But it never happened! It was fake news! To start at sea level with 0 speed and gravity 9.8 m/s² and reach 4.475 km altitude, where gravity is reduced to only 3.4 m/s², requires a big force to be applied during a certain time to first accelerate and then catapult the ICBM to 4 475 km altitude, where the vertical speed again becomes 0. It requires plenty fuel. No NK rocket can do it! Then the ICBM without fuel dropped down to ground again by itself due to gravity, while the speed increased. Just dropping something from 4 475 km altitude in a variable gravity field ignoring air friction takes time ... say 20 minutes ... and then the impact speed may be 7 600 m/s, but you cannot ignore friction. The friction not only slows down the ICBM, it also heats it up ... so it burns up at say 80 km altitude like a meteorite. It is one reason why all ICBMs are propaganda since more than 50 years.
It was just the latest US standard propaganda and fake news show. No one saw any ICBM being launched or crashing anywhere.
Media just published everything without checking the basics, as usual. ICBMs just melt at re-entry and are useless! Imagine - 4 475 kilometers up in the sky!
-
I spent Christmas and New Year eating and drinking in Japan and also got the opportunity to update http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD about the Fukushima nuclear incident. It seems that the RPVs of the Fukushima nuclear power plants never fractured or burst March 2011 and that any nuclear radiation was through various, leaking valves of all sorts. It was a big mistake to evacuate 150 000 persons for safety and security reasons of which 45 000 still cannot go home. The decommissioning of the whole plant today also appears to be a mistake ending in a fiasco. Of course you cannot discuss this openly in Japan. You will probably be immediately arrested and jailed, if you try. Japanese TV is most singing and dancing anyway and most restaurants are always full of drunken guests.
-
So valves can leak fuel rods? sweet
-
But it never happened! It was fake news! To start at sea level with 0 speed and gravity 9.8 m/s² and reach 4.475 km altitude, where gravity is reduced to only 3.4 m/s², requires a big force to be applied during a certain time to first accelerate and then catapult the ICBM to 4 475 km altitude, where the vertical speed again becomes 0. It requires plenty fuel. No NK rocket can do it!
And why can't any "NK rocket can do it"? Your Arianespace can, SpaceX can so why is there a problem? It does not need orbital speed.
Then the ICBM without fuel dropped down to ground again by itself due to gravity, while the speed increased. Just dropping something from 4 475 km altitude in a variable gravity field ignoring air friction takes time ... say 20 minutes ... and then the impact speed may be 7 600 m/s, but you cannot ignore friction. The friction not only slows down the ICBM, it also heats it up ... so it burns up at say 80 km altitude like a meteorite. It is one reason why all ICBMs are propaganda since more than 50 years.
Rubbish, no ICBM aiming for maximum range would reach 4475 km altitude. Maybe 1600 km.
ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though there not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
It was just the latest US standard propaganda and fake news show. No one saw any ICBM being launched or crashing anywhere.
Media just published everything without checking the basics, as usual. ICBMs just melt at re-entry and are useless! Imagine - 4 475 kilometers up in the sky!
More garbage. You might "Imagine - 4 475 kilometers up in the sky" but that was only for a near vertical test firing of the NK missile.
No practical ICBM would do the when fired at a target!
Why would they melt if they are using effective heat shields that dissipate most of the kinetic energy in the atmosphere?
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's a fake - it just means that you're either too lazy or too ignorant to understand it.
-
So valves can leak fuel rods? sweet
No, only the water. I explain it at my web page.
-
But it never happened! It was fake news! To start at sea level with 0 speed and gravity 9.8 m/s² and reach 4.475 km altitude, where gravity is reduced to only 3.4 m/s², requires a big force to be applied during a certain time to first accelerate and then catapult the ICBM to 4 475 km altitude, where the vertical speed again becomes 0. It requires plenty fuel. No NK rocket can do it!
And why can't any "NK rocket can do it"? Your Arianespace can, SpaceX can so why is there a problem? It does not need orbital speed.
Then the ICBM without fuel dropped down to ground again by itself due to gravity, while the speed increased. Just dropping something from 4 475 km altitude in a variable gravity field ignoring air friction takes time ... say 20 minutes ... and then the impact speed may be 7 600 m/s, but you cannot ignore friction. The friction not only slows down the ICBM, it also heats it up ... so it burns up at say 80 km altitude like a meteorite. It is one reason why all ICBMs are propaganda since more than 50 years.
Rubbish, no ICBM aiming for maximum range would reach 4475 km altitude. Maybe 1600 km.
ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though there not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
It was just the latest US standard propaganda and fake news show. No one saw any ICBM being launched or crashing anywhere.
Media just published everything without checking the basics, as usual. ICBMs just melt at re-entry and are useless! Imagine - 4 475 kilometers up in the sky!
More garbage. You might "Imagine - 4 475 kilometers up in the sky" but that was only for a near vertical test firing of the NK missile.
No practical ICBM would do the when fired at a target!
Why would they melt if they are using effective heat shields that dissipate most of the kinetic energy in the atmosphere?
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean it's a fake - it just means that you're either too lazy or too ignorant to understand it.
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
-
What research did you do while in Japan?
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
Well why can't you answer your own question, "But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted?" Look at the photo again! ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
- The "ICBM navigation system" and control system for the whole ICBM (here a Titan II) is in the "shiny bit" below the "big black thing".
- And the heat shield is shaped differently from those used on the Apollo or Orion re-entry vehicles
because "they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much" because the impact velocity of an ICBM might be 7.6 km/sec. Duh!
Compare that heat shield with that on the Orion:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8fe7c6acd1a01b50e721b0dceae2408)
Artist's depiction of Orion atmospheric re-entry.
If you website is so wonderful why didn't you look in there to learn this trivial bit of info?
-
What research did you do while in Japan?
From his description, it seems to have been mainly Geisha girls plus a few more disreputable ones.
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
Well why can't you answer your own question, "But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted?" Look at the photo again! ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
- The "ICBM navigation system" and control system for the whole ICBM (here a Titan II) is in the "shiny bit" below the "big black thing".
- And the heat shield is shaped differently from those used on the Apollo or Orion re-entry vehicles
because "they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much" because the impact velocity of an ICBM might be 7.6 km/sec. Duh!
Compare that heat shield with that on the Orion:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8fe7c6acd1a01b50e721b0dceae2408)
Artist's depiction of Orion atmospheric re-entry.
If you website is so wonderful why didn't you look in there to learn this trivial bit of info?
Well, I explain why ICBMs do not work at all at my very popular website (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ), but I will repeat it again. An ICBM is sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again, i.e. re-entering the atmosphere going faster and faster due to gravity through the atmosphere getting denser and denser. The ICBM heats up due to friction and melts and becomes gas = burns up and is destroyed like a meteorite. It is the same effect that prevents human space travel (http://heiwaco.com/moontravel.htm ). Humans in space cannot land on Earth again so professor Buzz Aldrin, today an alcholic wreck, invented the heat shield in the 1960's to make it possible. But heat shields are just Fake News!
Why don't you make your own website?
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
Well why can't you answer your own question, "But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted?" Look at the photo again! ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
- The "ICBM navigation system" and control system for the whole ICBM (here a Titan II) is in the "shiny bit" below the "big black thing".
- And the heat shield is shaped differently from those used on the Apollo or Orion re-entry vehicles
because "they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much" because the impact velocity of an ICBM might be 7.6 km/sec. Duh!
Compare that heat shield with that on the Orion:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8fe7c6acd1a01b50e721b0dceae2408)
Artist's depiction of Orion atmospheric re-entry.
If you website is so wonderful why didn't you look in there to learn this trivial bit of info?
Well, I explain why ICBMs do not work at all at my very popular website (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ), but I will repeat it again. An ICBM is sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again.
You do not "explain why ICBMs do not work" at your "very popular website". All you do is go into great detail about how you can't understand it.
No, when an ICBM is aimed at a target on earth it is not "sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again".
What were you smoking when you dreamt that up? Repeated garbage is still garbage.
I don't needed any website. The information is all there.
