Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist

Fix your post. 

I like how you skipped over my response. Given up so soon, have we?

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 02:54:40 PM

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on November 25, 2012, 02:42:29 PM

Where does that say I posted evidence?

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on November 24, 2012, 07:20:43 PM

Quote from: sokarul on November 24, 2012, 06:59:08 PM

I will get them, in the mean time why don't you post the research you base your opinion on.

I have. It appears to be you who has not.

Can you show me where the word "evidence" appears? I'm not seeing it.

Don't change your argument.  Research is evidence when you enter research into an argument.  If you don't think so, where is the research you posted? 

You thought posting a lot of books and requesting me to read/disprove them was a viable response. You can't post exact articles because you're afraid I'll pick them apart, so you post vast swathes of information in the hopes that I will deny such a request (and I did). You don't have any real evidence, that much you have made painfully obvious.

It's one book.  Refute the operations that are said to have gone on at the location known as Rockey Flats.
This should be simple for you.   
 

It is in fact you who appears to be so uneducated that even the most basic concepts are out of your reach. It would appear I have to teach you years of physics just to get you even close to par and I don't have the time nor the motive to do so. Just know that the math does not match the reality, don't burn your brain out trying to think about it too much.

Pipe dream.

Don't change your argument.  Research is evidence when you enter research into an argument.  If you don't think so, where is the research you posted? 

Not really, research is simply research. Since by definition you can not provide evidence that something does not exist, this research does not qualify as evidence towards something not existing.

It's one book.  Refute the operations that are said to have gone on at the location known as Rockey Flats.
This should be simple for you.   

Prove that any such operations happened in the first place.
 

Pipe dream.

Nuclear weapons are a pipe dream. Thought up by an American empire that wanted to control the masses with fear of a city-destroying bomb. Its fear-inducing power is still in wide use today, regardless of its nonexistent scientific basis and it having never existed at all.

It's hard to argue with FET'ers when good thought out posts refuting what they say are just deleted. I'm starting to get sick of my arguments to FET points being deleted when it gets too much for them.

Case in point, I had a big long post in this thread about the Australian nuclear tests but it is now nowhere to be found. What's the point in even arguing if our points are just going to be removed after they are made...

Not really, research is simply research. Since by definition you can not provide evidence that something does not exist, this research does not qualify as evidence towards something not existing.

This is so far from the truth it is not even funny.  No stop avoiding the fact that you did not post research when you claimed you did. 

Prove that any such operations happened in the first place.

So you can't? Gotcha 

Pipe dream.

Nuclear weapons are a pipe dream. Thought up by an American empire that wanted to control the masses with fear of a city-destroying bomb. Its fear-inducing power is still in wide use today, regardless of its nonexistent scientific basis and it having never existed at all.

Assumption

This is so far from the truth it is not even funny.  No stop avoiding the fact that you did not post research when you claimed you did. 

The Youtube video alone qualifies as research.

So you can't? Gotcha 

I say the same to you. This whole time you ask me to prove things that didn't happen. Prove that the universe was not created by a giant T-rex. Ah, that is right, you can't. I suppose I win! Are you really this childish? Stop trolling.

Assumption

If the American Empire really controlled a city-destroying bomb, it would have taken over a lot more of the world instead of just settling for a few islands in the Pacific. It could make entire countries fall to their knees in days. Nothing happened because the bomb was nothing more than a fear tactic.

Quote from: sokarul on November 25, 2012, 09:59:42 PM

This is so far from the truth it is not even funny.  No stop avoiding the fact that you did not post research when you claimed you did. 

The Youtube video alone qualifies as research.

It was posted after your claim.  Try again. 

I say the same to you. This whole time you ask me to prove things that didn't happen. Prove that the universe was not created by a giant T-rex. Ah, that is right, you can't. I suppose I win! Are you really this childish? Stop trolling.

