The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: 17 November on March 07, 2007, 05:39:26 PM

Title: Nuclear Power Exaggerated
Post by: 17 November on March 07, 2007, 05:39:26 PM
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]
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pyrochimp on March 07, 2007, 08:55:42 PM
This is almost in the league of thinking that the Earth is flat :P
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: beast on March 08, 2007, 05:50:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on March 08, 2007, 07:44:11 AM
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Wolfwood on March 08, 2007, 08:25:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: beast on March 08, 2007, 06:44:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 08, 2007, 06:57:26 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: beast on March 08, 2007, 07:45:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 08, 2007, 07:47:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Wolfwood on March 09, 2007, 08:07:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 10, 2007, 12:15:36 PM
I think the thread starter turns 1 year old November 17th. 
http://www.cfr.org/publication/9275/
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 10, 2007, 12:41:39 PM
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

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: beast on March 10, 2007, 05:40:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 13, 2007, 04:15:53 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 13, 2007, 04:20:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Anger on March 14, 2007, 07:15:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: SlaserX on March 14, 2007, 04:04:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on March 14, 2007, 04:29:06 PM
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.     
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Azrael on March 14, 2007, 06:00:23 PM
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.     
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 15, 2007, 01:55:39 AM
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.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 03:09:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 03:15:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 03:28:49 AM
Quote from: SlaserX
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 03:32:52 AM
Quote from: SlaserX
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 03:36:59 AM
Quote from: SlaserX
(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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 03:44:13 AM
Quote from: SlaserX
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 15, 2007, 04:07:54 AM
that's like denying the gas camps in poland. :-\
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 06:16:35 AM
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://)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 06:30:26 AM
(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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 07:42:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 07:56:17 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Quote from: 17 November
Quote from: SlaserX
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.

Quote from: 17 November
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 08:22:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 08:25:06 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 08:53:00 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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?

Quote from: Matrixfart
regardless of what some random article may claim.
So that is how you deal with inconvenient facts.  A real hunger for the truth, eh?

Quote from: Matrixfart
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.

Quote from: Matrixfart
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.

Quote from: Matrixfart
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.

Quote from: Matrixfart
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?

Quote from: Matrixfart
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?

Quote from: Matrixfart
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.

Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 09:02:04 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 09:22:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 09:46:58 AM
Quote from: Maus
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 09:51:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 09:56:49 AM
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.  
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 10:08:13 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 10:15:17 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 10:32:09 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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. 

Quote from: Matrixfart
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.

Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 15, 2007, 10:56:12 AM
interesting how fall out symptoms are veeery similar (but more extreme obviously) to that of radiotheropy. :)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 11:04:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 11:14:09 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 11:19:32 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 11:35:42 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 11:43:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 15, 2007, 12:05:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on March 15, 2007, 12:05:13 PM
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.  
  
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 12:40:58 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on March 15, 2007, 12:43:41 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 12:46:01 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 15, 2007, 12:54:45 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 01:03:02 PM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 01:13:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 01:17:43 PM
Quote from: Maus
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 15, 2007, 01:19:39 PM
so what are 'things' built of? I mean, if everything is *built* of atoms, then...? I hate chemistry.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 01:24:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 15, 2007, 01:40:59 PM
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]
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 01:44:31 PM
Quote from: Maus
Washington owns the world
Almost, but not quite.

Quote from: Maus
They know all
That is where I beg to differ.

Quote from: Maus
and rule all
Again.  Almost, but not quite.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 15, 2007, 01:47:23 PM
I was being sarcastic lol.


(they're out to get me I'm sure...*twitch*)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 04:02:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 15, 2007, 04:30:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on March 15, 2007, 04:30:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 16, 2007, 01:50:49 AM
Quote from: sokarul
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.

Quote from: sokarul
But none of them doubt they exist.
Your lie ignores twentieth century chemist Pierre Duhem.

Quote from: sokarul
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?

Quote from: Matrixfart
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 16, 2007, 06:44:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 16, 2007, 09:46:10 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
(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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 16, 2007, 10:03:44 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
(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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 16, 2007, 10:46:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 16, 2007, 10:59:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on March 16, 2007, 11:57:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Geordi la Forge on March 16, 2007, 07:20:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 16, 2007, 11:45:13 PM
Quote from: Geordi la Forge
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 16, 2007, 11:53:56 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 16, 2007, 11:55:50 PM
Quote from: Geordi la Forge
I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.

You aren't Navy by any chance are you?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on March 17, 2007, 12:17:53 AM
Quote from: Geordi la Forge
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.

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.   
Quote
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.     

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Matrixfart on March 17, 2007, 07:03:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: SPrinkZ on March 26, 2007, 01:23:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 27, 2007, 06:47:18 AM
I believe he said that they were just regular bombs that were extremely powerful, that any bomb creates a mushroom cloud.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on March 27, 2007, 10:04:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 27, 2007, 10:09:21 AM
Mmmmm...Pudding
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on March 27, 2007, 10:18:39 AM
Mmmmm...Pudding
Eating Chocolate Pudding pleases the Pudding God. :D

Don't eat Vanilla Pudding though. It is a one way ticket to hell.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on March 27, 2007, 10:30:54 AM
The Pudding God is wise and fair.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on March 27, 2007, 10:32:29 AM
The Pudding God is wise and fair.
Of course he is. I would expect nothing less from the only true god. :D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Perspective on March 27, 2007, 12:03:33 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on March 28, 2007, 06:10:07 AM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Iwas@daM00Nlanding on March 29, 2007, 06:56:39 PM
japs and their lies
shit they had it comin anyhow
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: assorted chocolates on March 30, 2007, 08:42:00 PM
Oh my god your an idiot. You just wasted your time discussing Atomic Bombs not nuclear. They are to diffirent things idiot.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on March 30, 2007, 08:43:24 PM
This is entertaining to me. A lot.  ;D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 30, 2007, 10:27:37 PM
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/8563/1158284601903rw8.jpg)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on March 30, 2007, 10:29:50 PM
As always you up the ante :D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Vauxhall the Vampire on March 30, 2007, 10:30:30 PM
As always you up the ante :D

I lold IRL just now
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Human on April 02, 2007, 10:42:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Mrs. Peach on April 02, 2007, 11:30:14 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on April 03, 2007, 03:31:41 AM
it's my cousin's birthday. Small world.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 03, 2007, 11:43:57 AM
I doubt he will come back.  He was owned so he left. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on April 05, 2007, 06:32:01 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Gore
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.   

