Good news! Nuclear bombs do not work/exist.

[Sal9000]

 And yet you have no problem criticizing austrian economics without understanding it. You say it's not scientific. You say praxeology is anti-scientific, even though I explained to you in detail how it is the very opposite.

 

Don't take my word for the fact that praxeology is different from the scientific method, let's hear what Rothbard has to say on it:

 

All the positivist procedures are based on the physical sciences. It is physics that knows or can know its “facts” and can test its conclusions against these facts, while being completely ignorant of its ultimate assumptions. In the sciences of human action, on the other hand, it is impossible to test conclusions. There is no laboratory where facts can be isolated and controlled; the “facts” of human history are complex ones, resultants of many causes. These causes can only be isolated by theory, theory that is necessarily a priori to these historical (including statistical) facts.

 

Taken from http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Defense%20of%20Extreme%20Apriorism%2C%20In_6.pdf

 

Rothbard distinguishes between positivist procedures on the one hand and praxeology. Just what I said. Also, the next time you discuss philosophy with somebody, make sure you know what you talk about.

[pretzelogik]

Just because some people say something is fabricated does not make it so. I rather believe in experts on a given subject than some quacks on the internet.

 

 

I taught maths for physicists. One of the topics was Nuclear Physics. Study Physics and do some research.

 

Experience takes precedence over narrative, so what people say is irrelevant.  As far as credentialism is concerned, you are obviously in the category of experts as opposed to quacks, so perhaps you could explain how a particular area of an explosion could remain static during the dynamic unfolding of the event. This should be trivial for a nuclear physicist.

 

Consider my inquiry research.  I can't imagine having a more qualified respondent provide an answer to to my question about experiencing and/or avoiding fissionable materials.

[Sal9000]

Clouds tend to be static in relation to a nuclear explosion.

[pretzelogik]

Clouds tend to be static in relation to a nuclear explosion.

 

Well, they certainly do in the footage, the simplest explanation for which would be video compositing.

 

A more complex explanation would be required to resolve how an atmospheric nuclear blast that would create a seismic disturbance 9300 km away (according to the Journal of Geophysical Research: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ065i010p03445/abstract) would leave clouds undisturbed.

[Sal9000]

http://obs-itconsulting.com/pendel.gif

[J-William]

 

 

There are numerous sites with exhaustive research into the anomalies of the narrative: "nuke hoax" or "nukes don't exist" will keep the genuinely curious busy for weeks.

 

There you have absolutely hit the nail on the head!

It will keep you busy for weeks, having no affect on anything whatsoever.

 

Well this would be great news if correct; as it would eliminate the possibility of a false-flag nuclear terrorist attack; which otherwise I would consider likely in the coming decades.

 

I believe when they imagine a terrorist attack they imagine a dirty bomb, which is just a conventional bomb with radioactive materials. It would be designed to spread the radioactive materials as far and wide as possible. It's a great terrorist weapon because people are quite scared of radiation. But it doesn't require the greater complexity, expense, and detectability of a nuclear weapon. (because of the expense of a nuclear weapon it would almost certainly have to come from a government, and any government found to have supplied terrorists with nukes will have a very short life span)

 

Anyhow, I don't think that the OP believes that radioactive material doesn't exist, so in his universe dirty bombs are still a danger.

[st434u]

I believe when they imagine a terrorist attack they imagine a dirty bomb, which is just a conventional bomb with radioactive materials. It would be designed to spread the radioactive materials as far and wide as possible. It's a great terrorist weapon because people are quite scared of radiation. But it doesn't require the greater complexity, expense, and detectability of a nuclear weapon. (because of the expense of a nuclear weapon it would almost certainly have to come from a government, and any government found to have supplied terrorists with nukes will have a very short life span)

 

Anyhow, I don't think that the OP believes that radioactive material doesn't exist, so in his universe dirty bombs are still a danger.

 

I hear you. This is true, about the radioactive bomb, although it would be far less destructive than a nuclear bomb.

 

However, in the scenario I described, government would only have to provide the bomb, but in the investigation they would either find that some enemy government provided it, or more likely blame real or fictitious terrorist organizations for it, even if it makes no sense to you or me that this organization would be able to acquire such a weapon without any govt help.

[J-William]

I hear you. This is true, about the radioactive bomb, although it would be far less destructive than a nuclear bomb.