It is a fallacy to claim you are right because I am wrong. This is actually what you are doing. 
http://www.constitution.org/jury/gj/rocky_flats/rocky-flats-grand-jury-report.htm 
In the report you will find that the companies controlling Rocky Flats polluted the ground with plutonium. 
You can either try to debunk the claim or agree that they had plutonium and we can move on to more evidence. 

If the American Empire really controlled a city-destroying bomb, it would have taken over a lot more of the world instead of just settling for a few islands in the Pacific.

A unbacked up assumption

 

It could make entire countries fall to their knees in days.

True

Nothing happened because the bomb was nothing more than a fear tactic.

Fallacy.

It was posted after your claim.  Try again. 

Irrelevant. We are speaking of posted in the past tense, both posts of which were in the past.

It is a fallacy to claim you are right because I am wrong. This is actually what you are doing. 
http://www.constitution.org/jury/gj/rocky_flats/rocky-flats-grand-jury-report.htm 
In the report you will find that the companies controlling Rocky Flats polluted the ground with plutonium. 
You can either try to debunk the claim or agree that they had plutonium and we can move on to more evidence. 

Claiming something does not exist does not make me "right." You are making the claim that something exists and I am skeptical of that claim. The skeptic is not out to prove how "right" he is, only how the claim is incorrect, which yours is. Furthermore, you still have not posted any evidence that nuclear bombs exist. Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs.

A unbacked up assumption

Incorrect. History tells us that the American Empire, when given the chance, will attempt to take over an opponent entirely. i.e. Germany. With a nuclear bomb it could take over just about every opponent, but it did not. Thus the nuclear bomb's power was a myth.

The simple answer is that all that you stated is things you simply believe to be true. As they are not evidence at all. I suggest you read some introductory physics textbooks, mainly about thermodynamics and its implications along with relativity. A bomb simply isn't possible, the math barely works, and the reality does not work at all.

Ooh, physics textbooks is it now?  Actually, why don't you tell us of one single physics textbook that says nuclear bombs are not possible?

Or why don't you produce an actual scientist who agrees with you?  Just one.  Maybe two?

And the maths "barely works" (whatever that means)?  Why don't you take us through that dogdy math?  Go on, I dare ya.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on November 25, 2012, 02:20:49 PM

The simple answer is that all that you stated is things you simply believe to be true. As they are not evidence at all. I suggest you read some introductory physics textbooks, mainly about thermodynamics and its implications along with relativity. A bomb simply isn't possible, the math barely works, and the reality does not work at all.

Ooh, physics textbooks is it now?  Actually, why don't you tell us of one single physics textbook that says nuclear bombs are not possible?

Or why don't you produce an actual scientist who agrees with you?  Just one.  Maybe two?

And the maths "barely works" (whatever that means)?  Why don't you take us through that dogdy math?  Go on, I dare ya.

I double dare ya!

Quote from: mexicanwave on November 24, 2012, 01:04:53 AM

So does that mean that the Cold War was an elaborate hoax that America and the Soviet Union concocted together?

No, the Soviet Union and the USA were enemies. Have you never even encountered a history book before?

Quote from: mexicanwave on November 24, 2012, 01:04:53 AM

Are Iran now in on the hoax?

Iran is supposedly attempting to create nuclear weapons. They have not succeeded, for the obvious reason that they do not exist.

Quote from: mexicanwave on November 24, 2012, 01:04:53 AM

Jeez, every nation in the world is just best buds when it comes to hoaxes eh?

Only in your mind, apparently.

Maybe you want to check your response.
There was a fair amount of sarcasm in my post and it was directed at Sceptimatic, not you.

Of course the US and USSR were enemies. That's what I was saying!

For there to be no such thing as nuclear weapons what the hell were the US and USSR fighting about?
What was the Cuban missile crisis? An elaborate ruse that they agreed upon just to convince the world that the impossible nuclear weapons existed.

Don't argue with me on this one. You have completely misunderstood the point of my post.