Quote from: Matrixfart
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on April 05, 2007, 06:34:13 AM
I doubt he will come back.  He was owned so he left. 
you were saying?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Human on April 05, 2007, 08:23:42 AM
Just because someone writes a book...
Doesn't make everything they say true...
And yes I know that argument can be used both ways...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on April 05, 2007, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: Human
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

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 05, 2007, 10:17:17 AM
Quote from: Mrs. Gore
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.   

Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on April 05, 2007, 11:17:18 AM
Quote from: sokarul
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.

Quote from: sokarul
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.   

Quote from: sokarul
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 05, 2007, 11:55:01 AM

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.

Quote
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. 


   
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on April 05, 2007, 01:31:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EIFR on April 05, 2007, 01:46:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: think on April 05, 2007, 01:51:49 PM
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   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 05, 2007, 02:33:04 PM
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.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EIFR on April 05, 2007, 03:02:58 PM
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...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: think on April 05, 2007, 03:36:30 PM
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:


Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 05, 2007, 03:43:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EIFR on April 05, 2007, 03:46:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: think on April 05, 2007, 03:56:58 PM
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. 

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: think on April 05, 2007, 04:05:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on April 05, 2007, 04:19:15 PM
This thread is hilarious.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Agent_0042 on April 06, 2007, 06:26:10 PM
Quote from: think
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.

Quote from: think
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.

Quote from: think
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.

Quote from: think
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.

Quote from: think
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:
Quote from: think
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}
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Agent_0042 on April 07, 2007, 03:47:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on April 08, 2007, 02:12:18 PM
I'm surprised it's gone on this long. :o
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on April 09, 2007, 01:50:59 PM
Quote from: sokarul
you guys dont understand nuclear bomb.

Quote from: think
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. 

Quote from: sokarul
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on April 09, 2007, 01:57:19 PM
Quote from: EIFR
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 09, 2007, 02:01:44 PM


Quote from: sokarul
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on April 09, 2007, 02:09:26 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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.)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 09, 2007, 02:13:01 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 09, 2007, 03:12:28 PM
Apparently you couldnt. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on April 09, 2007, 03:37:07 PM
Quote from: sokarul
Apparently you couldnt.

Apparently in spite of what you may think, this website is not the only thing I do.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 09, 2007, 04:02:42 PM
Yet you post in the other thread?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: fishface on April 09, 2007, 04:23:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on April 09, 2007, 04:31:27 PM
Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 10, 2007, 11:27:08 AM
Guess he went back to his hole in the ground.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Agent_0042 on April 12, 2007, 11:00:10 AM
Guess he went back to his hole in the ground.   
OMG! Earth pockets! The Earth must be flat!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: flatbiker0 on April 22, 2007, 09:49:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on April 23, 2007, 12:47:19 AM
 :o stop being unreasonable flatbiker!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: cheeseenthusiast on April 24, 2007, 12:06:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Miss M. on April 24, 2007, 12:54:48 AM
 ::) electicity? duh! [/dumb blond]


the dude has a point. (cheesedude, not november)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Mrs. Peach on April 24, 2007, 01:25:41 AM
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%.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 24, 2007, 09:27:43 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: cheeseenthusiast on April 28, 2007, 02:16:39 AM
Quote from: sokarul
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 25, 2007, 03:42:35 PM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 25, 2007, 04:00:42 PM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 25, 2007, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: 17 November
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 25, 2007, 08:13:40 PM
Quote from: 17 November
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: andrews on July 26, 2007, 02:53:07 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on July 26, 2007, 03:26:24 AM
This belongs in Complete Nonsense.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on July 26, 2007, 11:31:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 26, 2007, 12:09:05 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on July 26, 2007, 12:13:16 PM
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...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: andrews on July 26, 2007, 07:10:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 26, 2007, 10:35:34 PM
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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.

Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on July 26, 2007, 11:06:39 PM
You're a kook.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on July 27, 2007, 07:19:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 08:26:16 AM
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on July 27, 2007, 08:50:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 09:28:27 AM
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 09:30:46 AM
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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...
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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.


Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on July 27, 2007, 09:38:03 AM
Can anyone paraphrase everything that's happened before I got here so I can participate?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on July 27, 2007, 09:48:45 AM
They basically took a cue from your usual meaninglessness.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on July 27, 2007, 09:58:46 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 10:13:11 AM
Quote from: CommonCents
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on July 27, 2007, 10:19:27 AM
Quote from: CommonCents
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 10:22:17 AM
Quote from: narcberry
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on July 27, 2007, 10:23:03 AM
None of it having meaning, of course.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on July 27, 2007, 10:23:31 AM
Well I can personally vouche for atoms, having known several over the years.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on July 27, 2007, 10:24:05 AM
The defense rests.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 10:38:47 AM
Quote from: CommonCents
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 27, 2007, 11:30:56 AM
Quote from: narcberry
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.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 11:35:00 AM
Quote from: CommonCents
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 11:40:08 AM
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

Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 11:41:57 AM
Quote from: sokarul
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 11:48:20 AM
Quote from: sokarul
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 12:05:58 PM
Quote from: 17 November
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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.

Quote from: CommonCents
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 12:08:20 PM
I misquoted you, yet I put exactly what you said...nice try.  Think before you post next time.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on July 27, 2007, 12:43:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 12:51:19 PM
STATEMENT NUMBER ONE:
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
they didn't have 200 ton non nuclear bombs back in WW2?
Quote from: 17 November
I am rather sure you are correct.

STATEMENT NUMBER TWO:
Quote from: CommonCents
There you say that there was no bomb at the time that could do the damage.

Quote from: CommonCents
yet I put exactly what you said
No, you didn't.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 01:31:15 PM
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;
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 01:48:27 PM
Quote from: CommonCents
I apologize.
What would it take for you to get sokarul to say that?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: CommonCents on July 27, 2007, 02:28:49 PM
Quote from: CommonCents
I apologize.
What would it take for you to get sokarul to say that?
If only I could...if only I could.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on July 27, 2007, 03:17:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 03:28:46 PM
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: andrews on July 27, 2007, 04:45:54 PM
Quote from: Skeptical ATM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: nicolin on July 27, 2007, 04:52:59 PM
November 17, are you saying that nuclear bombs don't exist, or just that what happened in Japan was not due to nuclear bombs?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 27, 2007, 05:01:34 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: nicolin on July 27, 2007, 05:08:04 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 27, 2007, 05:15:41 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: nicolin on July 27, 2007, 05:22:38 PM
Sir, maybe you would care to elaborate on this subject?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 27, 2007, 05:25:09 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: nicolin on July 27, 2007, 05:30:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 27, 2007, 05:56:28 PM
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.

Quote from: sokarul
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? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 06:14:04 PM
Quote from: andrews
The radiation part.
Quote from: 17 November
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.

Quote from: 17 November
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 06:20:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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.

