Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist

All you have posted is things you thought were evidence. You just got angry when you found out it really was not evidence at all. A childish thing to do.

Your opinion does not  deside what evidence is valid. 

Uneducated opinions are obviously going to be ignored. You're not being ignored because you're just so smart, you're being ignored for the opposite reason.

So what you are saying is all your opinions are worthless.  You have not refuted any evidence.  You simple say in your opinion that it is bad.  And you agree opinions cannot do that. 

Look at all these fascinating denialism mechanisms you employ.

You pretty dumb claims.  He is right. 

Can anyone explain to me(if they believe Nukes are real), how they can keep them armed and ready for years on end in silos ready for an immediate strike?

I can.  Would you like me to? 

Your opinion does not  deside what evidence is valid. 

Where did I say that it does?

So what you are saying is all your opinions are worthless.  You have not refuted any evidence.  You simple say in your opinion that it is bad.  And you agree opinions cannot do that. 

You haven't posted any evidence that required refutation.

You pretty dumb claims. 

Ironic.

Quote from: sokarul

Your opinion does not  deside what evidence is valid.

Where did I say that it does?

You made the claim in your post and past.

You haven't posted any evidence that required refutation.

You haven't posted any evidence that required refutation.

That is your opinion.  And it's because you can't.  Nor have you provide any evidence yourself.

Ironic.

I'm not going to proof read for you.  I already waste enough time.

You made the claim in your post and past.

No I haven't. The fact that you have not posted any evidence is not a matter of my opinion.

That is your opinion.  And it's because you can't.  Nor have you provide any evidence yourself.

No, it is not my opinion. You have not posted any evidence. Furthermore the burden of proof is not on me, as I am not the one who thinks city-obliterating fairy bombs exist.

I'm not going to proof read for you.  I already waste enough time.

If you were even marginally good at typing, you wouldn't need to.

Quote from: sokarul on December 04, 2012, 03:47:41 PM

You made the claim in your post and past.

No I haven't. The fact that you have not posted any evidence is not a matter of my opinion.

You can try and run around all you want.  But all you do is use your opinion as fact. 

No, it is not my opinion. You have not posted any evidence. Furthermore the burden of proof is not on me, as I am not the one who thinks city-obliterating fairy bombs exist.

It is your opinion as I did post evidence.  The burden of proof is on you as the title of the thread is that they don't exist.  Which you can't prove. 

If you were even marginally good at typing, you wouldn't need to.

Cool story

You can try and run around all you want.  But all you do is use your opinion as fact. 

I never state my opinion as fact. It is you who interprets my opinionated statements as possible facts. Surely you can tell the difference between opinion and fact, no? Maybe that would be giving you too much credit.

It is your opinion as I did post evidence.  The burden of proof is on you as the title of the thread is that they don't exist.  Which you can't prove.

It is not my burden to prove everything that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. I could also make the thread title "Santa Claus does not exist" and it would not be my burden to prove that he does not exist.

Quote from: sokarul on December 04, 2012, 04:04:32 PM

You can try and run around all you want.  But all you do is use your opinion as fact. 

I never state my opinion as fact. It is you who interprets my opinionated statements as possible facts. Surely you can tell the difference between opinion and fact, no? Maybe that would be giving you too much credit.

Quote from: sokarul on December 04, 2012, 04:04:32 PM

It is your opinion as I did post evidence.  The burden of proof is on you as the title of the thread is that they don't exist.  Which you can't prove.

It is not my burden to prove everything that doesn't exist, doesn't exist. I could also make the thread title "Santa Claus does not exist" and it would not be my burden to prove that he does not exist.

This is why you went into the military instead of college. 

Edit:And yes, you do still claim your opinion as fact.

This is why you went into the military instead of college.

This debate is clearly done, you have nothing left but personal insults.

Quote from: sokarul on December 04, 2012, 09:12:31 PM

This is why you went into the military instead of college.

This debate is clearly done, you have nothing left but personal insults.

It was done on November 27th. Nice cop out though. 

I will make a real reply when you enter any evidence into the discussion.

AAAANNNNNYYY eeeevvvviiiidddddeeeennnnnccccceeee

AAAANNNNNYYY eeeevvvviiiidddddeeeennnnnccccceeee

That's right, we are still waiting for you to post evidence. I won't be holding my breath. Maybe you can start by looking up what evidence is, since you seem to think my opinion is flawless and factual.

Quote from: sokarul on December 04, 2012, 09:21:28 PM

AAAANNNNNYYY eeeevvvviiiidddddeeeennnnnccccceeee

That's right, we are still waiting for you to post evidence. I won't be holding my breath. Maybe you can start by looking up what evidence is, since you seem to think my opinion is flawless and factual.

Look at your NSA thread.  How many links were in that thread? How many links did you post in this thread? Yeah.  You are caught in a lie and you want to leave, thus the

This debate is clearly done, you have nothing left but personal insults.

quote.
Give it up.  Your GED can't beat me. 

It's ok.
I am smarter than you.
I have more money than you.
I have more friends than you. 
My family line makes your look like a line of homeless people.
You will never be as great as I am and will be.
You can't even touch me. 

I haven't properly read this thread. How does it account for various videos of nuclear weapons in use, along with Nagasaki/Hiroshima?

This is why you went into the military instead of college. 

This insult doesn't work in any way.

The videos are all faked.

When I say faked, I mean , all of them that make out that it's a nuclear explosion and to be fair they are pretty bad fakes as well.

I've seen some that make me question just how gullible human beings really are, who hang onto these videos as being real.

Really now?

Ok, seeing as you are an expert on examination and detection of fake nuclear explosions recorded on film I would really appreciate a detailed explanation of the processes involved in creating each of the 3 videos linked. 