 

However, in the scenario I described, government would only have to provide the bomb, but in the investigation they would either find that some enemy government provided it, or more likely blame real or fictitious terrorist organizations for it, even if it makes no sense to you or me that this organization would be able to acquire such a weapon without any govt help.

Oh sure, I forgot about the false flag bit... but the logic I laid out also applies to a false flag, since it's such easy logic many people would be wondering which government provided the nuke.

 

Also, using a real nuke in a false flag scenario is much more likely to harm the loved ones or other unintended targets of the people orchestrating the false flag operation... So for real terrorists or pretend terrorists dirty bombs are the way to go.

[st434u]

Also, using a real nuke in a false flag scenario is much more likely to harm the loved ones or other unintended targets of the people orchestrating the false flag operation...

 

This is true. Although they could always arrange for their loved ones to leave the area before the nuke goes off. There have been reports of that happening in 9/11... Granted, this would be a far greater endeavor and involve many more people that would have to be warned. However, I would also like to add that people who engage in these acts typically don't have "loved ones" in the way you or I think of it.

[A4E]

There you have absolutely hit the nail on the head!

It will keep you busy for weeks, having no affect on anything whatsoever.

 

Everything affects everything all the time imo. In this case he talked about nuke hoax sites which made you quote him and write what you did. And so it also changed your brain and everyone elses brain who are reading this thread.

 

Those who know how to create propaganda are well aware of such effects. Imagine how your perspective on nuclear bombs would have been if there were no TVs. Or no radio. or no newspapers.

 

 

 

and any government found to have suppliIed terrorists with nukes will have a very short life span)

 

Governments indirectly, through their agencies, like ie CIA, are found to supply groups they created with various weapons all the time, but I dont see any repercussions.

 

 

 

Anyhow, I don't think that the OP believes that radioactive material doesn't exist, so in his universe dirty bombs are still a danger.

 

I've never had any first hand evidence that radiation is dangerous, but yes you are right, I still believe radiation is dangerous. Better safe than sorry I guess.

[J. D. Stembal]

Hypothetically, if I am now convinced that nuclear weapons do not exist, how should this information affect how I live my life?

[pretzelogik]

I find a tremendous advantage to the psychological benefits that accrue from being unconcerned with the negative impacts of any "nuclear" (unclear) event. It's best to mitigate worry about things out of one's control regardless, but the level of comfort is much more profound when the monster in the closet turns ot to be a coat.

[FriendlyHacker]

Pretending that there's no problem might be psychologically healthier for you, but I have a need to understand how things work, and that empowers me to do something productive about it. If you don't want to understand how the bombs work, don't read the paragraphs below.

Fission bombs work for the same reason nuclear energy works, radioactive atoms become unstable from having too many neutrons and protons inside, so they release energy as those atoms slowly decay, which generates the heat necessary to boil water and move the turbines of nuclear power plants. What a fission bomb does is split the atom by throwing a slow moving one to it, which makes the radioactive atom so unstable that it splits into two, therefore releasing all that stored energy immediately instead of in thousands of years.

Fusion bombs work for the same reason that we have a Sun, the light we see from the Sun and stars are a result of extreme gravity merging two atoms into a single heavier atom, and releasing huge amounts of energy in the process. But instead of using the massive gravity of the Sun to fuse atoms, what a fusion bomb does is explode a fission bomb first, and that will generate enough energy to fuse two hydrogen atoms together and cause an explosion a 1000 times bigger (and potentially end life on the planet from nuclear winter).

I've never had any first hand evidence that radiation is dangerous, but yes you are right, I still believe radiation is dangerous. Better safe than sorry I guess.

 

If you ever used a microwave oven, a X-Ray machine, cellphones or got a nice tan from the Sun, that means you already have evidence for radiation, you don't understand the evidence but you have it.

[A4E]

Hypothetically, if I am now convinced that nuclear weapons do not exist, how should this information affect how I live my life?

 

Before I read the comment from the guy I mentioned in OP, I was sometimes evaluating what the point in investing time and energy in trying to make a life for myself woud be, 'knowing' that evil stupid people in control could unleash a nuclear war at any point. This scenario has been, and is being repeated over and over again everywhere. This is obviously having an effect on people. I am fairly convinced that they dont work, since after I got the lead I have compared it to many of the other lies in society and thought about its inconsistencies for the first time.