Quote from: sokarul
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on July 27, 2007, 06:37:15 PM
Quote from: nicolin
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on July 27, 2007, 07:22:07 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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.

Quote from: sokarul
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.       
Quote from: nicolin
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: nicolin on July 27, 2007, 08:18:55 PM
@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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Agent_0042 on July 28, 2007, 10:53:35 AM
@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.  ::)


Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: nicolin on July 28, 2007, 12:01:49 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Agent_0042 on July 28, 2007, 05:02:44 PM
My bad for not reading the whole topic before posting... :(
Who does? I just remembered my post.  :D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on July 28, 2007, 06:03:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: CockMonster on August 01, 2007, 07:52:32 PM
This is almost in the league of thinking that the Earth is flat :P

Yep. I bname this league, EXTEMELY STUPID.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Christ Columbus on August 01, 2007, 08:14:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on August 02, 2007, 07:36:24 AM
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!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on August 02, 2007, 07:43:18 AM
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. ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on August 03, 2007, 09:22:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 03, 2007, 02:52:42 PM
Or I harm him myself.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on August 03, 2007, 02:58:33 PM
How fun, I have fans!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 03, 2007, 04:22:30 PM
On days when you're deliberate act of stupidity doesn't annoy me, you are funny. I call them blue moons.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 03, 2007, 04:30:26 PM
Narc. Mids, you're like the personification of not being a retard.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 03, 2007, 04:40:41 PM
I'd actually prefer to feel Jenifer Anniston ('s breasts (from the first season of Friends))
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 03, 2007, 04:51:13 PM
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?  ???
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 03, 2007, 04:54:20 PM
Probably not, but everyone was hotter in the early ones. I went right back.

Oh except Lisa Kudrow, who looked stupid.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: The Communist on August 06, 2007, 11:59:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: The Communist on August 07, 2007, 12:07:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on August 07, 2007, 07:50:08 AM
So we agree, they dont exist?

Another win for FE!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on August 07, 2007, 09:00:47 AM
GTFO
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 07, 2007, 11:33:47 AM
No we haven't, and that doesn't prove FE correct. You faggot.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on August 07, 2007, 01:11:28 PM
Leave the god damn troll alone! Stop responding to him and he will get bored and go away.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 07, 2007, 03:38:20 PM
Not this one.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 07, 2007, 04:38:26 PM
But I don't wanna...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: jim0 on August 08, 2007, 05:09:41 PM
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 11, 2007, 11:55:25 PM
*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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: nicolin on August 12, 2007, 02:12:49 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 12, 2007, 08:03:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 12, 2007, 08:06:19 AM
Quote from: CommonCents
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 12, 2007, 08:08:52 AM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 12, 2007, 08:47:32 AM
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).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 12, 2007, 10:25:46 AM
LOL @ pseudo-scientists
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 12, 2007, 11:03:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on August 12, 2007, 11:22:09 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 12, 2007, 11:25:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 12, 2007, 02:45:53 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 12, 2007, 06:55:54 PM

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 12, 2007, 07:25:28 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: TheEarthIsSpherical on August 15, 2007, 10:06:13 AM
This is almost as funny as thinking that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on August 15, 2007, 10:07:42 AM
This is almost as funny as thinking that the earth is flat.

Says TheEarthIsSpherical... (the RE earth isn't a sphere)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: TheEarthIsSpherical on August 15, 2007, 10:17:39 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on August 15, 2007, 10:35:23 AM
Could you show me a picture.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 15, 2007, 03:35:08 PM
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. 
::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: TheEarthIsSpherical on August 15, 2007, 08:33:49 PM
Could you show me a picture.

... Yes. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 19, 2007, 08:13:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 19, 2007, 08:21:01 PM
And, to top off the candy-striped tit fuck smut brigade, none of it matters!  :P
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 26, 2007, 01:40:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 26, 2007, 05:53:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 26, 2007, 06:52:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on August 26, 2007, 06:53:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 26, 2007, 07:34:42 PM
Screw you.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 27, 2007, 09:02:30 AM
Two tymes
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: The Communist on August 27, 2007, 12:26:26 PM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on August 29, 2007, 12:00:28 PM
*sigh*

Grammar is so old on this site.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 29, 2007, 03:15:45 PM
Is November still active?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on August 29, 2007, 03:22:36 PM
Is November still active?
No but he will most likely be back.  He really does believe the earth is flat. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 29, 2007, 11:15:23 PM
Is November still active?
No but he will most likely be back.  He really does believe the earth is flat. 
Among other things.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 30, 2007, 08:35:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on August 30, 2007, 10:38:23 AM
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).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 30, 2007, 11:58:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Agent_0042 on August 30, 2007, 12:10:37 PM
The nonperson hates that he has no impact other than a laugh.
Not even that.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Jimmy Crackhorn on August 30, 2007, 06:08:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 30, 2007, 06:21:18 PM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16578.0
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on August 30, 2007, 06:43:40 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 30, 2007, 09:21:03 PM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16578.0
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on August 30, 2007, 10:51:42 PM
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16578.0
Don't spam other threads. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 31, 2007, 09:24:59 AM
Get the hell out Midnight.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 31, 2007, 11:36:26 AM
Get the hell out Midnight.

(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i124/djredskull/hlyjo5-1.gif)

Fuck you, sparky.  :-*
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on August 31, 2007, 01:09:45 PM
 ???

And... Was that supposed to do something other than make me ponder your sanity for the millionth time?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 31, 2007, 02:37:58 PM
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.  :-*
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: cmdshft on August 31, 2007, 07:08:12 PM
The easter bunny hates you.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 31, 2007, 07:08:45 PM
Sue me.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: cmdshft on August 31, 2007, 07:11:24 PM
Stop standing in my way when I shoot my ray gun, dammit.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 31, 2007, 07:12:16 PM
Stop standing in my way when I shoot my ray gun, dammit.

Make me.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: cmdshft on August 31, 2007, 07:13:04 PM
PTEW
PTEW
PTEW
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 31, 2007, 07:13:38 PM
*Holds up Narcberry as the nonperson shield*
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: cmdshft on August 31, 2007, 07:14:12 PM
That's better.

PTEW
PTEW
PTEW

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on August 31, 2007, 07:15:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on September 01, 2007, 02:55:31 PM
Oh that's who's running for mayor of the universe...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: cmdshft on September 05, 2007, 09:39:01 AM
gtfo, newfag
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on September 05, 2007, 09:57:41 AM
Hmm, I've never thought before.

Fixed.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: narcberry on September 05, 2007, 09:59:12 AM
Hmm, I've never thought before.

Fixed.

