boethius

The story behind fake nukes and fake moon landings and all the fake Science of the last 100 years (i.e. almost all the Science of the last 100 years) is that Science has been changed from a process based on observation to a Religion based on belief. We are supposed to simply believe what we're told. If we ask our scientists for proof of their discoveries, they either show us videos or tell us we wouldn't understand. Real science is based on observation: what you can see, and what you can prove through a repeatable experiment performed by someone other than you. Real science is incredibly simple and straightforward to explain because it is based on how the real world functions. If you look closely at the results of the Religion of Science you will find violations of the laws of nature everywhere. Real science works with the natural laws, which are immutable and inviolable. The corruption of science is not by accident. Neither is the consolidation of all science under the government. In the 1800's scientists were independent, working in private labs they either paid for themselves or were supported by a patron. Today every working scientist works for the government directly or indirectly. So of course nukes are fake.

I believe the subject of "hot air rising" was covered in 6th grade earth science. Hot air...rises...see "hot air balloons" or turn on your stove and see how much hot air rises vs expands outwards. Heat rises. Covered in 8th grade science. Hot air rises. As seen in the earth's convecting weather system...where hot air rises to cool and form clouds. People. You cannot come up with a scientific explanation for the pictures and movies they tell us are "nukes" without going against everything we know about science. Those images the government shows us are 100% lies. In the 40's people knew nothing about atomic physics so the government could pass anything as the truth. In the 50's it was a state secret so the droves of people entering universities couldn't study it. By the 60's it was hysteria and the idea that evaluating the reality of a nuke required years of study when I have shown that the things they say a nuke does can be dismissed using an average person's everyday experience. Today everyone who believes in nukes (basically 100% of the population) does so because their parents were afraid of nukes, their teachers were afraid of nukes and the media kept telling them to be afraid of nukes. Parents learned from their parents Teachers have to say nukes exist or they're fired Media is in no way a credible source of information And so it goes that if you were raised to believe in nukes you believe in nukes. It's kind of like a global religion.

For those of you who are confused by my posts: NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST Let's take a look at the "blast" that great big explosion. What, exactly is exploding? Does the 1.25 kg of uranium exploding make enough of a blast to billow the cheeks of people standing miles away? No. It's the energy isn't it? Those subatomic particles flying out with so much kinetic energy. But wait, subatomic particles don't push the air, subatomic particles don't create pressure, which is needed to push air. Subatomic particles either completely miss the atoms in the air or they are absorbed by them. If a molecule in the air absorbs an atom the molecule becomes hot. What does hot air do? It rises. And it's invisible when it does rise. How you can personally verify the above: Think of the last time you had an x-ray, the government claims atom bombs produce x-rays (among others). Can you feel x-rays? Do they create a whoosh of air? No. They are subatomic. They pass through the air (mostly) and are absorbed by dense matter. they do not push the air nor do they push dense matter. Think of hot air. Does it start blowing all by itself or does it rise? Turn on the burner on your stove and watch the air around it. It simply rises causing wavy lines where it bends the light. Heated air goes up, not to the side. And the atom bomb cannot push the air because it emits subatomic particles which either pass through the air or are absorbed by air molecules. A real nuke would turn the air into a plasma in-place, without creating a shockwave effect. The official story of nuclear weapons is a hoax/boogeyman based on TNT/chemical bombs. Hence they're measure in terms of TNT. A real nuclear weapon, if it existed would not have created a mushroom cloud when detonated in the air over Nagasaki. A real nuke would create a plasma, like you see in lightning, not a cloud. A real nuke could not produce a shockwave because the subatomic particles emitted do not move larger molecules. The hoax worked great right after WWII. There was an arms race within the war (the German supergun et. al.) and audiences were living in fear of the next great weapon, so the government gave them one based on a few calculations by a team of theoretical physicists. The government then set off a giant block of TNT and claimed the resulting mushroom cloud was an atom bomb. When anyone got to close the government said "state secret" or "bad guy trying to find out how to hurt us" and nobody looked any further. Today, with the consolidation of Science under the State (any state) as complete as the consolidation of Christianity under the Pope in the Middle Ages. Yes, we are in the dark ages of science where logic and reasoning lose out to what the man on the TV says.