 

One of the ways you can tell if something is a lie in the media is to look for how much it is being repeated. For some periods in my country man made climate change would be repeated every day in prime time on television, and they are very quick to repeat it even further many times per day when it is warmer than usual, and these people vanish when it is colder than usual. And no they dont have to be a part of any conspiracy. They believe the hoax and are probably just encouraged to speak their mind by someone in the higher ups who also believe the hoax.

 

By not letting the man made climate hoax control my life, (and all the other lies), I can focus on those things I want to do, but until now the nuclear war scare has been in the back of my mind making some choices for me.

 

Earlier in my life, I let people in white coats control my health, which was another huge mistake. 1 artificial chemical had made me slightly retarded for almost a decade. Getting off that crap and getting into vitamins and minerals and oils and other good stuff from nature was a very effective and satisfying experience. I wouldnt have been on this forum if I had continued to trust people in white garments.

 

When it comes to nuclear bombs, it makes sense, because evil people would have surely used them in as many places they could get away with. And how come so few countries have any? The science and technology of nuclear bombs is supposed to have been out there for a long time.

 

I say BS.

Fission bombs work

Ok, so then I wanna ask some annoying questions.

 

Did you make one? And detonate it?

Did you observe someone making it and see it blow up?

Did someone you trust to tell it like it is, make one, and then he watched it blow up?

Did someone you trust to tell it like it is, tell you that he saw someone make it, and then he saw it blow up?

 

If not, what is the reason you think they work? Theory and practice do not always go well togheter.

 

Also, I could make a mushroom cloud in one of the ways that the wiki page states can be done, and litter the ground with radioactive material, and then tell everyone that I just detonated a nuclear bomb. How will you be able to tell the difference to a 'real' nuclear bomb detonation?

 

 

 

If you ever used a microwave oven, a X-Ray machine, cellphones or got a nice tan from the Sun, that means you already have evidence for radiation, you don't understand the evidence but you have it.

 

Thanks. Undoubtedly the many years of brainwashing had put everyday radiation and radiation from nuclear stuff separate from eachother.

[FriendlyHacker]

If you want to discuss why nuclear weapons are not real or why global warming is made up, or why 9/11 and the moon landing never happened, the first thing you must do is understand the evidence against such claims, and also the evidence for it, this takes learning meteorology, cosmology, the rocket equation, structural engineering, particle physics and chemistry, that means you need to read a lot of books and master many different subjects to be able to have an informed opinion about it.

 

But I have a feeling that the reason you're so confrontational about these subjects is completely unrelated to technical details.

[A4E]

If you want to discuss why nuclear weapons are not real or why global warming is made up, or why 9/11 and the moon landing never happened, the first thing you must do is understand the evidence against such claims, and also the evidence for it,

I am assuming that you are talking about actual evidence, and not the official storyline of these events.

 

The whole point in being informed regarding these topics is that you will see there is a severe lack of evidence, and major problems with physical laws being broken. I have extensive experience debating people about all the topics. I can imagine you think I am easily swayed by everything on the internet, but I know what I am talking about.

 

In the last 7 years...

 

I have spent atleast 600 hours on the 911 staged event. (I will call a spade a spade)

I have spent atleast 250 hours getting informed about health and what the body needs from nature to function well, and how artificial chemicals reverses your health.

I have spent atleast 250 hours on the faked moon landings.

I have spent atleast 150 hours on the nonexisting link between HIV and AIDS, and what people actually get AIDS from.

I have spent atleast 100 hours trying to find evidence for gas chambers but all I found was evidence against.

I have spent atleast 100 hours on the sandy hook staged event.

I have spent atleast 80 hours on the boston smoke bombing drill.

I have spent atleast 60 hours finding natural cures for cancer, like hemp oil.

I have spent atleast 40 hours brushing off all the lies about Osama.

I have probably spent another 200 hours on miscellaneous stuff.

I have only spent around 8 hours on nuclear bombs so far.

 

 

 

this takes learning meteorology, cosmology, the rocket equation, structural engineering, particle physics and chemistry, that means you need to read a lot of books and master many different subjects to be able to have an informed opinion about it.

Another way to have an informed opinion is to have an expert give you his opinion about something. Like photographic experts can tell you that the pictures were not taken on the moon. And rocket engineers can tell you that it would be almost impossible to hear the astronauts in the lunar lander while the thrusters were on, and that the dust from the surface would engulf the lander and would make a significant crater beneath the landing point. The landing pads were clean in photos, so there goes logic out the window.