Man, I just keep getting burned by you. This forum stuff is hard.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on September 05, 2007, 10:00:32 AM
Man, I just keep getting it up the ass. This makes me hard.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 06, 2007, 06:08:15 AM
Get the hell out Midnight.

(http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i124/djredskull/hlyjo5-1.gif)

Fuck you, sparky.  :-*

Bitch eat my french fries.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on September 06, 2007, 12:39:00 PM
Why was I quoted by Longcat?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 06, 2007, 03:20:03 PM
Why was I quoted by Longcat?

I think longcat is also running for mayor of the universe.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: The Communist on September 06, 2007, 03:45:50 PM
You should feel special if Longcat quotes you. It is also a relevant quote.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 06, 2007, 03:52:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: The Communist on September 06, 2007, 07:15:24 PM
Indeed. The short bus is more financially and ecologically efficient and helmet is very useful in protecting your most vital organ (from the government).
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 06, 2007, 07:18:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: The Communist on September 06, 2007, 07:22:16 PM
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 06, 2007, 07:53:37 PM
Mental incompetance and FES forum membership are correlated.

I'm not going to take your word on that, considering the source.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on September 06, 2007, 07:55:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 06, 2007, 07:55:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on September 06, 2007, 07:56:54 PM
Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's ass, right Dan?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 06, 2007, 07:57:45 PM
my neighbor two doors down has an ass i'd love to covet all night long.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Skeptical ATM on September 08, 2007, 05:52:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: The Communist on September 08, 2007, 06:06:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: The Communist on September 08, 2007, 06:07:00 AM
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  :-*
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on October 01, 2007, 03:41:42 PM
Is 17 still active? I can't find a recent post anywhere.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on October 01, 2007, 10:36:00 PM
Yeah.  Look for the name "Tom Bishop".   ;D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 03, 2007, 06:59:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on October 14, 2007, 01:30:06 PM
Quote from: Ulrichomega
Is 17 still active? I can't find a recent post anywhere.

I hereby switch to the username DionysiosAreopagitis.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: theonlydann on October 14, 2007, 01:40:57 PM
 ;D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 14, 2007, 02:22:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on October 14, 2007, 02:28:36 PM
I haven't seen you. Therefor you must be a government robot.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: DionysiosAreopagitis on October 14, 2007, 02:49:08 PM
  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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: me25 on October 14, 2007, 04:15:35 PM
I've never seen you therefore the government has programmed robots to use reverse phsycology, ingenious.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: DionysiosAreopagitis on October 14, 2007, 05:14:44 PM
Quote from: Matrixfart
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 14, 2007, 05:21:29 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 16, 2007, 02:58:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: DionysiosAreopagitis on October 16, 2007, 03:47:53 PM
Quote from: Raist
you get on a website and say retarded things to prove me wrong
An excellent point.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on October 17, 2007, 01:09:58 PM
Why are we argueing with Tom again?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conspiracy Mastermind on October 17, 2007, 01:31:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 17, 2007, 05:10:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ulrichomega on October 18, 2007, 07:37:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 19, 2007, 05:53:10 AM
Oh my bad. lol.

So many noobs on here i'm starting to make assumptions about everyone.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Misfortune on October 20, 2007, 02:00:31 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 21, 2007, 05:54:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 21, 2007, 06:39:24 PM
I exist because God was feeling generous toward mankind one afternoon...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 21, 2007, 06:46:03 PM
and decided to make them all feel better about themselves?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 21, 2007, 07:05:46 PM
by giving them a superior model to be in awe of, yes.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 21, 2007, 07:06:19 PM
Lol or to look down on someone and say "at least we aren't that guy"
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 21, 2007, 07:09:50 PM
They say that, but it's just jealousy - inside they're thinking, "I wish I was that guy"
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Torn Bishop on October 21, 2007, 08:56:00 PM
They say that, but it's just jealousy - inside they're thinking, "I wish I was that gay"
Nope.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 21, 2007, 09:09:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Torn Bishop on October 21, 2007, 09:19:51 PM
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*
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 21, 2007, 09:25:31 PM
Lol
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 22, 2007, 03:51:28 PM
Why are we jealous and wish we were that gay? I'm twice as gay as he'll ever be.  :-X
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 22, 2007, 03:55:47 PM
I actually said, guy, but some loser edited my post for the quote.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 22, 2007, 04:24:55 PM
Or he quoted you and you changed your post. Yes i believe my thoery is the truth. Yours is full of lies and slander.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on October 24, 2007, 04:58:25 PM
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...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Torn Bishop on October 24, 2007, 11:24:32 PM
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...
::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 27, 2007, 07:17:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: bullhorn3 on November 22, 2007, 05:47:15 PM
Quote from: Agent Z
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on November 22, 2007, 05:49:48 PM
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!!!!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: bullhorn3 on November 22, 2007, 06:02:44 PM
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."
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: bullhorn3 on November 22, 2007, 06:20:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: SparteX on November 25, 2007, 01:16:24 PM
No nuclear weapons, what the hell leveled nagusaki?? What are nuclear power stations then? we've seen what happens when they go critical.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Mythix Profit on November 26, 2007, 02:00:43 PM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on November 26, 2007, 05:30:27 PM
dude, some of the people in here are totally out of touch with the world. Myself included.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rex on November 27, 2007, 10:09:32 AM
edit
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on December 03, 2007, 08:27:00 AM
With few exceptions most on this site are pathetic pawns in the Ignosceni Revolution.

That statement gave me pause. Rare. Well done.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on December 04, 2007, 04:19:26 PM
Don't encourage him. He talks like that CONSTANTLY. It can sound witty in a sentence or two, but eventually.....
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Mythix Profit on December 05, 2007, 03:59:58 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on December 05, 2007, 04:12:15 PM
LOL, what utter shite you talk.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on December 05, 2007, 05:32:57 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on December 05, 2007, 07:17:14 PM
.....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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ah What Da on December 06, 2007, 11:01:49 PM
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...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Mythix Profit on December 10, 2007, 04:25:35 PM
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......
 
 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ah What Da on December 10, 2007, 09:02:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on December 10, 2007, 09:05:47 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on December 10, 2007, 09:07:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Optimus Prime on December 11, 2007, 08:10:55 PM
Dude, that avatar is the sickest thing I have ever seen! Holy shit! lol ... damn, I think I may have nightmares.. ;D
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on December 11, 2007, 10:46:00 PM
I was more disturbed by the Dexter avatar.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on December 12, 2007, 12:05:13 PM
What do you find so disturbing about Dexter?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on December 12, 2007, 03:06:39 PM
My question. What is dexter?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on December 12, 2007, 04:38:20 PM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on December 12, 2007, 04:41:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on December 12, 2007, 05:10:47 PM
Did you see the season finale, Mids?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Midnight on December 12, 2007, 05:39:46 PM
2 weeks ago. It's me, after all. :P
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on December 12, 2007, 09:20:18 PM
Although I like Dexter, I think Sylar is a better serial killer.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on December 12, 2007, 10:30:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on December 12, 2007, 10:58:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Masterchef on December 13, 2007, 04:55:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Loard Z on December 13, 2007, 06:35:36 AM
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.