If nuclear weapons didnt exist, Iran long ago would have taken part in the ruse to control the Middle East and more.  The only reason they mave not have them already is the sanctions imposed, but that wont stop them.
its a 70+ year old technology.

Also what are all these Nuclear Powered devices for as they all work on the same prinicpal, the conspiracy trying to make money again?

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not even similar, much less the same. Furthermore Iran is not aware that nuclear weapons are not real, hence why they are trying to build them.

If nuclear weapons are real, then why doesn't every country have them?

Well, it's not like gunpowder, you can't just mash some crap together with a stick and make a bomb. It's difficult and a highly kept secret and extremely regulated. You need to get a hold of the materials, specifically the fissile material, which I'm sure doesn't exist everywhere in the world. Then you need to know how to refine them the most efficient way with the best results, and you need to set up the weapons correctly.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 26, 2012, 10:46:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2012, 09:08:12 AM

If nuclear weapons are real, then why doesn't every country have them?

Well, it's not like gunpowder, you can't just mash some crap together with a stick and make a bomb. It's difficult and a highly kept secret and extremely regulated. You need to get a hold of the materials, specifically the fissile material, which I'm sure doesn't exist everywhere in the world. Then you need to know how to refine them the most efficient way with the best results, and you need to set up the weapons correctly.

Go and take a look at how many countries are supposed to be Nuclear armed.
You cannot tell me that every other country cannot build their own based on regulation.
Who in the hell is the regulator?

If Russia can supposedly build them..and America, Israel, Japan, China, and a supposed host of other countries, then why can't other countries?

Who tells them they can't?

Isn't that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

Nuclear power and nuclear weapons are not even similar, much less the same. Furthermore Iran is not aware that nuclear weapons are not real, hence why they are trying to build them.

That's funny, earlier you were implying that they were by saying that nuclear reactors can't blow up whole cities, so nuclear bombs must not be real, that they used the same process, so it must not be real.

why don't you answer the questio, you seem to have such a vast knowledge.

what about the experiments in los alamos, in the bikini islands, in nevada, in siberia, in french polynesia?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2012, 09:08:12 AM

If nuclear weapons are real, then why doesn't every country have them?

Well, it's not like gunpowder, you can't just mash some crap together with a stick and make a bomb. It's difficult and a highly kept secret and extremely regulated. You need to get a hold of the materials, specifically the fissile material, which I'm sure doesn't exist everywhere in the world. Then you need to know how to refine them the most efficient way with the best results, and you need to set up the weapons correctly.

http://gizmodo.com/5909961/kodak-had-a-secret-weapons+grade-nuclear-reactor-hidden-in-a-basement

If a photography film company can stick a "weapons-grade" nuclear reactor in the middle of of city, what makes you think entire countries would really have a problem making them?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 26, 2012, 10:46:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 26, 2012, 09:08:12 AM

If nuclear weapons are real, then why doesn't every country have them?

Well, it's not like gunpowder, you can't just mash some crap together with a stick and make a bomb. It's difficult and a highly kept secret and extremely regulated. You need to get a hold of the materials, specifically the fissile material, which I'm sure doesn't exist everywhere in the world. Then you need to know how to refine them the most efficient way with the best results, and you need to set up the weapons correctly.

http://gizmodo.com/5909961/kodak-had-a-secret-weapons+grade-nuclear-reactor-hidden-in-a-basement

If a photography film company can stick a "weapons-grade" nuclear reactor in the middle of of city, what makes you think entire countries would really have a problem making them?

Did I say it was impossible? Also, information on building the reactors is much more accessible than building the weapons. If you'll notice, my post was about the weapons, not the reactors.

Did I say it was impossible? Also, information on building the reactors is much more accessible than building the weapons. If you'll notice, my post was about the weapons, not the reactors.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/index.html

That was from the first link of single Google search.