 

Knowledge is important yes. And I read the entire encyclopedia when I was 11-12, and stayed at home reading science magazines all through out my teens, while others were pouring alcohol into their bodies. And internet has been my best friend for many years. However it was not until about 7 years ago, when my brother showed me the film loose change, that my mind opened up to the possiblilty that I might have been misled. Once you are able to question that of which you have taken for granted, then a genuine search for truth can begin.

 

 

 

But I have a feeling that the reason you're so confrontational about these subjects is completely unrelated to technical details.

You are incorrect.

 

2000 architects and engineers have signed onto questioning 911 if you think events like 911 are protected by experts.

[pretzelogik]

I am assuming that you are talking about actual evidence, and not the official storyline of these events.

 

The whole point in being informed regarding these topics is that you will see there is a severe lack of evidence, and major problems with physical laws being broken. I have extensive experience debating people about all the topics. I can imagine you think I am easily swayed by everything on the internet, but I know what I am talking about.

 

In the last 7 years...

 

I have spent atleast 600 hours on the 911 staged event. (I will call a spade a spade)

I have spent atleast 250 hours getting informed about health and what the body needs from nature to function well, and how artificial chemicals reverses your health.

I have spent atleast 250 hours on the faked moon landings.

I have spent atleast 150 hours on the nonexisting link between HIV and AIDS, and what people actually get AIDS from.

I have spent atleast 100 hours trying to find evidence for gas chambers but all I found was evidence against.

I have spent atleast 100 hours on the sandy hook staged event.

I have spent atleast 80 hours on the boston smoke bombing drill.

I have spent atleast 60 hours finding natural cures for cancer, like hemp oil.

I have spent atleast 40 hours brushing off all the lies about Osama.

I have probably spent another 200 hours on miscellaneous stuff.

I have only spent around 8 hours on nuclear bombs so far.

 

 

Another way to have an informed opinion is to have an expert give you his opinion about something. Like photographic experts can tell you that the pictures were not taken on the moon. And rocket engineers can tell you that it would be almost impossible to hear the astronauts in the lunar lander while the thrusters were on, and that the dust from the surface would engulf the lander and would make a significant crater beneath the landing point. The landing pads were clean in photos, so there goes logic out the window.

 

Knowledge is important yes. And I read the entire encyclopedia when I was 11-12, and stayed at home reading science magazines all through out my teens, while others were pouring alcohol into their bodies. And internet has been my best friend for many years. However it was not until about 7 years ago, when my brother showed me the film loose change, that my mind opened up to the possiblilty that I might have been misled. Once you are able to question that of which you have taken for granted, then a genuine search for truth can begin.

 

 

You are incorrect.

 

2000 architects and engineers have signed onto questioning 911 if you think events like 911 are protected by experts.

 

What do you experience when you hear people accepting the things listed above at face value?

 

Have you examined the connections between Hollywood, the military and the news media, and the possibility that events can be fabricated out of whole cloth but portrayed as real?

[J. D. Stembal]

By not letting the man made climate hoax control my life, (and all the other lies), I can focus on those things I want to do, but until now the nuclear war scare has been in the back of my mind making some choices for me.

 

When it comes to nuclear bombs, it makes sense, because evil people would have surely used them in as many places they could get away with. And how come so few countries have any? The science and technology of nuclear bombs is supposed to have been out there for a long time.

 

I don't know how it was for Americans during the Cuban Missile Crisis, but since my birth, I have to admit that the threat of nuclear winter has not kept me up at night. I don't know what choices a nuclear hoax or legitimate threat has made for me. My parents and their influence on my upbringing has been far more influential in my decision making.

 

For example, if during the Cold War, the threat of nuclear fallout clouded my decisions, would I have moved out of a major city center and into the country and build a bunker like in Heinlein's Farnham's Freehold in order to have a chance at surviving a nuclear holocaust?

[A4E]

What do you experience when you hear people accepting the things listed above at face value?

Im not sure what you are asking.

 

 

 

Have you examined the connections between Hollywood, the military and the news media, and the possibility that events can be fabricated out of whole cloth but portrayed as real?

911 and sandy hook are examples of 100% fabrication. Adams brother seemed to not have been a part of it as he was making some rather emotional tweets while he was being accused and out of town.

 

edit: It is still unclear to me how many people were in the towers, it could be anything from 0 to maybe 200 imo, so I guess I shouldnt say for sure that I know it was completely 100% fabricated, but usually staged events, like the boston smoke bombing, do not have any real casualties.