Quote
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?
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on January 02, 2009, 07:03:59 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: ColumbusFanClub on January 02, 2009, 08:01:01 AM

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 : (
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on January 02, 2009, 02:00:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 02, 2009, 04:36:43 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on January 02, 2009, 09:38:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EllisGT on January 03, 2009, 02:23:56 PM
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
Quote
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...
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: KingMan on January 10, 2009, 09:11:58 AM
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
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Violent on January 13, 2009, 04:08:48 AM
I made a video entitled NUKE LIES which contains evidently falsified nuclear / atomic bomb test footage:
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: KingMan on January 13, 2009, 06:50:42 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Guessed on January 13, 2009, 08:26:16 AM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Violent on January 13, 2009, 08:29:26 AM
Would anyone who is not a troll like to express their opinion or contribute useful commentary?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on January 13, 2009, 11:36:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: KingMan on January 13, 2009, 02:57:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on February 17, 2009, 09:09:16 PM
Quote from: Dead Kangaroo
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on February 21, 2009, 11:38:12 AM
Quote from: Dead Kangaroo
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ravenwood240 on February 21, 2009, 12:28:07 PM

So which supervillain decapitates people to steal their powers?


Any evil Highlander person.  You know, "There can be only One?"
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: aj3262 on March 01, 2009, 10:02:50 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Euclid on March 01, 2009, 11:12:02 PM
Quote from: Dead Kangaroo
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on March 01, 2009, 11:25:20 PM
I wouldn't be surprised.  They seem equally deranged and Dio's had alts before.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Dsman0 on March 06, 2009, 04:01:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on March 07, 2009, 10:46:23 PM
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: theonlydann on March 08, 2009, 11:09:21 AM
I miss reading your posts. AI wish you didnt delete so many.  :'(
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Death-T on April 23, 2010, 08:55:19 PM


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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: But_I_Digress on April 24, 2010, 12:19:52 PM
Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

They were not faked. Nuclear weapons are real.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Albino Aardvark on April 24, 2010, 09:43:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Mykael on April 24, 2010, 09:45:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Albino Aardvark on April 24, 2010, 09:48:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Mykael on April 24, 2010, 10:22:52 PM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: dude55 on May 01, 2010, 05:55:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Dr Matrix on May 02, 2010, 06:55:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on May 24, 2010, 11:46:01 AM


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?







 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Dr Matrix on May 24, 2010, 02:19:34 PM
Nukes are real, mmkay?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: markjo on May 24, 2010, 03:38:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on May 25, 2010, 12:47:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 25, 2010, 06:29:52 AM
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.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on May 25, 2010, 09:46:59 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on May 25, 2010, 09:49:54 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on May 25, 2010, 08:55:00 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on May 25, 2010, 09:18:23 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on May 25, 2010, 09:37:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on May 25, 2010, 10:18:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 05:47:55 AM
I do not need a mechanic to drive my car... nor anyone to explain how the combustion engine works.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on May 26, 2010, 09:22:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: theonlydann on May 26, 2010, 01:23:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: dude55 on May 26, 2010, 04:15:39 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on May 27, 2010, 12:16:49 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: theonlydann on May 27, 2010, 03:02:45 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on May 27, 2010, 05:49:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: theonlydann on May 27, 2010, 06:53:24 AM
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!

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: markjo on May 28, 2010, 06:25:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: theonlydann on May 28, 2010, 01:11:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on May 28, 2010, 10:52:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 29, 2010, 06:23:58 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: smaller on June 01, 2010, 12:54:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sandokhan on June 02, 2010, 04:52:38 AM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on June 02, 2010, 06:38:18 AM

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? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Sliver on June 02, 2010, 07:36:38 PM
There are no nuclear weapons.
I think the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would argue otherwise.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on June 02, 2010, 08:20:34 PM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on June 02, 2010, 08:47:39 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on June 02, 2010, 08:49:49 PM
Quote from: smaller
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? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on June 02, 2010, 10:28:19 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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.  
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tech on June 02, 2010, 11:36:05 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: jackofhearts on June 03, 2010, 04:10:15 AM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on June 03, 2010, 04:56:43 AM
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
Quote
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.   
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: jackofhearts on June 03, 2010, 01:58:01 PM
Quote from: sokarul
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on June 03, 2010, 06:38:57 PM
Quote from: sokarul
Quote from: 17 November
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tech on June 03, 2010, 08:08:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tech on June 03, 2010, 11:23:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on June 04, 2010, 06:07:38 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EireEngineer on June 19, 2010, 05:39:47 PM
Quote from: jackofhearts
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EireEngineer on June 20, 2010, 06:15:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on June 20, 2010, 10:54:19 PM
this is dumb, there are accounts of Japanese whose bones had been irradiated to the point where they crumbled to ash upon cremation
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: onetwothreefour on August 04, 2010, 07:54:24 AM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on August 07, 2010, 09:58:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EireEngineer on August 08, 2010, 09:13:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Aristarchus on August 10, 2010, 04:35:50 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on August 10, 2010, 11:39:22 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 10, 2010, 01:49:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Aristarchus on August 10, 2010, 03:01:52 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EireEngineer on August 10, 2010, 03:15:18 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on August 10, 2010, 03:15:59 PM
Enjoy your short vacation. Perhaps you can enjoy a short cruise with your Navy friends.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Benocrates on August 10, 2010, 03:48:50 PM
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://)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EireEngineer on August 11, 2010, 05:47:03 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on August 11, 2010, 09:36:09 AM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Benocrates on August 11, 2010, 10:34:29 AM
Quote from: Benocrates
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: zork on August 28, 2010, 11:15:56 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Death-T on September 21, 2010, 04:04:19 PM
I like how the nay-sayers of nuclear technology basically ignored my post.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Hazbollah on September 25, 2010, 01:53:37 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 25, 2010, 10:11:27 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Hazbollah on September 26, 2010, 06:03:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on September 27, 2010, 02:23:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Hazbollah on October 02, 2010, 02:32:01 PM
Thus defeating the point of powering them with uranium.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Vindictus on October 02, 2010, 08:08:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 02, 2010, 09:51:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Hazbollah on October 03, 2010, 09:01:30 AM
Generally whether something works or not is indicative of its usefulness.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on October 03, 2010, 09:08:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: drevko on December 13, 2010, 02:43:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Supertails on January 03, 2011, 12:24:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: pizzaguy on January 03, 2011, 01:48:01 PM
"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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on January 06, 2011, 12:19:56 AM
"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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Beorn on January 06, 2011, 06:55:43 PM
"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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Dr Matrix on January 09, 2011, 02:37:49 PM
Nuclear weapons do exist.  Fact.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: General Disarray on January 09, 2011, 03:45:36 PM
Nuclear weapons do exist.  Fact.