Iran is not stupid and nuclear bombs are not high end technology. If such a thing existed, they would have hundreds of them by now. They don't, because you can't create something that does not exist. Stop placing nuclear bombs on a pedastal.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 26, 2012, 12:49:53 PM

Did I say it was impossible? Also, information on building the reactors is much more accessible than building the weapons. If you'll notice, my post was about the weapons, not the reactors.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Library/Brown/index.html

That was from the first link of single Google search.

Iran is not stupid and nuclear bombs are not high end technology. If such a thing existed, they would have hundreds of them by now. They don't, because you can't create something that does not exist. Stop placing nuclear bombs on a pedastal.

Those diagrams were so technical rushy. Someone could definitely build a nuclear weapon using those alone.

I did not say Iran was stupid, and I did not call Nuclear Bombs "high end." I said they're not as simple as gun powder based weapons. Also, how can you be arguing whether or not the technology is high end or low end while arguing that it doesn't exist at the same time?

Those diagrams were so technical rushy. Someone could definitely build a nuclear weapon using those alone.

Technical specs aren't a requirement. They are engineers, not five year olds building a lego house.

I did not say Iran was stupid, and I did not call Nuclear Bombs "high end." I said they're not as simple as gun powder based weapons.

Actually, they really are, which is why it is so suspicious that no rogue country has ever built them.

Also, how can you be arguing whether or not the technology is high end or low end while arguing that it doesn't exist at the same time?

I'm pointing out that your argument is not logically consistent.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 26, 2012, 01:10:33 PM

Those diagrams were so technical rushy. Someone could definitely build a nuclear weapon using those alone.

Technical specs aren't a requirement. They are engineers, not five year olds building a lego house.

Technical specs are required for someone who has never used the technology, or else they have to start from scratch, which would explain why it takes so long and is such a arduous task.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 26, 2012, 01:10:33 PM

I did not say Iran was stupid, and I did not call Nuclear Bombs "high end." I said they're not as simple as gun powder based weapons.

Actually, they really are, which is why it is so suspicious that no rogue country has ever built them.

So they're simple and easy to build, so no one does it?

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 26, 2012, 01:10:33 PM

Also, how can you be arguing whether or not the technology is high end or low end while arguing that it doesn't exist at the same time?

I'm pointing out that your argument is not logically consistent.

You make a logically inconsistent argument to point out that my argument is not logically consistent? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply quote the pieces that were not consistent rather than the poor attempt at mocking me?

Irrelevant. We are speaking of posted in the past tense, both posts of which were in the past.

You lied.  Get over it.

Claiming something does not exist does not make me "right."

Correct
 

You are making the claim that something exists and I am skeptical of that claim.

Ok
 

The skeptic is not out to prove how "right" he is, only how the claim is incorrect, which yours is.

The problem is you made your own claims. That is not what a skeptic is.

Furthermore, you still have not posted any evidence that nuclear bombs exist. Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs.

I have posted evidence.  You have denied it. You have not disproved the evidence.
You did not disprove that Rockey flats didn't have plutonium so it is now understood that it did. Moving on to more evidence.
A highly informative PDF is available. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/co/co0400/co0471/data/co0471data.pdf 
I know you aren't going to accept it. But the document provides details about every aspect of the plant from resources of it's own.  You can look them up if you like.  The best part of the document starts on PDF page 56.  It explains how they made plutonium metal and formed the spheres needed for the bombs.  Feel free to debunk any of it. 

Incorrect. History tells us that the American Empire, when given the chance, will attempt to take over an opponent entirely. i.e. Germany. With a nuclear bomb it could take over just about every opponent, but it did not. Thus the nuclear bomb's power was a myth.

Fallacy.


This denying of Nuclear weapons is now paralleling the FET. Many people have to be in on the conspiracy.  And not one of them came forward to say it was all fake.  Even the people exposed to plutonium that have nothing left to lose.   
 

I know you aren't going to accept it. But the document provides details about every aspect of the plant from resources of it's own.  You can look them up if you like.  The best part of the document starts on PDF page 56.  It explains how they made plutonium metal and formed the spheres needed for the bombs.  Feel free to debunk any of it. 