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
Well why can't you answer your own question, "But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted?" Look at the photo again! ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
- The "ICBM navigation system" and control system for the whole ICBM (here a Titan II) is in the "shiny bit" below the "big black thing".
- And the heat shield is shaped differently from those used on the Apollo or Orion re-entry vehicles
because "they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much" because the impact velocity of an ICBM might be 7.6 km/sec. Duh!
Compare that heat shield with that on the Orion:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8fe7c6acd1a01b50e721b0dceae2408)
Artist's depiction of Orion atmospheric re-entry.
If you website is so wonderful why didn't you look in there to learn this trivial bit of info?
Well, I explain why ICBMs do not work at all at my very popular website (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ), but I will repeat it again. An ICBM is sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again.
You do not "explain why ICBMs do not work" at your "very popular website". All you do is go into great detail about how you can't understand it.
No, when an ICBM is aimed at a target on earth it is not "sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again".
What were you smoking when you dreamt that up? Repeated garbage is still garbage.
I don't needed any website. The information is all there.
sigh - standard US soft, rotten dog shit. When will you wake up?
-
sigh - standard US soft, rotten dog shit. When will you wake up?
I'm quite awake thank you kiddo, but I hope not to be very shortly. But you post no evidence, hence proving that your just a big bag of hot air!
You don't have the brains to understand an ICBM or how even how an ablative heat shield works so you're all bluster and no substance!
Night, night!
-
my very popular website
lol
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
Well why can't you answer your own question, "But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted?" Look at the photo again! ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
- The "ICBM navigation system" and control system for the whole ICBM (here a Titan II) is in the "shiny bit" below the "big black thing".
- And the heat shield is shaped differently from those used on the Apollo or Orion re-entry vehicles
because "they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much" because the impact velocity of an ICBM might be 7.6 km/sec. Duh!
Compare that heat shield with that on the Orion:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8fe7c6acd1a01b50e721b0dceae2408)
Artist's depiction of Orion atmospheric re-entry.
If you website is so wonderful why didn't you look in there to learn this trivial bit of info?
Well, I explain why ICBMs do not work at all at my very popular website (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ), but I will repeat it again. An ICBM is sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again.
You do not "explain why ICBMs do not work" at your "very popular website". All you do is go into great detail about how you can't understand it.
No, when an ICBM is aimed at a target on earth it is not "sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again".
What were you smoking when you dreamt that up? Repeated garbage is still garbage.
I don't needed any website. The information is all there.
sigh - standard US soft, rotten dog shit. When will you wake up?
When will you realize you can't prove a single thing on your lame website?
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
Well why can't you answer your own question, "But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted?" Look at the photo again! ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
- The "ICBM navigation system" and control system for the whole ICBM (here a Titan II) is in the "shiny bit" below the "big black thing".
- And the heat shield is shaped differently from those used on the Apollo or Orion re-entry vehicles
because "they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much" because the impact velocity of an ICBM might be 7.6 km/sec. Duh!
Compare that heat shield with that on the Orion:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8fe7c6acd1a01b50e721b0dceae2408)
Artist's depiction of Orion atmospheric re-entry.
If you website is so wonderful why didn't you look in there to learn this trivial bit of info?
Well, I explain why ICBMs do not work at all at my very popular website (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ), but I will repeat it again. An ICBM is sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again.
You do not "explain why ICBMs do not work" at your "very popular website". All you do is go into great detail about how you can't understand it.
No, when an ICBM is aimed at a target on earth it is not "sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again".
What were you smoking when you dreamt that up? Repeated garbage is still garbage.
I don't needed any website. The information is all there.
sigh - standard US soft, rotten dog shit. When will you wake up?
When will you realize you can't prove a single thing on your lame website?
Thanks for asking. I update regularly, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm#MU that maybe explains my understanding of the situation.
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
Well why can't you answer your own question, "But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted?" Look at the photo again! ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
- The "ICBM navigation system" and control system for the whole ICBM (here a Titan II) is in the "shiny bit" below the "big black thing".
- And the heat shield is shaped differently from those used on the Apollo or Orion re-entry vehicles
because "they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much" because the impact velocity of an ICBM might be 7.6 km/sec. Duh!
Compare that heat shield with that on the Orion:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8fe7c6acd1a01b50e721b0dceae2408)
Artist's depiction of Orion atmospheric re-entry.
If you website is so wonderful why didn't you look in there to learn this trivial bit of info?
Well, I explain why ICBMs do not work at all at my very popular website (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ), but I will repeat it again. An ICBM is sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again.
You do not "explain why ICBMs do not work" at your "very popular website". All you do is go into great detail about how you can't understand it.
No, when an ICBM is aimed at a target on earth it is not "sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again".
What were you smoking when you dreamt that up? Repeated garbage is still garbage.
I don't needed any website. The information is all there.
sigh - standard US soft, rotten dog shit. When will you wake up?
When will you realize you can't prove a single thing on your lame website?
Thanks for asking. I update regularly, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm#MU that maybe explains my understanding of the situation.
And I also ask, "When will you realize you can't prove a single thing on your lame website?"
-
Hm, heat shield to prevent melting of the ICBM at reentry. But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted.
Go do your own research!
I do since 20+ years. http://heiwaco.com . Very popular. Do you have a web site?
Well why can't you answer your own question, "But what about the ICBM navigation system? Where is it fitted?" Look at the photo again! ICBMs have heat shields on the payload just like re-entering spacecraft though they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much.
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e7c0d2259d0042f6884ddb29576f8a19)
Heat shield on Titan II ICBM.
- The "ICBM navigation system" and control system for the whole ICBM (here a Titan II) is in the "shiny bit" below the "big black thing".
- And the heat shield is shaped differently from those used on the Apollo or Orion re-entry vehicles
because "they're not aiming to slow the vehicle as much" because the impact velocity of an ICBM might be 7.6 km/sec. Duh!
Compare that heat shield with that on the Orion:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d8fe7c6acd1a01b50e721b0dceae2408)
Artist's depiction of Orion atmospheric re-entry.
If you website is so wonderful why didn't you look in there to learn this trivial bit of info?
Well, I explain why ICBMs do not work at all at my very popular website (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm ), but I will repeat it again. An ICBM is sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again.
You do not "explain why ICBMs do not work" at your "very popular website". All you do is go into great detail about how you can't understand it.
No, when an ICBM is aimed at a target on earth it is not "sent up into space at say 5000 km altitude from where it starts to drop down on the rotating Earth again".
What were you smoking when you dreamt that up? Repeated garbage is still garbage.
I don't needed any website. The information is all there.
sigh - standard US soft, rotten dog shit. When will you wake up?
When will you realize you can't prove a single thing on your lame website?
Thanks for asking. I update regularly, e.g. http://heiwaco.com/moontravelb.htm#MU that maybe explains my understanding of the situation.
And I also ask, "When will you realize you can't prove a single thing on your lame website?"
Thanks for asking. I explain everything at my website + evidence, e.g. the situation at Fukushima - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD where >46 000 Japanese are prevented from returning due to propaganda about radiation, etc.
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
-
Thanks for asking. I explain everything at my website + evidence, e.g. the situation at Fukushima - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD where >46 000 Japanese are prevented from returning due to propaganda about radiation, etc.
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
You have absolutely no proof that the radiations levels aren’t as high as officials claim. You’re just making shit up and drawing conclusions on that made up shit.
Show me some proof that the radiation levels are lower than claimed.
Mike
-
Thanks for asking. I explain everything at my website + evidence, e.g. the situation at Fukushima - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD where >46 000 Japanese are prevented from returning due to propaganda about radiation, etc.
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
You have absolutely no proof that the radiations levels aren’t as high as officials claim. You’re just making shit up and drawing conclusions on that made up shit.
Show me some proof that the radiation levels are lower than claimed.
Mike
Mikrobrain, pls study what I write. I use the official radiation data ... and that radiation is harmless according to experts I name. There are other places on Earth with much higher background radiation levels. People and cattle have been living inside the Fukushima evacuation zone for 8 years (they refused to evacuate) and they are in good shape. Wild life and nature is OK. Nobody has died. The guards trying to stop people from entering are pretty useless anyway but ... the criminal authorities rely on media and other people - experts (LOL) - not to stir up any shit. Reason? You have to keep Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiation fears alive. Quite sad actually. Poor Japanese living in a world of lies. Like you, micro, that loves the US nuclear weapons of mass destruction. You have to be brainless for it.