Glad we settled that.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Dr Matrix on January 10, 2011, 12:24:19 PM
Glad we settled that.

As am I.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on February 21, 2011, 07:59:49 PM
Tsar Bomba
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: DDDDAts all folks on February 22, 2011, 11:00:14 AM
I think Japan might have something to say about this.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Thevoiceofreason on February 22, 2011, 07:37:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: That guy on February 24, 2011, 12:48:13 PM
omg this site is comedy gold.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on February 27, 2011, 10:03:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: hoppy on February 27, 2011, 11:56:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on February 27, 2011, 01:40:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Planeteclipse on February 28, 2011, 10:11:17 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on March 01, 2011, 09:09:09 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Planeteclipse on March 02, 2011, 07:58:29 PM

[/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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on March 02, 2011, 09:06:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Planeteclipse on March 03, 2011, 09:10:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on March 03, 2011, 11:33:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: pizzaguy on March 16, 2011, 01:14:47 PM
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".
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sillyrob on March 17, 2011, 02:02:21 AM
I saw a nuclear weapon. In your face.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EireEngineer on March 21, 2011, 04:00:06 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Thork on December 18, 2011, 04:36:33 PM
I finally typed the whole article into Micrsoft Word and will now post it.
Joy.  :-\
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on December 18, 2011, 06:37:10 PM
'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!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on December 18, 2011, 06:40:00 PM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on December 18, 2011, 07:09:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 09:11:09 AM
I haven't searched the thread to see if you answered this question: Why do you want them to be fake? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 11:07:45 AM
I'm sorry, did I hurt your feelings? Let me put it in a more civil tone:

Please have a psychological evaluation.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 12:14:59 PM
This should tell you all you need to know about 17 here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Organization_17_November
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 01:03:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 02:08:11 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 02:14:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 02:16:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 02:27:01 PM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 02:40:48 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 02:43:31 PM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 02:49:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on December 19, 2011, 02:51:10 PM
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...

Quote from: 17 November
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 03:01:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 03:11:29 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 03:36:53 PM
I know it might not seem like it but unlike some people on here I don't enjoy arguing for the sake of it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 03:40:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 03:43:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 03:50:48 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 03:58:22 PM
Only the golden variety
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 04:01:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 04:02:41 PM
I'm always feeling adventurous. That's what I call it by the way.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 04:08:56 PM
Then adventure onward and leave this stale site behind.  It and you have seen many days and nights together and neither holds surprises.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 04:11:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Kasroa Is Gone on December 19, 2011, 04:11:44 PM
And you missed my penis joke.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 19, 2011, 05:55:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on December 24, 2011, 06:37:32 PM
If dragons do exist I'll be sure to ally myself with them as soon as possible.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 25, 2011, 02:04:42 AM
Quote from: 17 November
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on December 25, 2011, 07:48:43 AM
Quote from: 17 November
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 25, 2011, 07:54:41 AM
Quote from: 17 November
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 10:12:46 AM
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 !!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on December 25, 2011, 11:59:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Silverdane on December 25, 2011, 12:59:03 PM
Reported for terrorism.

You reported America for terrorism?

Great, I can't wait to see them locked up. HAHAHAHAHA
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on December 25, 2011, 04:32:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 26, 2011, 02:43:10 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on December 26, 2011, 09:14:17 AM
Nuclear fission is just a conspiracy.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Silverdane on December 28, 2011, 05:47:20 PM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Silverdane on December 28, 2011, 05:54:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on December 28, 2011, 11:27:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on December 29, 2011, 01:58:41 PM
Dave, he said cold fission. Which quite frankly is hilarious.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Silverdane on December 29, 2011, 04:46:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Hazbollah on January 03, 2012, 10:49:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 03, 2012, 10:57:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Raist on January 05, 2012, 02:00:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 05, 2012, 10:55:24 AM
Uranium is the cure for death, but only the non radioactive isotopes

What a shame.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on January 07, 2012, 09:30:45 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 07, 2012, 10:35:25 PM
Dave, I'm not sure if you know, but Silverdane was banned a few days ago.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on January 07, 2012, 10:48:38 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Around And About on January 07, 2012, 10:57:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on January 07, 2012, 11:06:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: hoppy on January 08, 2012, 07:37:07 AM
I think silverdane was banned for personal attacks in upper fora, roundy said in another post somewhere.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: rayman on January 11, 2012, 08:02:03 PM
If nuclear bombs do not exist, all the Nuclear Power stations in the world is fake too?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 11, 2012, 08:41:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: rayman on January 11, 2012, 09:08:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 11, 2012, 09:25:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: rayman on January 11, 2012, 09:28:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 11, 2012, 09:29:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: rayman on January 11, 2012, 09:36:44 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 11, 2012, 10:12:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: rayman on January 11, 2012, 10:19:10 PM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 11, 2012, 10:38:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: rayman on January 11, 2012, 10:48:37 PM
ha
The conspiracy card =)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Vindictus on January 12, 2012, 12:28:36 AM
Nuclear weapons are a conspiracy, the scope and span of which is unknown.

The upper forums called, they urgently need more DA's.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on January 12, 2012, 07:14:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on January 12, 2012, 12:14:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on January 12, 2012, 02:03:24 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on January 12, 2012, 02:16:35 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on January 12, 2012, 02:20:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 07, 2012, 12:48:21 AM
The idea that nuclear weapons do not exist is kind of offensive to all the poor Japanese that died in those two explosions. . .
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Wakka Wakka on February 07, 2012, 05:27:37 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on February 07, 2012, 08:43:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Wakka Wakka on February 07, 2012, 10:31:18 AM
So saying they were killed by conventional bombs instead of atomic bombs is offensive?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on February 07, 2012, 10:52:35 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 07, 2012, 11:09:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on February 07, 2012, 12:06:29 PM
So you believe Lying is Disrespectful? Me too. At least we can agree on something  :P
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Death-T on February 07, 2012, 08:02:16 PM
Has anyone come up with a response to my laid out explanation of why 'nuclear weapons being fake' is in fact politically impossible?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on February 07, 2012, 09:05:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Death-T on February 08, 2012, 06:37:26 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on February 08, 2012, 08:31:25 AM
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?