Let me once again say that AIR DOES NOT BURN NO MATTER HOW HOT IT GETS So a nuclear weapon cannot create a "fireball"because if such a weapon were to exist it would only heat the air. And let me assure you that air does not burn. Not even when heated to 55,000 degrees F. You can verify by taking a look at lightning and see it it erupts into a fireball. Remember the energy of a nuke would be released is in the form of high energy subatomic particles. These particles do not burst into flame. Nor does the air through which the pass. Its getting close to the time to expose the next big lie told about nukes. Another one you can prove yourself, through your own personal experience. The same way you can see that heated air is a plasma and not a fireball. When nukes first came out in the 40's very few people had college degrees, fewer even in the sciences, so it was all magic. Then it was a state secret. But its always been a hoax. More to come. Are you serious? The entire scientific establishment from the kids just learning chemistry in High School to the tenured professors is 100% government controlled. There's no such thing as an independent scientist just like there's no such thing as a private university. Everyone who does anything with science is dependent on government for funding, accreditation, supplies, permission, everything. You will lose your position for saying nukes don't exist, regardless of proof. All I can show is that the government's official story about nukes is a lie. And they will say, if pressed, that it was a necessary lie and that nukes do exist we just haven't ever shown them to you. And they would win the argument. But you will never win the argument that what they say about nukes is anything close to logical or scientific in any way.

Let us review why a nuclear weapon's mushroom cloud is a fiction: 1. As of 2010 Wikipedia claims the cloud is formed of plasma Strange that in 70 years of "nukes" they only found out 5 years ago "it's a plasma," which is still a lie. When air turns to plasma it forms the substance seen as lightning. Does the Nagasaki mushroom cloud look like it's made up of glowing bits of plasma? No. It's a cloud of smoke, gas or both. 2. Some sources on the net say a mushroom cloud is made of gas, including gizmodo and a poster here who said "xenon and krypton" A quick calculation as to how much gas is produced when the 1.25 Kg of uranium which underwent fission in the Nagasaki "nuke" shows it to be about 100g. 100g of gas cannot create the 45,000 foot mushroom cloud in the pictures. If you say "air is the gas" take a look at (3) 3. Some sources say a mushroom cloud comes from the "fireball" created in a nuclear detonation. (atomicarchive.com) But we know air does not catch on fire when heated. It turns into plasma, like lightning. And being detonated at 1,800 feet in the air over Nagasaki bomb there is nothing else to but except air, which does burn. So the air near a nuke would no longer be gas, but plasma. 4. See how little information we need to disprove the mushroom cloud from a-bomb lie? Lightning is heated air forming a plasma Air does not burn when subjected to incredible temperatures: it turns into a plasma 5. That's just the "mushroom cloud coming from a nuke" debunked. There's more fakery in an atomic blast easily disproved by science. Easily, I tell you, which is why they say "nuclear bombs are complicated beyond the understanding of the ordinary person." They don't want you to realise that readily observable parts of their lie, especially those concerning the actual "blast" are easily falsifiable.

If you look up Wikipedia's page on on mushroom clouds (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud) in the Wayback machine, they only started mentioning plasma as the cause of nuclear mushroom clouds in 2010. A full 5 years after the page was added. Before that the clouds are composed of "highly radioactive particles" and that detonations high above the ground do not produce mushroom clouds. Better tell that to the guys who took the picture of the Nagasaki cloud, result of a detonation 1,800 feet above the ground. Enrico Fermi, no slouch when it comes to nuclear physics called a mushroom cloud a huge pillar of smoke They are literally making up all of the nuclear bomb myths. Where is the science behind the creation of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion? Why doesn't gSmith keep quoting the article about "ablative pellets in a plasma" he found when googling "plasma" and "mushroom cloud"? Where are the scientists with their degrees and tenured positions chomping at the bit to make me look stupid? Why do they leave it to untrained amateurs? Because they do not want to lose their careers over what they know is fake.

Did you read the article? Besides the words "plasma" and "cloud" how many other words in the abstract did you understand? How about "ablation?" What does that mean? Could it possibly be the removal of material from an object due to vaporisation? What do the mean when they say"pellet?" Could that have anything to do with "pellet ablation?" . What is the relationship between plasma, high energy ions, a pellet, ablation and clouds in plasma physics? Or does the full article claim that air turned into a plasma and caused mushroom clouds? The pellet the mention is just for shucks and giggles.