-
Thanks for asking. I explain everything at my website + evidence, e.g. the situation at Fukushima - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD where >46 000 Japanese are prevented from returning due to propaganda about radiation, etc.
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
You have absolutely no proof that the radiations levels aren’t as high as officials claim. You’re just making shit up and drawing conclusions on that made up shit.
Show me some proof that the radiation levels are lower than claimed.
Mike
Mikrobrain, pls study what I write. I use the official radiation data ... and that radiation is harmless according to experts I name. There are other places on Earth with much higher background radiation levels. People and cattle have been living inside the Fukushima evacuation zone for 8 years (they refused to evacuate) and they are in good shape. Wild life and nature is OK. Nobody has died. The guards trying to stop people from entering are pretty useless anyway but ... the criminal authorities rely on media and other people - experts (LOL) - not to stir up any shit. Reason? You have to keep Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiation fears alive. Quite sad actually. Poor Japanese living in a world of lies. Like you, micro, that loves the US nuclear weapons of mass destruction. You have to be brainless for it.
The radiation levels in the plants are so high the robotic drones had to be redesigned because the radiation caused too much damage and they become non-functional and you want us to believe that those levels are harmless.
I have studied your site and your claims that radiation levels as high as at Fukushima are harmless are not supported by a single source on your website. None of them say anything of the sort.
Please show us the sources that do discuss radiation with their claims that radiation levels as high as they are at Fukushima are harmless to humans. I defy you to find a single source that makes such claims.
The evacuation order was lifted years ago so your comment is misleading. However, there is NOBODY living in the exclusion area and the exclusion zone size may be increasing. If that happens evacuation is mandatory, not voluntary.
Mike
-
Thanks for asking. I explain everything at my website + evidence, e.g. the situation at Fukushima - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD where >46 000 Japanese are prevented from returning due to propaganda about radiation, etc.
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
You have absolutely no proof that the radiations levels aren’t as high as officials claim. You’re just making shit up and drawing conclusions on that made up shit.
Show me some proof that the radiation levels are lower than claimed.
Mike
Mikrobrain, pls study what I write. I use the official radiation data ... and that radiation is harmless according to experts I name. There are other places on Earth with much higher background radiation levels. People and cattle have been living inside the Fukushima evacuation zone for 8 years (they refused to evacuate) and they are in good shape. Wild life and nature is OK. Nobody has died. The guards trying to stop people from entering are pretty useless anyway but ... the criminal authorities rely on media and other people - experts (LOL) - not to stir up any shit. Reason? You have to keep Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiation fears alive. Quite sad actually. Poor Japanese living in a world of lies. Like you, micro, that loves the US nuclear weapons of mass destruction. You have to be brainless for it.
The radiation levels in the plants are so high the robotic drones had to be redesigned because the radiation caused too much damage and they become non-functional and you want us to believe that those levels are harmless.
I have studied your site and your claims that radiation levels as high as at Fukushima are harmless are not supported by a single source on your website. None of them say anything of the sort.
Please show us the sources that do discuss radiation with their claims that radiation levels as high as they are at Fukushima are harmless to humans. I defy you to find a single source that makes such claims.
The evacuation order was lifted years ago so your comment is misleading. However, there is NOBODY living in the exclusion area and the exclusion zone size may be increasing. If that happens evacuation is mandatory, not voluntary.
Mike
?? Plenty Japanese cannot return to their homes outside the plant, while plenty Japanese work inside the nuclear power plant with decommissioning protected only by face masks (LOL). Pls study what I write at my webpage. Of course the radiation levels everywhere are harmless. The six steel Reactor Pressure Vessels, RPV, of the Fukushima nuclear power plant are intact and full of water that is not radioactive. Everything is under control, but it cannot be said. Any radioactive leaks 2011 were via safety valves and/or leaking water valves for filling/emptying the RPVs and it didn't kill anyone then or later. IMHO it would have been very easy to repair internal damages and restart all six Fukushima RPVs years ago.
-
Thanks for asking. I explain everything at my website + evidence, e.g. the situation at Fukushima - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD where >46 000 Japanese are prevented from returning due to propaganda about radiation, etc.
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
You have absolutely no proof that the radiations levels aren’t as high as officials claim. You’re just making shit up and drawing conclusions on that made up shit.
Show me some proof that the radiation levels are lower than claimed.
Mike
Mikrobrain, pls study what I write. I use the official radiation data ... and that radiation is harmless according to experts I name. There are other places on Earth with much higher background radiation levels. People and cattle have been living inside the Fukushima evacuation zone for 8 years (they refused to evacuate) and they are in good shape. Wild life and nature is OK. Nobody has died. The guards trying to stop people from entering are pretty useless anyway but ... the criminal authorities rely on media and other people - experts (LOL) - not to stir up any shit. Reason? You have to keep Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiation fears alive. Quite sad actually. Poor Japanese living in a world of lies. Like you, micro, that loves the US nuclear weapons of mass destruction. You have to be brainless for it.
The radiation levels in the plants are so high the robotic drones had to be redesigned because the radiation caused too much damage and they become non-functional and you want us to believe that those levels are harmless.
I have studied your site and your claims that radiation levels as high as at Fukushima are harmless are not supported by a single source on your website. None of them say anything of the sort.
Please show us the sources that do discuss radiation with their claims that radiation levels as high as they are at Fukushima are harmless to humans. I defy you to find a single source that makes such claims.
The evacuation order was lifted years ago so your comment is misleading. However, there is NOBODY living in the exclusion area and the exclusion zone size may be increasing. If that happens evacuation is mandatory, not voluntary.
Mike
?? Plenty Japanese cannot return to their homes outside the plant, while plenty Japanese work inside the nuclear power plant with decommissioning protected only by face masks (LOL). Pls study what I write at my webpage. Of course the radiation levels everywhere are harmless. The six steel Reactor Pressure Vessels, RPV, of the Fukushima nuclear power plant are intact and full of water that is not radioactive. Everything is under control, but it cannot be said. Any radioactive leaks 2011 were via safety valves and/or leaking water valves for filling/emptying the RPVs and it didn't kill anyone then or later. IMHO it would have been very easy to repair internal damages and restart all six Fukushima RPVs years ago.
"Everything is under control"? Prove it. Your website contains zero proof that the plants are intact and they're lying.
Mike
-
Thanks for asking. I explain everything at my website + evidence, e.g. the situation at Fukushima - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD where >46 000 Japanese are prevented from returning due to propaganda about radiation, etc.
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
You have absolutely no proof that the radiations levels aren’t as high as officials claim. You’re just making shit up and drawing conclusions on that made up shit.
Show me some proof that the radiation levels are lower than claimed.
Mike
Mikrobrain, pls study what I write. I use the official radiation data ... and that radiation is harmless according to experts I name. There are other places on Earth with much higher background radiation levels. People and cattle have been living inside the Fukushima evacuation zone for 8 years (they refused to evacuate) and they are in good shape. Wild life and nature is OK. Nobody has died. The guards trying to stop people from entering are pretty useless anyway but ... the criminal authorities rely on media and other people - experts (LOL) - not to stir up any shit. Reason? You have to keep Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiation fears alive. Quite sad actually. Poor Japanese living in a world of lies. Like you, micro, that loves the US nuclear weapons of mass destruction. You have to be brainless for it.
The radiation levels in the plants are so high the robotic drones had to be redesigned because the radiation caused too much damage and they become non-functional and you want us to believe that those levels are harmless.
I have studied your site and your claims that radiation levels as high as at Fukushima are harmless are not supported by a single source on your website. None of them say anything of the sort.
Please show us the sources that do discuss radiation with their claims that radiation levels as high as they are at Fukushima are harmless to humans. I defy you to find a single source that makes such claims.
The evacuation order was lifted years ago so your comment is misleading. However, there is NOBODY living in the exclusion area and the exclusion zone size may be increasing. If that happens evacuation is mandatory, not voluntary.