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on February 08, 2012, 08:43:32 AM
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"?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on February 08, 2012, 09:01:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Death-T on February 08, 2012, 09:07:28 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on February 08, 2012, 10:44:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on February 08, 2012, 10:54:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Death-T on February 08, 2012, 11:38:52 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on February 08, 2012, 12:27:11 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2012, 12:42:25 PM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on February 08, 2012, 01:35:30 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2012, 01:40:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on February 08, 2012, 01:44:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on February 08, 2012, 03:36:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2012, 03:52:10 PM
Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on February 08, 2012, 07:41:17 PM
Quote
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on February 08, 2012, 08:47:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 08, 2012, 09:25:11 PM
Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Vindictus on February 08, 2012, 11:16:51 PM
Quote
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on February 09, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
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.



Quote
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on February 09, 2012, 02:33:21 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on February 09, 2012, 04:45:43 PM
less chemical water.

lol

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on April 15, 2012, 02:03:02 PM
'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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 15, 2012, 02:15:09 PM
'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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Locke on April 18, 2012, 07:59:12 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 18, 2012, 08:08:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Locke on April 18, 2012, 08:39:31 PM
Do explain
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Locke on April 18, 2012, 08:52:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 18, 2012, 09:00:37 PM
Do explain

My stove can heat water to its boiling point. Can I destroy entire cities with my stove?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Locke on April 18, 2012, 09:12:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 18, 2012, 09:19:59 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Locke on April 18, 2012, 09:30:50 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Cat Earth Theory on April 18, 2012, 10:00:13 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 18, 2012, 10:12:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on April 19, 2012, 03:34:38 AM
If you can boil water with nuclear fission, you can create massive heat and energy release using the same technique, just with more material.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 19, 2012, 04:47:24 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 19, 2012, 06:18:32 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on April 19, 2012, 08:04:09 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 19, 2012, 08:09:23 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 19, 2012, 08:12:12 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 19, 2012, 08:20:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Hazbollah on April 19, 2012, 10:46:44 AM
Rushy, man, keep the trollin' in check. Don't get carried away, you're making it too obvious.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 19, 2012, 10:48:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on April 19, 2012, 12:26:30 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 19, 2012, 12:36:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 19, 2012, 12:42:54 PM
The government built your microwave?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 19, 2012, 01:11:01 PM
The government built your microwave?

GE = Government Electric.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 19, 2012, 02:28:44 PM
Are you talking about General Electric?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Around And About on April 19, 2012, 03:16:48 PM
So they would have you believe, Saddam Hussein - if that is your real name.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 19, 2012, 03:47:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 19, 2012, 04:03:46 PM
I didn't think it was possible, but this thread made more sense when 17 November was posting in it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 19, 2012, 05:49:12 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Locke on April 19, 2012, 06:30:19 PM
Lol good point. I wonder why they call it a MICROwave... not a GAMAwave
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on April 19, 2012, 06:35:07 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 19, 2012, 07:28:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Locke on April 19, 2012, 07:32:57 PM
Lol that is not true at all.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 19, 2012, 07:45:24 PM
Lol that is not true at all.

Have you performed a spectrum analysis of your microwave recently?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 19, 2012, 07:59:23 PM
Must. Not. Feed. Troll
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Locke on April 19, 2012, 09:31:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on April 20, 2012, 03:04:11 AM
Why bother doing a spectral analysis? All you need to do is take it apart and run a Geiger counter over it.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 20, 2012, 05:44:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 20, 2012, 06:32:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: OrbisNonSufficit on April 20, 2012, 10:14:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on April 21, 2012, 01:32:10 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 21, 2012, 01:45:34 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on April 21, 2012, 02:14:40 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Vindictus on April 21, 2012, 06:00:33 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 21, 2012, 08:13:39 PM
Yes.  There is a lesson buried in there somewhere.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 24, 2012, 11:44:35 AM
Placed my cell phone in my microwave, it still had two bars. Nothing can stop Verizon.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 24, 2012, 11:48:29 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 24, 2012, 02:39:45 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on April 24, 2012, 04:44:46 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 24, 2012, 07:31:20 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 24, 2012, 08:50:02 PM
What does any of this have to do with nuclear weapons?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 25, 2012, 04:57:37 AM
Nothing.  It just proves that Gammawave ovens can not stop the power of Verizon.  My walls must be lined with lead then.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 25, 2012, 07:44:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 25, 2012, 08:00:57 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 25, 2012, 08:04:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 25, 2012, 08:24:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on April 26, 2012, 05:46:00 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2012, 07:11:31 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2012, 07:15:55 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on April 26, 2012, 08:50:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2012, 10:39:49 AM
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 (?)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2012, 12:19:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Conker on April 26, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
No. Microwaves heating the water molecules of your body or more posibbly high EMF. BUY ANOTHER MICROWAVE OVEN
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Tausami on April 26, 2012, 06:20:30 PM
My computer is releasing high levels of radiation right now. It is.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 26, 2012, 07:05:37 PM
My computer is releasing high levels of radiation right now. It is.

My Trojan is working then.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Particle Person on April 26, 2012, 07:40:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: canofpepsi on April 26, 2012, 07:58:56 PM
High levels of gamma radiation cause THE INCREDIBLE HULK
You wouldn't like me when I'm agnry.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2012, 08:12:31 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on May 22, 2012, 10:58:34 AM
If a piece of matter is burned into nothingness by fire, then it simply ceases to exist.

So speaketh Master November.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lorddave on May 24, 2012, 03:53:39 AM
'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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Hazbollah on May 27, 2012, 03:01:49 AM
'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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: EireEngineer on May 30, 2012, 06:49:29 AM


If a piece of matter is burned into nothingness by fire, then it simply ceases to exist.
Sorry, but demonstrably not true.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Around And About on May 30, 2012, 07:26:02 AM
We're sorry, 17.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: theonlydann on May 31, 2012, 05:31:41 PM


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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Wakka Wakka on May 31, 2012, 09:33:46 PM
Ssshhh, if you are to loud, the wild 17 November won't return.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Saddam Hussein on May 31, 2012, 10:17:04 PM
He'll be back eventually.  He has too many theories he hasn't shared with us yet.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on May 31, 2012, 11:48:01 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 01, 2012, 02:06:23 AM
No, most of them are just boring.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on June 01, 2012, 04:45:24 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Saddam Hussein on June 01, 2012, 05:17:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: hoppy on June 01, 2012, 06:27:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2012, 06:44:30 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 01, 2012, 06:49:54 AM
Where do I pick up my paycheck?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2012, 09:17:08 AM
Where do I pick up my paycheck?

