Nuclear Power Exaggerated

  • 4288 Replies
  • 741067 Views
*

Dead Kangaroo

  • FES' Anchor Roo
  • The Elder Ones
  • 4551
  • K800 Model 101.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #360 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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #361 on: January 02, 2009, 04:36:43 PM »
If there are no nuclear bombs, then how much TNT did they need to do this?



If you notice all of the warships in the picture for a good reference of how big it is
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #362 on: January 02, 2009, 09:38:55 PM »
If there are no nuclear bombs, then how much TNT did they need to do this?



If you notice all of the warships in the picture for a good reference of how big it is

I'd say about 3.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #363 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
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...

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #364 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
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.
I hate myself for coming here

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #365 on: January 13, 2009, 04:08:48 AM »
I made a video entitled NUKE LIES which contains evidently falsified nuclear / atomic bomb test footage:

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #366 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.
I hate myself for coming here

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #367 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.


Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #368 on: January 13, 2009, 08:29:26 AM »
Would anyone who is not a troll like to express their opinion or contribute useful commentary?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #369 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.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #370 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.
I hate myself for coming here

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #371 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

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #372 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.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

?

Ravenwood240

  • 2070
  • I disagree. What was the Question?
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #373 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?"
Belief gets in the way of learning.  If you believe something, you've closed your mind to any further thought.  I know some things, little things, not the nine million names of God.

(Paraphased from R.A. Heinlein's "Time Enough For Love.")

?

aj3262

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #374 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?

*

Euclid

  • 943
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #375 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?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2009, 11:27:34 PM by Euclid »
Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist
Yes, thanks to the tireless efforts of Euclid and a few other mathematically-inclined members, electromagnetic acceleration is fast moving into the forefront of FE research.
8)

*

Roundy the Truthinessist

  • Flat Earth TheFLAMETHROWER!
  • The Elder Ones
  • 27043
  • I'm the boss.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #376 on: March 01, 2009, 11:25:20 PM »
I wouldn't be surprised.  They seem equally deranged and Dio's had alts before.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #377 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.

?

17 November

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 1318
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #378 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.

*

theonlydann

  • Official Member
  • 24186
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #379 on: March 08, 2009, 11:09:21 AM »
I miss reading your posts. AI wish you didnt delete so many.  :'(

*

Death-T

  • 504
  • Conspiracy theories are my bread and butter.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #380 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.
" Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. " - Albert Einstein

" We are imperfect.  We cannot expect perfect government. "  ~William Howard Taft

*

But_I_Digress

  • 959
  • I know I'm sexy.
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #381 on: April 24, 2010, 12:19:52 PM »
Two words: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

They were not faked. Nuclear weapons are real.
The only possible explanation for this is that the Earth is generally spherical in shape, otherwise, such a perpetual curvature could not exist

Wilmore is a RE'er in disguise

?

Albino Aardvark

  • 10
  • Never Say Never
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #382 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.
Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #383 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.

?

Albino Aardvark

  • 10
  • Never Say Never
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #384 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.
Constantly choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.

?

Mykael

  • 4249
  • Professor of the Horrible Sciences
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #385 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.


Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #386 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.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2010, 06:06:27 AM by dude55 »
That would be a simulation of the fabric of space-time bending back upon itself

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #387 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.
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #388 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?







 
A quote from one of rthe admins in the believers section
Quote
What is this nonsense, why is the shape of the
Earth being contested in this forum? What is
going on?
Oh the irony

?

Dr Matrix

  • 4312
  • In Soviet Russia, Matrix enters you!
Re: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Exist
« Reply #389 on: May 24, 2010, 02:19:34 PM »
Nukes are real, mmkay?
Quote from: Arthur Schopenhauer
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.