Mike
?? Plenty Japanese cannot return to their homes outside the plant, while plenty Japanese work inside the nuclear power plant with decommissioning protected only by face masks (LOL). Pls study what I write at my webpage. Of course the radiation levels everywhere are harmless. The six steel Reactor Pressure Vessels, RPV, of the Fukushima nuclear power plant are intact and full of water that is not radioactive. Everything is under control, but it cannot be said. Any radioactive leaks 2011 were via safety valves and/or leaking water valves for filling/emptying the RPVs and it didn't kill anyone then or later. IMHO it would have been very easy to repair internal damages and restart all six Fukushima RPVs years ago.
"Everything is under control"? Prove it. Your website contains zero proof that the plants are intact and they're lying.
Mike
?? Have you read my latest up-date about Fukushima? Of course the RPVs are intact and full of water that is not very radioactive. So pls click on http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm#RAD , read it and then copy/paste what you disagree with.
-
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
What do those "corrupt authorities" have to gain by forcing those Japanese to leave their homes and jobs? ???
-
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
What do those "corrupt authorities" have to gain by forcing those Japanese to leave their homes and jobs? ???
Thanks for asking. Reasons are (1) to keep the Japanese scared dog shit for anything radiating nuclear things and (2) keep the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945 Fake News about atomic bombs alive in people's minds. The "corrupt authorities" are of course the US and Japan governments. Lying to you own people is not good. I just updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm about it.
-
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
What do those "corrupt authorities" have to gain by forcing those Japanese to leave their homes and jobs? ???
Thanks for asking. Reasons are (1) to keep the Japanese scared dog shit for anything radiating nuclear things and (2) keep the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945 Fake News about atomic bombs alive in people's minds. The "corrupt authorities" are of course the US and Japan governments. Lying to you own people is not good. I just updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm about it.
Why would they want people to be afraid of peaceful nuclear energy?
-
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
What do those "corrupt authorities" have to gain by forcing those Japanese to leave their homes and jobs? ???
Thanks for asking. Reasons are (1) to keep the Japanese scared dog shit for anything radiating nuclear things and (2) keep the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945 Fake News about atomic bombs alive in people's minds. The "corrupt authorities" are of course the US and Japan governments. Lying to you own people is not good. I just updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm about it.
Why would they want people to be afraid of peaceful nuclear energy?
Thanks for asking. Only dog shit like you ask such questions.
-
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
What do those "corrupt authorities" have to gain by forcing those Japanese to leave their homes and jobs? ???
Thanks for asking. Reasons are (1) to keep the Japanese scared dog shit for anything radiating nuclear things and (2) keep the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945 Fake News about atomic bombs alive in people's minds. The "corrupt authorities" are of course the US and Japan governments. Lying to you own people is not good. I just updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm about it.
Why would they want people to be afraid of peaceful nuclear energy?
Thanks for asking. Only dog shit like you ask such questions.
Why are you so mean? Japan needs to import almost all of their energy, so help me understand why the corrupt Japanese government would want their people to be afraid of the peaceful nuclear power that supplies almost 1/3 of their electricity,
-
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
What do those "corrupt authorities" have to gain by forcing those Japanese to leave their homes and jobs? ???
Thanks for asking. Reasons are (1) to keep the Japanese scared dog shit for anything radiating nuclear things and (2) keep the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945 Fake News about atomic bombs alive in people's minds. The "corrupt authorities" are of course the US and Japan governments. Lying to you own people is not good. I just updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm about it.
Why would they want people to be afraid of peaceful nuclear energy?
Thanks for asking. Only dog shit like you ask such questions.
Why are you so mean? Japan needs to import almost all of their energy, so help me understand why the corrupt Japanese government would want their people to be afraid of the peaceful nuclear power that supplies almost 1/3 of their electricity,
?? I am not mean, if you understand what I mean, which I doubt. Dog shit is always dog shit. Haven't you understood that no atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945 vaporizing 100 000's of yellow monkeys according to the lingo of the time. It was just Fake News propaganda. But every year the poor Japanese must organize big ceremonies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to commemorate the Fake News dog shit. Like the Fukushima NP incident 2011. There was no need to evacuate ~150 000 persons and the damages to the nuclear plant were not serious. But corrupt people took the opportunity to exaggerate and falsify everything like they did back in 1945. It is simple in Japan! The people are just told to do and believe what they are told. Like dogs.
-
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
What do those "corrupt authorities" have to gain by forcing those Japanese to leave their homes and jobs? ???
Thanks for asking. Reasons are (1) to keep the Japanese scared dog shit for anything radiating nuclear things and (2) keep the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945 Fake News about atomic bombs alive in people's minds. The "corrupt authorities" are of course the US and Japan governments. Lying to you own people is not good. I just updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm about it.
Why would they want people to be afraid of peaceful nuclear energy?
Thanks for asking. Only dog shit like you ask such questions.
Why are you so mean? Japan needs to import almost all of their energy, so help me understand why the corrupt Japanese government would want their people to be afraid of the peaceful nuclear power that supplies almost 1/3 of their electricity,
<< Crap deleted >>
Heiwa knows that Heiwa is the smartest person on earth because the smartest person on earth told him so. Therefore
If Heiwa can't understand nuclear detonation then nuclear detonation must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand atmospheric reentry then reentry must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand crewed space missions then crewed space missions must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand a crewed spacecraft landing on the moon then a crewed spacecraft landing on the moon must, by definition be impossible.
-
I feel sorry for these Japanese that are illegally forced to leave their homes and jobs to satisfy the whims of corrupt authorities.
What do those "corrupt authorities" have to gain by forcing those Japanese to leave their homes and jobs? ???
Thanks for asking. Reasons are (1) to keep the Japanese scared dog shit for anything radiating nuclear things and (2) keep the Hiroshima/Nagasaki 1945 Fake News about atomic bombs alive in people's minds. The "corrupt authorities" are of course the US and Japan governments. Lying to you own people is not good. I just updated http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm about it.
Why would they want people to be afraid of peaceful nuclear energy?
Thanks for asking. Only dog shit like you ask such questions.
Why are you so mean? Japan needs to import almost all of their energy, so help me understand why the corrupt Japanese government would want their people to be afraid of the peaceful nuclear power that supplies almost 1/3 of their electricity,
<< Crap deleted >>
Heiwa knows that Heiwa is the smartest person on earth because the smartest person on earth told him so. Therefore
If Heiwa can't understand nuclear detonation then nuclear detonation must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand atmospheric reentry then reentry must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand crewed space missions then crewed space missions must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand a crewed spacecraft landing on the moon then a crewed spacecraft landing on the moon must, by definition be impossible.
Let's get it right.
I like peaceful, nuclear power electrical generation stations. I am a shareholder of EDF, which owns plenty nuclear power plants.
But I don't like atomic bombs secretly developed by the best scientists and engineers in the world at great costs 1942/5 and that exploded 1945 killing 100 000's of Japanese. Of course communist spies stole all military atomic bomb secrets 1945, if you believe US Fake News.
But let's face it. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere and no communists stole anything. It was just a US hoax. I explain the details at http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
-
?? I am not mean, if you understand what I mean, which I doubt. Dog shit is always dog shit. Haven't you understood that no atomic bombs were ever dropped on Japan 1945 vaporizing 100 000's of yellow monkeys according to the lingo of the time. It was just Fake News propaganda. But every year the poor Japanese must organize big ceremonies at Hiroshima and Nagasaki to commemorate the Fake News dog shit. Like the Fukushima NP incident 2011. There was no need to evacuate ~150 000 persons and the damages to the nuclear plant were not serious. But corrupt people took the opportunity to exaggerate and falsify everything like they did back in 1945. It is simple in Japan! The people are just told to do and believe what they are told. Like dogs.
So this is going to be awkward for me to be saying. . . . but I agree with SOME of the words used in the above quote. A very few select words, but there are some that I can agree with.
Let me explain myself.