So you agree that plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs? They were clearly using a nuclear reactor to make it.

Quote

Incorrect. History tells us that the American Empire, when given the chance, will attempt to take over an opponent entirely. i.e. Germany. With a nuclear bomb it could take over just about every opponent, but it did not. Thus the nuclear bomb's power was a myth.

Fallacy.

I used historical backing, your turn.

This denying of Nuclear weapons is now paralleling the FET. Many people have to be in on the conspiracy.  And not one of them came forward to say it was all fake.  Even the people exposed to plutonium that have nothing left to lose.   

Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear weapons. Try again.

Technical specs are required for someone who has never used the technology, or else they have to start from scratch, which would explain why it takes so long and is such a arduous task.

Iran has many nuclear engineers and physicists. They have been using nuclear power technology for years.

So they're simple and easy to build, so no one does it?

Uranium is a very controlled substance now. But I can just point back to Kodak and say some has obviously slipped through the cracks. That said, no one does it because you can't build what does not exist.

You make a logically inconsistent argument to point out that my argument is not logically consistent? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply quote the pieces that were not consistent rather than the poor attempt at mocking me?

Attempting to feign empathy with the opponent's stance is not mockery.

So you agree that plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear bombs? They were clearly using a nuclear reactor to make it.

There is other uses for it. 
You did not refute any part of the paper.  You forfeit the argument. 

I used historical backing, your turn.

USA attacked Iraq to stop them from taking over Kuwait in 1990.  We didn't invade Kuwait. We "invaded" Germany because of the war.  Germany became East and West Germany.  It did not because East USA. Your turn.   

Plutonium is not exclusive to nuclear weapons. Try again.

Now make a point with evidence that backs up any claim you have. 

There is other uses for it. 
You did not refute any part of the paper.  You forfeit the argument. 

You only pointed out a single part of the paper, which regarded plutonium being made via a nuclear reactor. It had nothing to do with nuclear bombs other than vaguely mentioning that the ingots were used to make the bombs. You must really be desperate if you think that supports your argument at all. Admit that you posted about a subject you know nothing about along with a paper you've never read, in the vague hopes it somehow supported your poor argument.

USA attacked Iraq to stop them from taking over Kuwait in 1990.  We didn't invade Kuwait. We "invaded" Germany because of the war.  Germany became East and West Germany.  It did not because East USA. Your turn. 

We demilitarized and invaded Japan as well when they surrendered from fear of a nonexistent bomb. Furthermore 1990 is a long way from when the bomb was at the height of its use. Clearly anything after the Cold War is irrelevant and even that is stretching it.

Now make a point with evidence that backs up any claim you have.

I would ask the same of you. A nuclear reactor can create plutonium. Plutonium doesn't prove the existence of nuclear bombs any more than aluminum proves the existence of automobiles. Its a pathetic attempt at evidence and you should be ashamed for even trying it.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 26, 2012, 01:36:45 PM

Technical specs are required for someone who has never used the technology, or else they have to start from scratch, which would explain why it takes so long and is such a arduous task.

Iran has many nuclear engineers and physicists. They have been using nuclear power technology for years.

Nuclear energy technology is not the same as nuclear weapons technology. It's like saying a coal power plant is the same as Tomahawk cruise missile.

Quote from: ThinkingMan on November 26, 2012, 01:36:45 PM

So they're simple and easy to build, so no one does it?

Uranium is a very controlled substance now. But I can just point back to Kodak and say some has obviously slipped through the cracks. That said, no one does it because you can't build what does not exist.

Yes, some does slip through the cracks. However, the technology does exist. Weapons can be made from almost any energy producing reaction. They have been made and used from fissile material.

How did they split the atom if they can't see it? How does the blind man find his way around on a bicycle if he can't see? How does the artillery gunner hit his target if he can't see it? How does a mechanic find a problem with your car if he can't see inside the engine block?