I know you aren't going to accept it. But the document provides details about every aspect of the plant from resources of it's own. You can look them up if you like. The best part of the document starts on PDF page 56. It explains how they made plutonium metal and formed the spheres needed for the bombs. Feel free to debunk any of it.
So you agree that plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs? They were clearly using a nuclear reactor to make it.
Incorrect. History tells us that the American Empire, when given the chance, will attempt to take over an opponent entirely. i.e. Germany. With a nuclear bomb it could take over just about every opponent, but it did not. Thus the nuclear bomb's power was a myth.
Fallacy.
I used historical backing, your turn.
This denying of Nuclear weapons is now paralleling the FET. Many people have to be in on the conspiracy. And not one of them came forward to say it was all fake. Even the people exposed to plutonium that have nothing left to lose.
Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear weapons. Try again.
Technical specs are required for someone who has never used the technology, or else they have to start from scratch, which would explain why it takes so long and is such a arduous task.
Iran has many nuclear engineers and physicists. They have been using nuclear power technology for years.
So they're simple and easy to build, so no one does it?
Uranium is a very controlled substance now. But I can just point back to Kodak and say some has obviously slipped through the cracks. That said, no one does it because you can't build what does not exist.
You make a logically inconsistent argument to point out that my argument is not logically consistent? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply quote the pieces that were not consistent rather than the poor attempt at mocking me?
Attempting to feign empathy with the opponent's stance is not mockery.