I can agree with "Like the Fukushima NP incident 2011. There was no need to evacuate ~150 000 persons and the damages to the nuclear plant were not serious'
This is because radiation is not the pure death that a lot of people thinks it is. The radiation that leaked out of Fukushima into the surrounding area was so low that there are spots on earth that have natural radiation levels higher than that, and the people living in those areas are fine, and have been for hundreds of years. Most evacuations and "radiation cleanup" from fukushima is political over reaction, and has little to do with Actual health risk. So far 1 death has been attributed to the radiation leak, and even that is disputable.
1600 deaths have been attributed to the evacuation of the surrounding area.
Nuclear power is super powerful, radiation is a real thing. But radiation does not kill you just because you looked at it funny. If you have ever received an x-ray, you would have received more additional radiation than anyone living right next to fukushima for the rest of their lives.
This is important to say, because there is a war against nuclear power due to fears of radiation. The globe will never get off fossil fuels until we embrace the UBER power of nuclear.
Heiwa is not helping either though.
-
I don't know why people are so slow to identify Heiwa as a troll. I have to say, he is quite good at it, even if somewhat irrational.
-
Heiwa knows that Heiwa is the smartest person on earth because the smartest person on earth told him so. Therefore
If Heiwa can't understand nuclear detonation then nuclear detonation must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand atmospheric reentry then reentry must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand crewed space missions then crewed space missions must, by definition be impossible.
If Heiwa can't understand a crewed spacecraft landing on the moon then a crewed spacecraft landing on the moon must, by definition be impossible.
Let's get it right.
I like peaceful, nuclear power electrical generation stations.
Sure, though maybe we should be putting more effort into the far safer and probably far less polluting Th-232 technology.
But I don't like atomic bombs secretly developed by the best scientists and engineers in the world at great costs 1942/5.
And I don't like nuclear weapons either but that is totally irrelevant.
Just because you, I and many others don't like nuclear weapons, terrorism and many other things is no proof they don't exist.
To me you seem a bit like this. If you don't like something you pretend it's "fake news": (https://www.dropbox.com/s/630i0ntnlklvbpq/ostrich-clip-art.jpg?dl=1)
-
I don't know why people are so slow to identify Heiwa as a troll. I have to say, he is quite good at it, even if somewhat irrational.
We know he's a troll but every so often it's fun to pop in and twist the tiger's tail.
It always triggers a standard response.
-
I don't know why people are so slow to identify Heiwa as a troll. I have to say, he is quite good at it, even if somewhat irrational.
We know he's a troll but every so often it's fun to pop in and twist the tiger's tail.
It always triggers a standard response.
No, Scandinavians believed in trolls in the past. Trolls were giants living in the granite mountains rolling great boulders around, etc. Actually in the past Scandinavia was covered by ice and the boulders were pushed around by glaciers. But then the glaciers melted. So the trolls became mischievous but friendly dwarfs living in the forests and some Norwegians still believe in them.
I got into this business 1994 when the Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt announced that a ferry (M/S Estonia) with 1000 Swedes aboard had sunk in the Baltic 28 September 1994 due to its bow visor falling off in very severe weather killing most people aboard. Operating similar ferries myself I checked all info and found that Mr. Bildt was simply lying. No visor fell off. The visor was removed from the wreck at the bottom of the sea by Swedish Royal Navy divers/sailors using explosives a week later. Mr. Bildt had blamed the incident on the visor before that. Actually Mr. Bildt used the ferry M/S Estonia to transport ex-USSR military equipment but forgot to pay all parties involved, some of which sank the ferry using explosives. Mr. Bildt is a criminal politician now retired somewhere fucking his third wife. The biggest Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyhete published my findings 15 August 1996 and I became well known. It was real news. And there we are today. I explain all at my website.
I happened to know the asshole Mr. Bildt personally 1966/70 when we were active in right wing politics together. Those were the times.
Topic here - see post #1 - is of course the alleged nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. It was/is another hoax. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere.
-
I don't know why people are so slow to identify Heiwa as a troll. I have to say, he is quite good at it, even if somewhat irrational.
We know he's a troll but every so often it's fun to pop in and twist the tiger's tail.
It always triggers a standard response.
No, Scandinavians believed in trolls in the past. Trolls were giants living in the granite mountains rolling great boulders around, etc. Actually in the past Scandinavia was covered by ice and the boulders were pushed around by glaciers. But then the glaciers melted. So the trolls became mischievous but friendly dwarfs living in the forests and some Norwegians still believe in them.
I got into the this business 1994 when the Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt announced that a ferry (M/S Estonia) with 1000 Swedes aboard had sunk in the Baltic 28 September 1994 due to its bow visor falling off in very severe weather killing most people aboard. Operating similar ferries myself I checked all info and found that Mr. Bildt was simply lying. No visor fell off. The visor was removed from the wreck at the bottom of the sea by Swedish Royal Navy divers/sailors using explosives a week later. Mr. Bildt had blamed the incident on the visor before that. Actually Mr. Bildt used the ferry M/S Estonia to transport ex-USSR military equipment but forgot to pay all parties involved, some of which sank the ferry using explosives. Mr. Bildt is a criminal politician now retired somewhere fucking his third wife. The biggest Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyhete published my findings 15 August 1996 and I became well known. It was real news. And there we are today. I explain all at my website.
I happened to know the asshole Mr. Bildt personally 1966/70 when we were active in right wing politics together. Those were the times.
Topic here - see post #1 - is of course the alleged nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. It was/is another hoax. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere.
Translation:
I'm a retarted conspiracy theorist and have no credibility what so ever. I also live in a mental institute.
-
I don't know why people are so slow to identify Heiwa as a troll. I have to say, he is quite good at it, even if somewhat irrational.
We know he's a troll but every so often it's fun to pop in and twist the tiger's tail.
It always triggers a standard response.
No, Scandinavians believed in trolls in the past. Trolls were giants living in the granite mountains rolling great boulders around, etc. Actually in the past Scandinavia was covered by ice and the boulders were pushed around by glaciers. But then the glaciers melted. So the trolls became mischievous but friendly dwarfs living in the forests and some Norwegians still believe in them.
I got into the this business 1994 when the Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt announced that a ferry (M/S Estonia) with 1000 Swedes aboard had sunk in the Baltic 28 September 1994 due to its bow visor falling off in very severe weather killing most people aboard. Operating similar ferries myself I checked all info and found that Mr. Bildt was simply lying. No visor fell off. The visor was removed from the wreck at the bottom of the sea by Swedish Royal Navy divers/sailors using explosives a week later. Mr. Bildt had blamed the incident on the visor before that. Actually Mr. Bildt used the ferry M/S Estonia to transport ex-USSR military equipment but forgot to pay all parties involved, some of which sank the ferry using explosives. Mr. Bildt is a criminal politician now retired somewhere fucking his third wife. The biggest Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyhete published my findings 15 August 1996 and I became well known. It was real news. And there we are today. I explain all at my website.
I happened to know the asshole Mr. Bildt personally 1966/70 when we were active in right wing politics together. Those were the times.
Topic here - see post #1 - is of course the alleged nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. It was/is another hoax. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere.
Translation:
I'm a retarted conspiracy theorist and have no credibility what so ever. I also live in a mental institute.
Topic here - see post #1 - is of course the alleged nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. It was/is another hoax. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere.
-
Topic here - see post #1 - is of course the alleged nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. It was/is another hoax. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere.
Were you there on those days? You sound old enough.
-
Topic here - see post #1 - is of course the alleged nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. It was/is another hoax. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere.
Were you there on those days? You sound old enough.
Yes, my father prepared plans that we should move from Stockholm to New Zealand or at least move out of town to Öregrund 100 kms north. The Swedish government hinted 1949/54 that a USSR atomic attack was imminent and that we should be prepared. I was only 3-8 years old but I remember it.
-
I was only 3-8 years old but I remember it.
You don't remember it. It was fake.
-
Topic here - see post #1 - is of course the alleged nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 1945. It was/is another hoax. No atomic bombs exploded anywhere.
Were you there on those days? You sound old enough.
Yes, my father prepared plans that we should move from Stockholm to New Zealand or at least move out of town to Öregrund 100 kms north. The Swedish government hinted 1949/54 that a USSR atomic attack was imminent and that we should be prepared. I was only 3-8 years old but I remember it.