You cannot run from the fact that like you, virtually every site on the web claims "gasses," "exploding gasses," "hot gasses" cause mushroom clouds. You cannot run from the fact that I have shown virtually 0 kg of gasses are produced by an atom bomb. You cannot run from the fact that air, when superheated, does not remain a gas, nor does it form clouds, It turns into a plasma. The mushroom cloud of an atomic explosion has no basis in science. It is pure propaganda. "The superheated ball of air in the middle is plasma" You cannot see into the "middle" of the mushroom cloud above Nagasaki. You can only see the billowy outsides. Are you saying the billowy, smoky part is plasma? "It will heat anything else around it by convection and radiation" Yes, but hot air doesn't form clouds unless it is also moist and then only when it cools. In a real nuke, an invisible column of hot air would rise and form a cloud when sufficiently high. The column would not be visible during the detonation except as wavy lines where the hot air bends light. "All kinetic events with enough energy make [...] mushroom clouds?" Wrong. You are saying that subatomic particles flying through the are fast enough cause clouds to form. How clouds of air form is well known. Let's talk about why the clouds in the "nuke" photos are dark. Dark clouds of air would be caused by ice crystals scattering light. Are there ice crystals in a mushroom cloud? No. So why is it dark? Because it's not water vapour, it's chemicals from a TNT (or other chemical) explosion only claiming to be nuclear. "We've covered this ground repeatedly." We've still got more work to do. Wikipedia tells me that the Nagasaki mushroom cloud is caused by the expanding "fireball" of the explosion. Fireball? I still don't know what catches on fire when a nuclear weapons detonates 1,000 feet in the air. It's not the nitrogen or the oxygen. We know that for sure. So what is on fire so much so that it causes a 40,000 foot ball of smoke? You mentioned xenon and krypton and I proved you'd only get a few grams of them after a reaction. Wikipedia also says that the rising air draws in dust from the ground to form the stem of the mushroom cloud, yet we see a stem on an explosion that occurred 1,000 feet above the ground. Your explanation of a mushroom cloud matches most sources but runs afoul of science. I'd like to have a scientific explanation before I believe in nuclear weapons. "I saw it on TV" is not good enough for me.

"All the gases in the area" You mean nitrogen and oxygen otherwise known as air. "get to the plasma state" We know what air looks like in the plasma state: lightning and electric sparks, not mushroom clouds "Bright, super hot and rapidly moving plasma" It was a cloud as seen in photos claiming to be bombs over Nagasaki, Bikini Atoll, Hiroshima, etc. Are you saying the billowy a-bomb mushroom clouds are made of plasma?

Only minute quantities of gas could be theoretically produced by an atom bomb. 64 kg of uranium in Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, of uranium of which 2% reacted. 1.28 kg of reaction creating 27 different elements, each on the average 3% of the total 0.03 kg of xenon produced 0.03 kg of krypton produced A 40,000 foot mushroom cloud reported to be over Hiroshima shown in a photo is claimed to be the result of 0.06 kg of gasses released into the atmosphere. And so it is shown that an atom bomb cannot create a mushroom cloud. It simply does not produce enough gas. The idea is a complete fiction at odds with the described characteristics of the science behind the bomb as well as the practical description of the bomb itself. To believe in atom bombs one must put their belief in what they see on the news ahead of their ability to multiply 2-digit numbers.

For me, the most convincing evidence that nuclear weapons are a hoax is that every photo/video of an explosion includes a giant fireball or a huge cloud of gasses, which cannot possibly come from a nuke. Neither fission nor fusion produces gases, they produce radiation, so the 40,000 foot tall mushroom cloud shown in photos of Hiroshima, for example, could of gasses not have come from the bomb. Since the device was reportedly detonated 1,000 feet in the air and no blast crater formed underneath, the cloud was not composed of dust or other material thrown from the earth. What was the mushroom cloud composed of? In later nuclear explosion photos there is often a fireball. What exactly is on fire? If you go to wikipedia it says the air has caught on fire. If you ask a chemist if either oxygen gas or nitrogen gas can catch on fire they will tell you no. You can verify this empirically by examining lightning, which at 50,000 F (much hotter than the sun) turns the air near it into a plasma (the bolt) instead of igniting it. It seems that the early fake photos were modelled on TNT, hence the large clouds, something the public would have seen as a sign of a bomb's power due to the endless war newreels, movies and other media showing explosions. The H-bomb tests with their spheres of fire are a fraud to keep the public afraid of a bigger, more powerful weapon. Fire > smoke. And if you're going to call a bomb "thermonuclear" the people want to see something burn. Again, a fusion reaction emitting radiation cannot ignite the air. Remember that a conventional TNT bomb is made of chemicals which expand into gasses when detonated. Gasses that billow and catch on fire. A nuke, emits radiation, which leaves neither a smoky aftermath nor a fiery explosion in its wake.