Nuclear Power Exaggerated

  • 4288 Replies
  • 740742 Views
*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #660 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.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #661 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?
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #662 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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #663 on: June 01, 2012, 06:49:54 AM »
Where do I pick up my paycheck?

*

Rushy

  • 8971
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #664 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.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #665 on: June 01, 2012, 09:23:52 AM »
I suspected I would get bono'd.

*

iWitness

  • 1173
  • If the earth is round then what is your problem?
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #666 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.
Disclaimer: I am confused. Everything I say is speculative and not admissible in a court of law; however, I am neither insane nor a threat to myself or others. I am simply curious about everything in life and enjoy talking about crazy shit. Oh, & btw I like turtles.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #667 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".

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #668 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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #669 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.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #670 on: April 27, 2014, 09:13:27 AM »
We'd be at war with Russia still if nukes didn't exist.
CHECKMATE


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #671 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.

*

th3rm0m3t3r0

  • At least 3 words, please.
  • 4696
  • It's SCIENCE!
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #672 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.


I don't profess to be correct.
Quote from: sceptimatic
I am correct.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #673 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #674 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?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #675 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.




*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #676 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?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #677 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.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #678 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.


*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #679 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #680 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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #681 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?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #682 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:
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hiroshima Atomic Bomb (1945)

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.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #683 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]
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #684 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?

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

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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #685 on: April 29, 2014, 02:30:49 AM »
I didn't realise they has such good cgi back in the 50s

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #686 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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #687 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

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30061
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #688 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.


Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #689 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?