You do know that Hiroshima and Nagasaki where in Japan and not in New Zealand. I can see why you think they where faked now.
guys, I solved the puzzle. Heiwa cant tell the difference between the countries!
We can all go on with our lives now!
Ill, give you some credit; next to each other, the two countries do look similar.
also, did anybody else know that Heiwa is almost 80?
Tell me, how where the 60's? As naughty as everyone said it was?
-
Yes, my father prepared plans that we should move ... out of town to Öregrund 100 kms north.
I see where you get your intelligence.
-
Ill, give you some credit; next to each other, the two countries do look similar.
I've never been to Japan but I know the South Island looks almost more English than one pictures England.
But even Heiwa might tell them apart simply by listening to them speak.
Kiwis try to count one, two, three, four, five, sex and somehow can't get past there.
also, did anybody else know that Heiwa is almost 80?
Tell me, how where the 60's? As naughty as everyone said it was?
Wow, he's almost as old as I.
But I was too busy getting married, starting a family and getting a house built to get very naughty in the 1960s.
I'm sure Heiwa would know from experience just how naughty the 60's were :o.
-
I'm sure Heiwa would know from experience just how naughty the 60's were :o.
I doubt Heiwa remembers yesterday.
-
I'm sure Heiwa would know from experience just how naughty the 60's were :o.
I doubt Heiwa remembers yesterday.
I hesitated to bring that up.
-
I'm sure Heiwa would know from experience just how naughty the 60's were :o.
I doubt Heiwa remembers yesterday.
I hesitated to bring that up.
He won't remember it tomorrow.
-
Ill, give you some credit; next to each other, the two countries do look similar.
I've never been to Japan but I know the South Island looks almost more English than one pictures England.
But even Heiwa might tell them apart simply by listening to them speak.
Kiwis try to count one, two, three, four, five, sex and somehow can't get past there.
You should really visit Japan! 10% is pretty crowded but the 90% rest, mountains, forests, is quite nice with no people around. Right now cherry blossoms can be seen.
And the food is good, the drink will make you happy, etc. Most Japanese males are drunk after 19.00 hrs and easy to talk to.
And Japan is slowly starting all their, intact, nuclear power plants that were stopped after the Fukushima incident. The criminal government stopped them 2011 just to scare the shit out of all Japanese.
-
And Japan is slowly starting all their, intact, nuclear power plants that were stopped after the Fukushima incident. The criminal government stopped them 2011 just to scare the shit out of all Japanese.
I read all about that on some stupid ass website. Have you seen that site?
-
And Japan is slowly starting all their, intact, nuclear power plants that were stopped after the Fukushima incident. The criminal government stopped them 2011 just to scare the shit out of all Japanese.
Considering that their Nuclear oversight agency was doing a shoddy job of keeping the power plants safe, Im not too surprised that the people where scared as hell. There should never have been any radiation leaking out of fukushima if the regulators did their job correctly.
The thing that makes nuclear unsafe in the future is people NOT building more nuclear.
If you want a planet that is nice to live in for a very long time, we need lots of nuclear.
-
Yes!
-
And Japan is slowly starting all their, intact, nuclear power plants
that were stopped after the Fukushima incident.
The criminal government stopped them 2011 just to scare the shit out of all Japanese.
I read all about that on some stupid ass website. Have you seen that site?
Yes! Heiwa.com
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
Please explain more.
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
Please explain more.
No U!
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
Please explain more.
No U!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
Please explain more.
No U!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
So says the ignoramus who thinks that you detonate a nuclear weapon by igniting the blue touch paper and running really really fast!
I'd believe the kid next door before I'd believe a word you said.
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
Please explain more.
No U!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
So says the ignoramus who thinks that you detonate a nuclear weapon by igniting the blue touch paper and running really really fast!
I'd believe the kid next door before I'd believe a word you said.
Well, you have to admit that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quickly rebuilt starting September 1945 and that nobody worried about any radiation then.
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
Please explain more.
No U!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
So says the ignoramus who thinks that you detonate a nuclear weapon by igniting the blue touch paper and running really really fast!
I'd believe the kid next door before I'd believe a word you said.
Well, you have to admit that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quickly rebuilt starting September 1945 and that nobody worried about any radiation then.
No one worried about radiation, because the effects of long term radiation exposure as a result of a nuclear explosion were not known like they are today.
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
Please explain more.
No U!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
So says the ignoramus who thinks that you detonate a nuclear weapon by igniting the blue touch paper and running really really fast!
I'd believe the kid next door before I'd believe a word you said.
Well, you have to admit that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quickly rebuilt starting September 1945 and that nobody worried about any radiation then.
No one worried about radiation, because the effects of long term radiation exposure as a result of a nuclear explosion were not known like they are today.
Hm, according to propaganda at the time 50% of the victims were vaporized at once and another 50% were killed by radiation diseases over the next couple of months. And then a few survived to tell their stories during 75 years. But there is no evidence for anything except propaganda.
-
Ever fold a paper crane?
-
Hm, according to propaganda at the time 50% of the victims were vaporized at once and another 50% were killed by radiation diseases over the next couple of months. And then a few survived to tell their stories during 75 years. But there is no evidence for anything except propaganda.
Your "according to propaganda at the time 50% of the victims were vaporized at once and another 50% were killed by radiation diseases over the next couple of months." is simply fiction you've dreamt up to prop up your fantasies!
No one claims 100% death toll but it might have been about 30%.
Were you there in 1945?Children of the Atomic Bomb (http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html)
The mortality was greater in Hiroshima because the city was located in a flat delta, in contrast to Nagaski’s Urakami Valley. The Nagasaki-Urakami is enclosed by mountain ridges that shielded the city. Nevertheless, the instant lethal effect revealed consideration of the use of these annhilative weapons in warfare can be tolerated by man now that nukes of far greater destructive power are now available.
The real mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan will never be known. The destruction and overwhelming chaos made orderly counting impossible. It is not unlikely that the estimates of killed and wounded in Hiroshima (150,000) and Nagasaki (75,000) are over conservative.
At no time during the period between 1943 and 1946 were facilities allotted, or time provided, for the Medical Section of the Manhattan Engineer District to prepare a comprehensive history of its activities. Regulations forbade notetaking. Official records were scanty. There were few charts and photographs.
(http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/imgContent/200708230003.jpg)
Atomic attack death toll.
From their own observations and from testimony of Japanese, members of the survey team divided the morbidity and mortality of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan into the following phases:- Very large numbers of person were crushed in their homes and in the buildings in which they were working. Their skeletons could be seen in the debris and ashes for almost 1,500 meters from the center of the blast, particularly in the downwind directions.
- Large numbers of the population walked for considerable distances after the detonation before they collapsed and died.
- Large numbers developed vomiting and bloody and watery diarrhea (vomitus and bloody fecees were found on the floor in many of the aid stations), associated with extreme weakness. They died in the first and second weeks after the bombs were dropped.
- During this same period deaths from internal injuries and from burns were common. Either the heat from the fires or infrared radiation from the detonations caused many burns, particularly on bare skin or under dark clothing.
- After a lull without peak mortality from any special causes, deaths began to occur from purpura, which was often associated with epilation, anemia, and a yellowish coloration of the skin. The so-called bone marrow syndrome, manifested by a low white blood cell count and almost complete absence of the platelets necessary to prevent bleeding,w as probably at its maximum beTween the fourth and sixth weeks after the bombs were dropped.
<< More detail and links at the site referenced. >>
Those are not the injury and death patterns from conventional or napalm raids.
Heiwa either you are a total ignoramus or and intentional deceiver. Which is it and why?
-
Yes! Heiwa.com
Yes
Please explain more.
No U!
Only two towns have ever been subject to atom bombings - Hiroshima and Nagasaki - August 1945, but it was fake news and propaganda. Both towns were just destroyed by napalm bombs. And soon after the towns were rebuilt, etc, etc.
So says the ignoramus who thinks that you detonate a nuclear weapon by igniting the blue touch paper and running really really fast!
I'd believe the kid next door before I'd believe a word you said.
Well, you have to admit that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quickly rebuilt starting September 1945 and that nobody worried about any radiation then.