 

I dont see anything pointing to 'let it happen' for 911 or sandy hook, or most of other staged events. And the reason is that it will be alot harder to have control if they were going to mix it with anything they think might happen. Ie they might have thought that those russian brothers were going to be at the boston marathon, but that is a risky approach. Therefore it is more likely that they were playing a part, or just being framed as patsies whether they went to the marathon or not. The dubious cellphone recording of them shouting "we didnt do it" could point to convenient patsies.

 

Regarding 911 the same script seems to have been sent out to the controlled media, and they used atleast 1 crisis actor for certain, who was put there to sell the structural failure... I dont wanna call it a hypothesis as that would give it way too much credit.

 

For the most famous lesser magic, there is the first episode of "the lone gunmen", where one of the cast members said on Alex Jones that the CIA came by to give some instructions. That togheter with all the other small predictions means a high probability of advance knowledge.

[FriendlyHacker]

I have spent atleast 600 hours on the 911 staged event. (I will call a spade a spade)

I have spent atleast 250 hours getting informed about health and what the body needs from nature to function well, and how artificial chemicals reverses your health.

I have spent atleast 250 hours on the faked moon landings.

I have spent atleast 150 hours on the nonexisting link between HIV and AIDS, and what people actually get AIDS from.

I have spent atleast 100 hours trying to find evidence for gas chambers but all I found was evidence against.

I have spent atleast 100 hours on the sandy hook staged event.

I have spent atleast 80 hours on the boston smoke bombing drill.

I have spent atleast 60 hours finding natural cures for cancer, like hemp oil.

I have spent atleast 40 hours brushing off all the lies about Osama.

I have probably spent another 200 hours on miscellaneous stuff.

I have only spent around 8 hours on nuclear bombs so far.

 

I can spend over 10000 hours learning about Deepak Chopra's quantum voodoo, and not get any closer of how particles behave.

How much time have you spent learning science? Do you understand the rocket equation?

 

 

Another way to have an informed opinion is to have an expert give you his opinion about something. Like photographic experts can tell you that the pictures were not taken on the moon. And rocket engineers can tell you that it would be almost impossible to hear the astronauts in the lunar lander while the thrusters were on, and that the dust from the surface would engulf the lander and would make a significant crater beneath the landing point. The landing pads were clean in photos, so there goes logic out the window.

 

I have an aunt who is a doctor with over 30 years of experience, she believes in homeopathy and regularly prescribes it, being an experienced doctor does not keep you from believing in this bullshit, and anyone who understands a bit of chemistry can see through the bs, but the thing is, you need to understand it yourself, because if you don't understand it you won't be able to tell fact from fiction, and there is a lot of fiction out there.

[pretzelogik]

I can spend over 10000 hours learning about Deepak Chopra's quantum voodoo, and not get any closer of how particles behave.

How much time have you spent learning science? Do you understand the rocket equation?

 

 

I have an aunt who is a doctor with over 30 years of experience, she believes in homeopathy and regularly prescribes it, being an experienced doctor does not keep you from believing in this bullshit, and anyone who understands a bit of chemistry can see through the bs, but the thing is, you need to understand it yourself, because if you don't understand it you won't be able to tell fact from fiction, and there is a lot of fiction out there.

 

This is a bit OT, but I have become interested in the rocket equation as of late, although I do not know how it is formally described.  Can you provide a a brief summation without it being to burdensome a task for you?

 

Also, are you of the opinion that the healing arts are subordinate to our current understanding of chemistry and that allopathic medicine has scientifically invalidated other approaches?

[FriendlyHacker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
Rockets need to reach a certain speed to leave orbit, the more the rocket weights the more fuel it will need, the more fuel you add heavier it gets so you will need to add even more fuel to carry the fuel, as the fuel burns the rocket becomes lighter and requires less fuel to maintain speed, as the rocket goes up gravity and air resistence also reduces and you need even less fuel to mantain the speed. If you want to know how far a rocket can go, you need to take all that into account and do the calculation.

 

Healing arts? No idea what that means.

 

The issue with homeopathy is that the thing gets so diluted there's not a single molecule of the active ingredient left. Some people try explaining this by saying that water has a memory and still remembers the active ingredient, though there is no evidence for water having a memory.

[J-William]

I have spent atleast 600 hours on the 911 staged event. (I will call a spade a spade)

I have spent atleast 250 hours getting informed about health and what the body needs from nature to function well, and how artificial chemicals reverses your health.