1)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

2)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

3)
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Ok this first one is simple and anyone will see this.

Take a look at the explosion that goes into the sky and up past the clouds.
Pay strict attention to the formation of these clouds before the explosion and after it and hat you will notice is...nuclear bombs can supposedly destroy cities yet are mere lightweights when it comes to scattering clouds.

The clouds never change, so what does this tell us?

It tells us that it's an image over and image.....Simple.
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I don't understand what you are saying.
To the right I see clouds being engulfed and obliterated by the very edge of the cloud shockwave.

This second one is fairly simple for the first part and then it requires a guess as to later parts.

If you look at the footage of the immediate explosion, you will see it goes dark for some strange reason, but if you look closely, you can see that it's some kind of over lay against the sun rising or setting at first.

The so called smoke part could either be a conventional bomb  or it's some kind of coloured liquid in a water tank ...either way it's as fake as hell for anyone that wishes to scrutinise it.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

It goes dark probably because the camera couldn't handle the massive shift in light.

As for coloured liquid in water?? Really? Now you are just making shit up.

Unconvinced by your ramblings again.

Apart from this actually looking silly and fake, that's not a reason to say it is, so I question the camera man on this one and what flying machine it was filmed on.

It wasn't a plane, so it's either an airship or helicopter, in which case, why is it still in the air?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Why is it not a plane?
What looks silly and fake?

Quote from: mexicanwave on December 05, 2012, 04:16:06 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 05, 2012, 04:10:43 AM

Apart from this actually looking silly and fake, that's not a reason to say it is, so I question the camera man on this one and what flying machine it was filmed on.

It wasn't a plane, so it's either an airship or helicopter, in which case, why is it still in the air?

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

Why is it not a plane?
What looks silly and fake?

That looks silly and fake.

So did they have hover planes then?

Have you ever been on a plane at high altitude?

How fast does the ground beneath you appear to move? Answer - not very fast at all.
The plane is not hovering.

Those illuminati bastards like to keep people scared.

They actually don't mind killing people.

Each video of supposed "nuclear explosions" is actually large quanities of TNT.

Give it up.  Your GED can't beat me.

It's ok.
I am smarter than you.
I have more money than you.
I have more friends than you. 
My family line makes yours look like a line of homeless people.
You will never be as great as I am and will be.
You can't even touch me.

I came across an interesting journal article on JSTOR while doing some reading about nautical navigation.  Anyone interested in a facts-based history of ICBM navigational methods and technological developments written by a literate adult should check it out.  It's a good read.

The Shaping of Nuclear Weapon System Technology: US Fleet Ballistic Missile Guidance and Navigation: I: From Polaris to Poseidon
Author(s): Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi
Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug., 1988), pp. 419-463
http://www.jstor.org/stable/285232

Quote from: garygreen on December 05, 2012, 08:35:17 AM

I came across an interesting journal article on JSTOR while doing some reading about nautical navigation.  Anyone interested in a facts-based history of ICBM navigational methods and technological developments written by a literate adult should check it out.  It's a good read.

The Shaping of Nuclear Weapon System Technology: US Fleet Ballistic Missile Guidance and Navigation: I: From Polaris to Poseidon
Author(s): Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi
Source: Social Studies of Science, Vol. 18, No. 3 (Aug., 1988), pp. 419-463
http://www.jstor.org/stable/285232

A very good thing for you to look into if you want to, is, nuclear submarine ballistic missiles and how they are launched from under water.

Now as we are told...they are launched upwards from the sub, so maybe looking into how big these missiles are, against how high the hull of the submarine is for these things to fit upright into and also what launches them in that space.

Also, how the radiation from these warheads do not kill the crew.

Just a few pointers to look into if you want to.

Certain materials can provide protection against nuclear decay/radiation.  There are not ongoing nuclear chain reactions in those warheads, so the radiation being emitted is likely something that can be dealt with proper material shielding. 

Each video of supposed "nuclear explosions" is actually large quanities of TNT.

Why do nuclear explosions look different to TNT explosions?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 05, 2012, 07:41:32 AM

Each video of supposed "nuclear explosions" is actually large quanities of TNT.

Why do nuclear explosions look different to TNT explosions?

They don't, conventional explosions can have a mushroom cloud.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 05, 2012, 07:41:32 AM

Each video of supposed "nuclear explosions" is actually large quanities of TNT.

Why do nuclear explosions look different to TNT explosions?

Hoppy is correct. Nuclear explosions are indifferent from TNT explosions, which leads me to believe that nuclear explosions are not nuclear at all.

Also, how the radiation from these warheads do not kill the crew.

Radiation from plutonium 239 is easily shielded.

Hoppy is correct. Nuclear explosions are indifferent from TNT explosions, which leads me to believe that nuclear explosions are not nuclear at all.

Doesn't look the same to me. 
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">eksplosion of Half Kiloton of TNT

Doesn't look the same to me. 

Ah, well let me compare it to all of the videos of 0.5kt nuclear explosions.


(There aren't any)

Quote from: sokarul on December 05, 2012, 03:44:10 PM

Doesn't look the same to me. 

Ah, well let me compare it to all of the videos of 0.5kt nuclear explosions.


(There aren't any)

Of course not.  Nuclear bombs produce so much more energy. You aren't going to find any 25 megaton TNT blasts either.  Glad we are at an agreement that nuclear weapons have to exist. 

Of course not.  Nuclear bombs produce so much more energy. You aren't going to find any 25 megaton TNT blasts either.  Glad we are at an agreement that nuclear weapons have to exist.

#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Big bomb blast


They really don't, actually. A nuclear explosion is entirely indifferent from a large TNT explosion. Which means the nuclear explosions are just more and more TNT stockpiled together.