No one worried about radiation, because the effects of long term radiation exposure as a result of a nuclear explosion were not known like they are today.
Hm, according to propaganda at the time 50% of the victims were vaporized at once and another 50% were killed by radiation diseases over the next couple of months. And then a few survived to tell their stories during 75 years. But there is no evidence for anything except propaganda.
You mean you found no evidence with your shoddy research. That is different from no evidence. At least you're always good for a laugh.
-
Hm, according to propaganda at the time 50% of the victims were vaporized at once and another 50% were killed by radiation diseases over the next couple of months. And then a few survived to tell their stories during 75 years. But there is no evidence for anything except propaganda.
Do you even know what the word "evidence" means?
-
Hm, according to propaganda at the time 50% of the victims were vaporized at once and another 50% were killed by radiation diseases over the next couple of months. And then a few survived to tell their stories during 75 years. But there is no evidence for anything except propaganda.
Do you even know what the word "evidence" means?
Yes - see http://heiwaco.com
-
Hm, according to propaganda at the time 50% of the victims were vaporized at once and another 50% were killed by radiation diseases over the next couple of months. And then a few survived to tell their stories during 75 years. But there is no evidence for anything except propaganda.
Do you even know what the word "evidence" means?
Yes - see http://heiwaco.com
Yes, I've seen your site, and as near as I can tell, your definition of "evidence" is different than the one the rest of the world uses. Explaining how something works and then saying that it's all propaganda is not evidence of anything except your delusional state.
-
Hm, according to propaganda at the time 50% of the victims were vaporized at once and another 50% were killed by radiation diseases over the next couple of months. And then a few survived to tell their stories during 75 years. But there is no evidence for anything except propaganda.
Do you even know what the word "evidence" means?
LOL
Yes - see http://heiwaco.com
Yes, I've seen your site, and as near as I can tell, your definition of "evidence" is different than the one the rest of the world uses. Explaining how something works and then saying that it's all propaganda is not evidence of anything except your delusional state.
-
‘The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan. Stalin Did’
By Ward Wilson
https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/05/30/the-bomb-didnt-beat-japan-stalin-did/
-
Ward Wilson’s article got its information from the book:
‘Racing the Enemy’ by Japanese researcher Tsuyoshi Hasegawa.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Racing_the_Enemy.html?id=iPju1MrqgU4C&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
-
An hour long interview of Hasegawa by a fellow American professor.
Hasegawa does not ignore evidence that makes the Soviets look good and is therefore usually ignored by American historians and hence unknown to most Americans.
The two bombs were dropped on August 6 & 9, and the Soviet Red Army invaded Japan in between these dates.
The Red Army had three months to rest and prepare for the invasion and crumbled Japan’s empire in Asia like a house of cards.
Japan’s top leaders held an emergency meeting on August 9 because if they didn’t decide soon, then Soviet Russian troops would be in Tokyo within days and all Japan would become communist. Just like the Nazi leaders, the Japanese desperately wanted to surrender to Americans which is what they ultimately decided.
Hasegawa gives a lot of information about why the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the surrender decision except as an agreed upon propaganda between Japanese and American leaders. This part is summarised well in Wilson’s article.
Intriguingly, in the interview Hasegawa mentions a Harvard physicist who wrote a technical paper that says the “atomic” bombs had no difference in quality over conventional bombs, but only a difference in quantity.
-
‘Five Myths About Nuclear Weapons’
By Ward Wilson
This book’s first chapter entitled that ‘Nuclear Weapons Shock and Awe Opponents’ was an especially major part of American propaganda from 1945 to about 1960, but the propaganda lost much of its edge by the late 1950’s because of actual Soviet technological and military improvements that contradicted the exaggerated American propaganda.
Since American atomic power propaganda began to lose influence in the late 1950’s as noted in General Maxwell Taylor’s book ‘The Uncertain Trumpet’ as well as by Soviet writers, in my opinion the Kennedy administration decided to supplement the nuclear myth with space propaganda from 1961 onwards.
The nuclear myth is the predecessor of moon mission propaganda.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Five_Myths_About_Nuclear_Weapons.html?id=70ZRhKAHM4oC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button
-
In my simple opinion no a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and a suburb of Nagasaki August 1945 - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Truman and Stalin met July 1945 at Potsdam and decided to fake it! Stalin had six years earlier made a deal with Hitler to destroy France and England, which failed, so now Stalin and Truman made a deal to destroy Japan. It worked fine. Japan surrendered at once and wasn't destroyed. Soon after Japan was an economic super power!
-
In my simple opinion no a-bombs destroyed Hiroshima and a suburb of Nagasaki August 1945 - http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm .
Truman and Stalin met July 1945 at Potsdam and decided to fake it! Stalin had six years earlier made a deal with Hitler to destroy France and England, which failed, so now Stalin and Truman made a deal to destroy Japan. It worked fine. Japan surrendered at once and wasn't destroyed. Soon after Japan was an economic super power!
Right.... and most birds can swallow food in zero gravity.
-
.... I admit, on one finger Huawei is persistent says a lot of the right words and he's been on the forum for a long time trying to debunk space flight and nuclear power.... on the rest of the my hands.... who gives a fuck? What is the goal?
This is the least impressive group of people (no offense Moose, I like you) you are trying to convince of anything... and the only thing worse is the people you bicker with.... as a loser, i now check back into this place r eww ice a year and it's the same people rambling about the same nonsense... the only difference is the creative wack-a-mole bullshit gets more sophisticated.... I know it would never happen, but I would love to see everyone just... agree with everything Huawei has to say and see how that social experiment runs... (No, it's too fun to argue) you'll never convince him, you know how he will respond... try something he hasn't seen... everyone being like... wow, you're right....
-
.... I admit, on one finger Huawei is persistent says a lot of the right words and he's been on the forum for a long time trying to debunk space flight and nuclear power.... on the rest of the my hands.... who gives a fuck? What is the goal?
He is mad at the USA for denying his shitty tanker design from being used in US Waterways.
-
.... I admit, on one finger Huawei is persistent says a lot of the right words and he's been on the forum for a long time trying to debunk space flight and nuclear power.... on the rest of the my hands.... who gives a fuck? What is the goal?
He is mad at the USA for denying his shitty tanker design from being used in US Waterways.
Please, it was back in November 1997 that USA (USCG Admiral Kramek) announced that oil tankers of my design could not enter US ports - over 20 years ago. See http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscg.htm . Of course, it was not the end of the story - the matter was later discussed in the US Congress - http://heiwaco.com/ce_uscongress.htm . Now a USCG admiral North tried to explain what a danger my tankers posed and why they could not enter US ports.
Me mad?
No, I just feel sorry for the idiots of the USCG reducing safety at sea and reducing the protection of the marine environment by their strange actions.
-
That's a lot of typing for not being mad.
-
That's a lot of typing for not being mad.
Me mad?
No, I just feel sorry for the idiots of the USCG reducing safety at sea and reducing the protection of the marine environment by their strange actions.
-
But Huawei... why would someone of your pedigree, history... someone with your resume and list of accomplishments be here? Why aren't on the news, podcasts... I mean, even Alex Jones would give you a second to get your message out... this is literally the smallest audience for your message... if no one will have you on their platform because they are shills... why dont you start your own YouTube channel... spread the word... interview people... lack of time is a horrible reason not to do it..
It is obvious how much time you commit to this rinky dinky web site...
You got 40 million euros riding on someone to challenge your ideas... why not spread the message to a larger audience... just having that amount of money riding on any bet will garner attention... 40 million for anyone that can prove me wrong... CNN and the New York Times would put that on their front page...
Shit, Netflix gave Bob Lazar a full documentary... with Mickey Rourke narrating with random thoughts
-
But Huawei... why would someone of your pedigree, history... someone with your resume and list of accomplishments be here? Why aren't on the news, podcasts... I mean, even Alex Jones would give you a second to get your message out... this is literally the smallest audience for your message... if no one will have you on their platform because they are shills... why dont you start your own YouTube channel... spread the word... interview people... lack of time is a horrible reason not to do it..