I have spent atleast 250 hours on the faked moon landings.

I have spent atleast 150 hours on the nonexisting link between HIV and AIDS, and what people actually get AIDS from.

I have spent atleast 100 hours trying to find evidence for gas chambers but all I found was evidence against.

I have spent atleast 100 hours on the sandy hook staged event.

I have spent atleast 80 hours on the boston smoke bombing drill.

I have spent atleast 60 hours finding natural cures for cancer, like hemp oil.

I have spent atleast 40 hours brushing off all the lies about Osama.

I have probably spent another 200 hours on miscellaneous stuff.

I have only spent around 8 hours on nuclear bombs so far.

 

How many hours have you spent on spreading philosophy and information about peaceful parenting or non-agression principle? Or otherwise working to make the world a better place?

[A4E]

How much time have you spent learning science? Do you understand the rocket equation?

1. Quite alot throughout my life. 2. From how you described it I am familiar with it yes.

 

 

 

I have an aunt who is a doctor with over 30 years of experience, she believes in homeopathy and regularly prescribes it, being an experienced doctor does not keep you from believing in this bullshit, and anyone who understands a bit of chemistry can see through the bs, but the thing is, you need to understand it yourself, because if you don't understand it you won't be able to tell fact from fiction, and there is a lot of fiction out there.

 

I read this paragraph many times, and it seems I cannot do anything else than agree with most of what this paragraph is conveying.

 

Am I right in that you are saying professions do not keep people from being duped by topics out of their expertise? For example, a biologist should know that artificial chemicals have never been in nature before, and that all life thus do not recognize it, but that doesn't stop people in white coats from pushing it on gullible people.

How many hours have you spent on spreading philosophy and information about peaceful parenting or non-agression principle? Or otherwise working to make the world a better place?

 

When I was able to question what I had taken for granted about 7 years ago, I started trying to help other people in my country question what they had been told, on a forum I frequented. And was met with a hailstorm of swear words and banter and condescendment.

 

I progressively moved to youtube comments and other friends on internet and family.

 

After finding stefans youtube channel, I became aware of the issues you mention, and as such have tried to spread this as much as possible to family and friends and where I frequent on the internet. I understand that you probably think questioning staged events leads nowhere, but if it had not been for the authors of the film loose change, then I probably wouldnt even be here until perhaps much later, and so also not talking about these issues.

 

I assume you evaluate revealing staged events for what they are, as of no value, but you are wrong. All staged events have an agenda, which is most often to take away freedom from people. If you value freedom, and Stefans opportunity to speak and spread his philosophy, then you should not look down on people like me. Though people like me are used to getting attacked from every angle.

 

Also, at any moment a staged event can be blamed on Stefan, which could lead to the state forcing him into jail or something else that will disable him. So I would recommend you, and everyone else, to lend an ear to people like me, as it is indeed in your, and the worlds, best interest to further peace.

[FriendlyHacker]

Am I right in that you are saying professions do not keep people from being duped by topics out of their expertise? For example, a biologist should know that artificial chemicals have never been in nature before, and that all life thus do not recognize it, but that doesn't stop people in white coats from pushing it on gullible people.

 

When I was able to question what I had taken for granted about 7 years ago, I started trying to help other people in my country question what they had been told, on a forum I frequented. And was met with a hailstorm of swear words and banter and condescendment.

 

I know what you saying here, I was misdiagnosed with a mental disorder myself and took medication that only caused me harm for 10 years, many things are not what they seem to be, there's a reason people from other fields of medicine don't take psychiatry seriously, and the reason is that the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric disorders don't properly follow the scientific method.

 

If you listen to my recent call to the show, I explain the relation between truth and science, and you will notice that science is not about truth, it's about an ever increasing self-correcting approximation to the truth, psychiatry is still very new and there are many things in it that will be corrected in time, but I'm certain that one day it will become a reliable field of medicine.

 

[J-William]

Also, at any moment a staged event can be blamed on Stefan, which could lead to the state forcing him into jail or something else that will disable him. So I would recommend you, and everyone else, to lend an ear to people like me, as it is indeed in your, and the worlds, best interest to further peace.

 

I am fully aware that should Stef ever be seen as a danger to people with government power that he would be in a lot of danger. I doubt they would even feel the necessity to stage some kind of event... furthermore I don't see what power I have to stop anything of that nature, men with a monopoly on violence will do what they want with or without my approval.

