Nuclear Power Exaggerated

  • 4288 Replies
  • 734501 Views
?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #150 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.

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #151 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.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #152 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.   

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #153 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.


OMG!

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #154 on: July 27, 2007, 09:38:03 AM »
Can anyone paraphrase everything that's happened before I got here so I can participate?

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #155 on: July 27, 2007, 09:48:45 AM »
They basically took a cue from your usual meaninglessness.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #156 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.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #157 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.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #158 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?

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #159 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.

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #160 on: July 27, 2007, 10:23:03 AM »
None of it having meaning, of course.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #161 on: July 27, 2007, 10:23:31 AM »
Well I can personally vouche for atoms, having known several over the years.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 10:25:44 AM by narcberry »

*

Midnight

  • 7671
  • RE/FE Apathetic.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #162 on: July 27, 2007, 10:24:05 AM »
The defense rests.
My problem with his ideas is that it is a ridiculous thing.

Genius. PURE, undiluted genius.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #163 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.
OMG!

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #164 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.   
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #165 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.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #166 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.
OMG!

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #167 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.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #168 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.
OMG!

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #169 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.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 12:07:30 PM by 17 November »

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #170 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.
OMG!

*

narcberry

  • 5623
  • Official Flat Earth Society Spokesman/min
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #171 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.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2007, 12:45:50 PM by narcberry »

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #172 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.

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #173 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;
OMG!

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #174 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?

*

CommonCents

  • 1779
  • ^_^
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #175 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.
OMG!

?

Skeptical ATM

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #176 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.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #177 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?

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #178 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.

?

nicolin

  • 196
  • Romania
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #179 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?
Curat murdar, Coane Fanica!