It is obvious how much time you commit to this rinky dinky web site...
You got 40 million euros riding on someone to challenge your ideas... why not spread the message to a larger audience... just having that amount of money riding on any bet will garner attention... 40 million for anyone that can prove me wrong... CNN and the New York Times would put that on their front page...
Shit, Netflix gave Bob Lazar a full documentary... with Mickey Rourke narrating with random thoughts
Hm, FocketSauce - you are not very bright, or? Back in 1996 when I showed in media that M/S Estonia couldn't have lost its visor in heavy weather 1994, the Swedish government publicly announced via media that I was an idiot. It was a mistake. I got plenty PR, etc. When I tried to reply, same media were closed! No space! And that's the situation ever since. So I am happy with 2.7 million downloads of http://heiwaco.com . I just want to improve safety at sea and it is not popular either. Sheaple want cheap cruises and they get it. I never go on such shit.
-
But Huawei... why would someone of your pedigree, history... someone with your resume and list of accomplishments be here? Why aren't on the news, podcasts... I mean, even Alex Jones would give you a second to get your message out... this is literally the smallest audience for your message... if no one will have you on their platform because they are shills... why dont you start your own YouTube channel... spread the word... interview people... lack of time is a horrible reason not to do it..
It is obvious how much time you commit to this rinky dinky web site...
You got 40 million euros riding on someone to challenge your ideas... why not spread the message to a larger audience... just having that amount of money riding on any bet will garner attention... 40 million for anyone that can prove me wrong... CNN and the New York Times would put that on their front page...
Shit, Netflix gave Bob Lazar a full documentary... with Mickey Rourke narrating with random thoughts
Hm, FocketSauce - you are not very bright, or? Back in 1996 when I showed in media that M/S Estonia couldn't have lost its visor in heavy weather 1994, the Swedish government publicly announced via media that I was an idiot. It was a mistake. I got plenty PR, etc. When I tried to reply, same media were closed! No space! And that's the situation ever since. So I am happy with 2.7 million downloads of http://heiwaco.com . I just want to improve safety at sea and it is not popular either. Sheaple want cheap cruises and they get it. I never go on such shit.
The Swedish Government didn't announce that you were an idiot. They only confirmed you were. You showed everyone that you were an idiot all by yourself.
-
But Huawei... why would someone of your pedigree, history... someone with your resume and list of accomplishments be here? Why aren't on the news, podcasts... I mean, even Alex Jones would give you a second to get your message out... this is literally the smallest audience for your message... if no one will have you on their platform because they are shills... why dont you start your own YouTube channel... spread the word... interview people... lack of time is a horrible reason not to do it..
It is obvious how much time you commit to this rinky dinky web site...
You got 40 million euros riding on someone to challenge your ideas... why not spread the message to a larger audience... just having that amount of money riding on any bet will garner attention... 40 million for anyone that can prove me wrong... CNN and the New York Times would put that on their front page...
Shit, Netflix gave Bob Lazar a full documentary... with Mickey Rourke narrating with random thoughts
Hm, FocketSauce - you are not very bright, or? Back in 1996 when I showed in media that M/S Estonia couldn't have lost its visor in heavy weather 1994, the Swedish government publicly announced via media that I was an idiot. It was a mistake. I got plenty PR, etc. When I tried to reply, same media were closed! No space! And that's the situation ever since. So I am happy with 2.7 million downloads of http://heiwaco.com . I just want to improve safety at sea and it is not popular either. Sheaple want cheap cruises and they get it. I never go on such shit.
The Swedish Government didn't announce that you were an idiot. They only confirmed you were. You showed everyone that you were an idiot all by yourself.
Well, the Swedish government could not explain how M/S Estonia sank 1994 (my suggestion leakage below waterline) and had to make secret all documentation about it for 60 years. National security! Plenty people part of the government cover-up also died early. Sad story.
-
But Huawei... why would someone of your pedigree, history... someone with your resume and list of accomplishments be here? Why aren't on the news, podcasts... I mean, even Alex Jones would give you a second to get your message out... this is literally the smallest audience for your message... if no one will have you on their platform because they are shills... why dont you start your own YouTube channel... spread the word... interview people... lack of time is a horrible reason not to do it..
It is obvious how much time you commit to this rinky dinky web site...
You got 40 million euros riding on someone to challenge your ideas... why not spread the message to a larger audience... just having that amount of money riding on any bet will garner attention... 40 million for anyone that can prove me wrong... CNN and the New York Times would put that on their front page...
Shit, Netflix gave Bob Lazar a full documentary... with Mickey Rourke narrating with random thoughts
Hm, FocketSauce - you are not very bright, or? Back in 1996 when I showed in media that M/S Estonia couldn't have lost its visor in heavy weather 1994, the Swedish government publicly announced via media that I was an idiot. It was a mistake. I got plenty PR, etc. When I tried to reply, same media were closed! No space! And that's the situation ever since. So I am happy with 2.7 million downloads of http://heiwaco.com . I just want to improve safety at sea and it is not popular either. Sheaple want cheap cruises and they get it. I never go on such shit.
Obviously when compared to you I barely qualify as a life form, let alone a human being... But... you side stepped my question... quite brilliantly I must add... i had to have someone else much smarter than myself point it out...
Let me attempt a different approach....
You are the smartest, and the greatest... obviously there has been a smear job committed against you due to varying factors such as jealousy and information suppression...
But your efforts to go to the media at large was in 1994... why do I have to go to a stupid Flat Earth Society website (which isnt even the most popular or well managed of the flat earth themed sites) to hear your teachings? This is not the only free medium... YouTube is free... where is your channel? Where is your megaphone? You obviously know this is.... the rockiest of bottoms...
I'm not insulting you... I am only critical of you using this site and a website you only seem to promote in the darkest deepest corners of the internet... there are what... a total of 40 active user names operated by 15 people... your time is wasted here... no one here sails the seas...
-
But Huawei... why would someone of your pedigree, history... someone with your resume and list of accomplishments be here? Why aren't on the news, podcasts... I mean, even Alex Jones would give you a second to get your message out... this is literally the smallest audience for your message... if no one will have you on their platform because they are shills... why dont you start your own YouTube channel... spread the word... interview people... lack of time is a horrible reason not to do it..
It is obvious how much time you commit to this rinky dinky web site...
You got 40 million euros riding on someone to challenge your ideas... why not spread the message to a larger audience... just having that amount of money riding on any bet will garner attention... 40 million for anyone that can prove me wrong... CNN and the New York Times would put that on their front page...
Shit, Netflix gave Bob Lazar a full documentary... with Mickey Rourke narrating with random thoughts
Hm, FocketSauce - you are not very bright, or? Back in 1996 when I showed in media that M/S Estonia couldn't have lost its visor in heavy weather 1994, the Swedish government publicly announced via media that I was an idiot. It was a mistake. I got plenty PR, etc. When I tried to reply, same media were closed! No space! And that's the situation ever since. So I am happy with 2.7 million downloads of http://heiwaco.com . I just want to improve safety at sea and it is not popular either. Sheaple want cheap cruises and they get it. I never go on such shit.
Obviously when compared to you I barely qualify as a life form, let alone a human being... But... you side stepped my question... quite brilliantly I must add... i had to have someone else much smarter than myself point it out...
Let me attempt a different approach....
You are the smartest, and the greatest... obviously there has been a smear job committed against you due to varying factors such as jealousy and information suppression...
But your efforts to go to the media at large was in 1994... why do I have to go to a stupid Flat Earth Society website (which isnt even the most popular or well managed of the flat earth themed sites) to hear your teachings? This is not the only free medium... YouTube is free... where is your channel? Where is your megaphone? You obviously know this is.... the rockiest of bottoms...
I'm not insulting you... I am only critical of you using this site and a website you only seem to promote in the darkest deepest corners of the internet... there are what... a total of 40 active user names operated by 15 people... your time is wasted here... no one here sails the seas...
Only reason why I am on this forum is that some FE enthusiast here, years ago, said he knew how to go to the Moon and that I owed him Euro 1M! I had never heard about FE before but I explained how wrong he was ... and that thread has later been visited >478 000 times. It is just top of the list!