 

I don't doubt that governments have staged events and in fact it is commonly accepted that things like the gulf of tonkin or pearl harbor were manipulated to promote an agenda towards war. The same can be said for 9/11. regardless of who the was involved in the attack the event was molded to a pre-existing agenda and used to justify wars and (further) shredding of the constitution.

 

If it will help I'll quickly give you my justification for accepting the existence of nuclear bombs. It's not iron-clad reasoning, but it's what I'm working with: When I was younger I was deeply curious about physics and especially nuclear physics. So I have read a large number of books on the subject. tangentially related are books written by Richard P. Feynman. I read all of Feynman's books and judge him to be an honest and upstanding guy. Feynman was a young and relatively unimportant physicist on the manhattan project and was present for the trinity test. He knew enough and was honest enough to report anything fishy he might have seen.

 

But even if you don't trust Feynman, I trust human nature. Over the years there have been thousands of people involved with nuclear weapon production and tests. it seems there would be solid evidence of it being a hoax, since as they say two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.

 

There have been over 2,000 nuclear bomb tests in seven different countries... and yet somehow all of that was an elaborate hoax that was never revealed and loudly trumpeted by sworn enemies like Russia, China and the US, or India and Pakistan?

[pretzelogik]

The "somebody would have talked by now if it were a hoax" is a contradictory argument, if you believe that nuclear bombs are real.  The official story is that there were thousands of people working feverishly on the development of the bomb and that the work was done in total secrecy.  Then as now, even if someone had wanted blow the whistle, there would have been no means for the message to have been heard beyond whom they could have told directly and that conversation would likely have been met with the same level of receptivity demonstrated here.  I find it more believable that people with a conscience (which according to conventional wisdom, is most of us) could have been convinced to participate in a hoax that created the illusion of a weapon of mass destruction than to have participated in making one.

 

Of course, firebombing cities is more than a hoax, but that was most likely done with the full complicity of the Emperor, or whoever was pulling the strings in Japan.  Why else would General Curtis Lemay have been awarded the Order of the Rising Sun?

 

 

[FriendlyHacker]

The official story is that there were thousands of people working feverishly on the development of the bomb and that the work was done in total secrecy.  Then as now, even if someone had wanted blow the whistle, there would have been no means for the message to have been heard beyond whom they could have told directly and that conversation would likely have been met with the same level of receptivity demonstrated here.

 

You need to read books from the physicists who worked on the Manhattan project, there is no secret anymore about what they were doing and who worked there, except for the technical details of how the bomb is actually made it's pretty clear what was going on over Los Alamos at the time.

 

And even though you say it was something that happened in total secrecy, the reality is that both the Germans and the Russians knew about it, in fact, the reason Russia later managed to develop the bomb is because they had a spy inside the Los Alamos complex.

[pretzelogik]

I doubt that I will ever feel like I have time to read books by Manhattan Project physicists.  If the thesis of the OP, that nuclear bombs are a hoax (and there is more than ample evidence to support this thesis, studiously avoided in this thread, BTW) is to be fairly considered, there is a clear conflict of interest in using the narrative generated by the perpetrators of the hoax to support their claims.

 

The record of prevarication by the state has been shown to be remarkably consistent.  The default position of any critical analysis of a story perpetrated by the state should be one of extreme skepticism.  The scientific apparatus of the state, particularly universities and the military, who are tremendous beneficiaries of state largesse and stand to lose the most should their scams be revealed, are still not subject to the scrutiny they deserve.

 

I see no reason that the words of state funded academics or scientists should be given any more credibility than that of politicians, as they all feed from the same trough.

[shirgall]

...there is a clear conflict of interest in using the narrative generated by the perpetrators of the hoax to support their claims.

 

That pretty much means looking at histories or test data published by any scientist is worthless. Tidy little setup, that.

[pretzelogik]

That pretty much means looking at histories or test data published by any scientist is worthless. Tidy little setup, that.

 

The scientific community involved in competitive enterprise and accountable to pressure from the marketplace to produce accurate, reliable, and verifiable results is trustworthy, obviously.

 

Academics, the military and to some degree medicine (how is Ebola a military issue?) are immune from such pressure and will deliver whatever is required by the state, irrespective of its relation to reality.  This is not to say that everything that comes out of these institutions is false, but it should certainly be suspect,  If they can get the job done with a hoax, why not?  Climate change for example, is just is another variant on a tested and proven methodology of using false narratives to drive the herd.  As far as I know, there are a lot of scientists on that band wagon.

[shirgall]

The scientific community involved in competitive enterprise and accountable to pressure from the marketplace to produce accurate, reliable, and verifiable results is trustworthy, obviously.

 

Academics, the military and to some degree medicine (how is Ebola a military issue?) are immune from such pressure and will deliver whatever is required by the state, irrespective of its relation to reality.  This is not to say that everything that comes out of these institutions is false, but it should certainly be suspect,  If they can get the job done with a hoax, why not?  Climate change for example, is just is another variant on a tested and proven methodology of using false narratives to drive the herd.  As far as I know, there are a lot of scientists on that band wagon.

 

My point is that you rejected all data, including personal narrative, out of hand, leaving you no way to verify anything except through the basic requirement that any critic [spend millions of dollars and break international laws to] make a bomb in front of you and set it off. That's an wonderfully convenient way to perpetuate a conspiracy meme and an absolute non-starter for a useful argument. I should have stuck to my guns and stayed out of this.

[pretzelogik]

My point is that you rejected all data, including personal narrative, out of hand, leaving you no way to verify anything except through the basic requirement that any critic [spend millions of dollars and break international laws to] make a bomb in front of you and set it off. That's an wonderfully convenient way to perpetuate a conspiracy meme and an absolute non-starter for a useful argument. I should have stuck to my guns and stayed out of this.

 

I appreciate your sticking it out, although I don't entertain any notions of presenting a case that would be compelling enough for you to change your mind.

 

To be fair, I have not rejected anything out of hand, just merely pointed out the conflict of interest that exists when the parties that make a claim provide the evidence to support it.  That in itself should be enough to raise suspicion.  Add that to the fact that the claim itself is rather large: that smashing pieces of metal together will level an entire city.

 

But we can still look at the evidence.  Motion and still imagery that conflicts with itself and shows obvious signs of manipulation.  A narrative, presented by the originators of the claim that also has numerous conflicts and inconsistencies, supported by some fantastically tall eyewitness accounts about people walking with their eyeballs in their hands and the like.  Add to that 70 years without another nuclear incident, despite the fall of the USSR, rogue regimes run amok, zeros for pass codes, Clinton losing the pass codes, silos in disrepair, drunken nuclear security, etc. 

 

Not to mention the wind down of the narrative which I vividly remember being reminded of daily while living in fear of annihilation.  I imagine young people nowadays barely think of it.  Could a threat this monumental simply be normalized, or has it reached its expiration date in terms of effectiveness?

[sagiquarius]

Having spent most of my 20's researching conspiracy theories and stepping up to my soapbox to tell others about it, I'm pretty sure I can recognize when somebody else has a problem.  So, to the OP, lemme just say I'm sorry dude.  I'm sorry that the world is the way it is and I'm sorry there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

 

There are so so  many other issues that are sooo much easier to prove both logically and empirically that it pains me some folks spend their precious short lives researching things they can't change while wishing the world were different.  I applaud your tenacity, I truly do, but if I were you (which I was) then I would seriously sit down and think about why these subjects interest you and what you can honestly do with the information.

 

Whenever I see threads like this, I keep thinking of when screaming "9/11 was an inside job" with bullhorns in walmarts and on the streets was considered effective activism.

 

There is always going to be a conspiracy to unravel and it's always going to be about something that can't be proved and really doesn't matter any longer.  There are people that skill talk about the JFK assassination.  My god that is sad.

 

I don't need science to prove you're wrong about the nukes.  I only need logic and observation.  Look at how our society is run, look at the sociopaths that seem to never loose their grip on power and influence.  Look at the shit people are willing to do to their own kids for fucks sake!  Of course the human race created horrible weapons like nuclear bombs.  Of course the human race is capable of staging an incident by tossing planes into buildings.  There are people in this world so screwed that they are willing to murder and rape even the most helpless and defenseless of our species, and you're coming on here making a case that nukes aren't real.

 

Are you fucking kidding me?

[FriendlyHacker]

Why nobody has attacked another country with nukes again? Because it means the end of the human species, and even the craziest people in government are not willing to do it. Currently available Nukes are thousands of times more powerful than the ones dropped in Japan, the reason the people in government don't fight wars themselves, is the same reason this bomb won't go off, they don't want to die.