When you created an account on this site you actually agreed to a pro bono government contract.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 01, 2012, 09:23:52 AM
I suspected I would get bono'd.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: iWitness on June 01, 2012, 01:54:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: mtclimber on March 01, 2014, 12:07:51 AM
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".
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 27, 2014, 05:11:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 27, 2014, 09:09:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 27, 2014, 09:13:27 AM
We'd be at war with Russia still if nukes didn't exist.
CHECKMATE
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 27, 2014, 09:37:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 27, 2014, 09:42:52 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 27, 2014, 10:03:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: markjo on April 27, 2014, 04:37:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 28, 2014, 04:41:56 AM
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/)

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: markjo on April 28, 2014, 06:33:06 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 28, 2014, 06:44:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 28, 2014, 07:57:12 AM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 28, 2014, 08:02:58 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: markjo on April 28, 2014, 09:24:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 28, 2014, 09:51:14 AM

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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: markjo on April 28, 2014, 12:13:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 28, 2014, 02:45:48 PM
...
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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]
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 02:13:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 02:30:49 AM
I didn't realise they has such good cgi back in the 50s
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 02:59:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 03:29:22 AM
Let me rephrase that, I didn't realsie they had any capability to fake images like this in the 50s
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 03:38:59 AM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 03:46:10 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 04:12:47 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 04:15:39 AM
Can I have an example of a fake image expert paid by the government
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 04:20:12 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 04:24:07 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 04:36:40 AM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 04:56:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 29, 2014, 05:13:17 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 05:27:15 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 05:48:45 AM
Hundreds of thousands if not millions that have seen them?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 05:59:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 06:02:13 AM
Hundreds of thousands if not millions that have seen them?
Seen what?

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 06:20:28 AM
Nuclear eplosions
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 06:22:24 AM
Nuclear eplosions
Who are these millions and where did they actually see these nuclear explosions?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 06:24:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 06:31:06 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 06:31:20 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 06:35:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 06:41:35 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on April 29, 2014, 06:50:36 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 07:07:01 AM
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.


Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 07:08:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 07:12:44 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 29, 2014, 07:21:55 AM
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?  ???
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 07:33:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 29, 2014, 07:37:41 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 07:41:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: th3rm0m3t3r0 on April 29, 2014, 07:44:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 07:52:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 07:53:42 AM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 07:54:19 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 07:58:36 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 08:59:20 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on April 29, 2014, 09:23:30 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 29, 2014, 10:19:25 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: JimmyTheCrab on April 29, 2014, 12:01:31 PM
How the hell do we wake up the world?
Two words: Massive.  Alarm.  Clock.

OK, that might have been more than two.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 29, 2014, 01:37:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sevenhills on May 05, 2014, 06:34:44 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: beast on May 08, 2014, 11:10:41 PM

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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 16, 2014, 05:35:07 AM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 16, 2014, 06:12:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 16, 2014, 06:38:02 AM
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://#)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 16, 2014, 06:51:41 AM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 16, 2014, 07:46:40 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 16, 2014, 04:31:46 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Shmeggley on May 17, 2014, 09:22:52 PM
Nuclear weapons exist.




They do.




PS, November 17: What's the difference between gold and silver?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 18, 2014, 10:40:00 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 18, 2014, 03:52:57 PM
...


PS, November 17: What's the difference between gold and silver?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 18, 2014, 05:25:59 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 18, 2014, 05:29:17 PM
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 18, 2014, 07:19:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 18, 2014, 07:54:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 18, 2014, 07:57:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 18, 2014, 08:02:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 18, 2014, 08:08:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 18, 2014, 09:49:19 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on May 18, 2014, 10:39:54 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on May 20, 2014, 09:51:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 21, 2014, 10:35:26 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on May 21, 2014, 11:37:58 PM
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? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on May 22, 2014, 02:54:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: drevko on June 02, 2014, 09:36:35 AM
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://#)

Quote from: Matrixfart
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)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: 17 November on June 06, 2014, 05:16:16 PM

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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: TokyoRoyalty on July 08, 2014, 07:08:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on July 08, 2014, 11:32:33 PM
Watch your language, TokyoRoyalty.  Consider this a warning. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: johnreynaga on March 18, 2015, 02:11:37 AM
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://)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: kman on March 18, 2015, 03:59:51 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: hoppy on March 18, 2015, 07:55:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rama Set on March 18, 2015, 08:21:47 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on March 18, 2015, 09:24:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Lemmiwinks on March 18, 2015, 01:14:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: kman on March 18, 2015, 01:30:10 PM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Misero on March 19, 2015, 12:52:06 PM
If you want better understanding on this topic, read "BOMB: The race to build, and steal, the world's first nuclear weapons". Very nice.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: LogicalKiller on March 29, 2015, 06:26:36 AM

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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: rerevisionist on April 09, 2015, 01:23:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: boethius on June 03, 2015, 07:27:59 AM
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.






Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 03, 2015, 07:41:16 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: JRoweSkeptic on June 03, 2015, 08:05:27 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: boethius on June 03, 2015, 11:59:52 AM
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.




Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Pythagoras on June 05, 2015, 08:40:34 AM
and the emp pulse?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on June 05, 2015, 09:20:33 AM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 05, 2015, 03:49:08 PM
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?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 14, 2015, 05:12:17 AM
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. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 14, 2015, 06:24:35 AM
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
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on June 14, 2015, 06:45:00 AM
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.  ::)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Misero on June 14, 2015, 07:01:43 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on June 14, 2015, 07:05:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: mikeman7918 on June 14, 2015, 12:51:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Steve-O on June 23, 2015, 09:03:55 PM
Man, you know you're way off track if JRS's views are in line with everyone else's. 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Excelsior John on June 24, 2015, 12:09:20 PM
Im sorey, but this is not just firebombing:

BAM!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 04:27:06 AM
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm)
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Ecthelion on April 21, 2016, 05:21:54 AM
...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!
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sokarul on April 21, 2016, 05:58:24 AM
...a load of baseless claims...
Source?
http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm (http://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm)
You bumped this thread to post that crap?
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Heiwa on April 21, 2016, 07:50:19 AM
...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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Rama Set on April 21, 2016, 08:05:33 AM
...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? 
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Round and Proud on April 23, 2016, 09:41:11 AM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Son of Orospu on April 23, 2016, 11:14:57 AM
Those cities are still not the radioactive wastelands that mikeman erroneously made them out to be.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on April 26, 2016, 12:50:08 PM
Ask the people at Hiroshima if atomic weapons exist.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Round and Proud on April 26, 2016, 01:59:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 26, 2016, 01:59:29 PM
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?

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 26, 2016, 02:01:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: Round and Proud on April 26, 2016, 02:17:55 PM
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.

Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
Post by: sceptimatic on April 26, 2016, 02:30:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist