Good news! Nuclear bombs do not work/exist.

[pretzelogik]

I graduate with BSc (Hons) in Physics from the university of Bath this summer and my dissertation involved the creation of a Monte-Carlo simulation of physical damage resulting from thermo-mechanical interactions in advanced gas cooled thermonuclear reactors for EDF Energy UK who own and operate all nuclear power stations in the UK.

 

It's real.

 

Congrats, I hope those credentials serve you well.  Perhaps part of your future curriculum will address the fundamentals of advancing an argument.

[Guest Gee]

Congrats, I hope those credentials serve you well.  Perhaps part of your future curriculum will address the fundamentals of advancing an argument.

 

I believe the saying goes one can not reason a man out of a belief of which he was not first reasoned into. 

[shirgall]

Congrats, I hope those credentials serve you well.  Perhaps part of your future curriculum will address the fundamentals of advancing an argument.

 

"I spent four years studying the theory and practice of nuclear physics and found no reason to doubt that nuclear weapons exist and work" is not an argument? He didn't say that exactly, but that is certainly what he meant.

[pretzelogik]

"I spent four years studying the theory and practice of nuclear physics and found no reason to doubt that nuclear weapons exist and work" is not an argument? He didn't say that exactly, but that is certainly what he meant.

 

I spent four years in divinity school studying the theory and practice of the holy trinity and found no reason to doubt that God exists and works in mysterious ways.

 

Ad vericunium is not an argument, but I have heard that challenging logical fallacies does little to help win friends and influence people.

[shirgall]

I spent four years in divinity school studying the theory and practice of the holy trinity and found no reason to doubt that God exists and works in mysterious ways.

 

Ad vericunium is not an argument, but I have heard that challenging logical fallacies does little to help win friends and influence people.

 

Does divinity school have laboratories where undergrads are re-enacting and verifying miraculous experiments?

[J. D. Stembal]

Shall I submit a picture of my sunburned back as evidence for the pro-argument?

[pretzelogik]

Shall I submit a picture of my sunburned back as evidence for the pro-argument?

 

Pro what, the benefits of using sunscreen?

 

There is bit of a disconnect with definitions here:  A phenomenon that can be independently observed and experienced by anyone who cares to step out of doors and do so is not the same as a fantastical claim made by the same people providing the evidence for said claim, namely images and a narrative which was also created by the claimants.

[boethius]

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.

 

 

 

[Guest Gee]

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.

 

Xeon and Krypton are both gaseous products of nuclear fission.

 

Thermal fission reactor core temperatures are approximately T = 737K, lots of products in gaseous phase, Iodine-131 the fission product responsible for most damage to nuclear fuel element cladding in US light water reactors has a boiling point of 474.7K and is therefor in a gaseous phase.

 

Instantaneous temperatures of nuclear fusion explosion such as that in a nuclear bomb detonation is  T = 10,000,000K, that's 10 to the power of 7 degrees kelvin.

 

The boiling point of Rhenium is approximately T = 5,500K, roughly the highest known boiling point of an element.

 

What is on fire in a nuclear explosion? EVERYTHING.

I spent four years in divinity school studying the theory and practice of the holy trinity and found no reason to doubt that God exists and works in mysterious ways.

 

Ad vericunium is not an argument, but I have heard that challenging logical fallacies does little to help win friends and influence people.

 

So am correct in saying you do not accept the validity of the fundamental laws governing the phenomena of nuclear fission and fusion?    

[boethius]

Xeon and Krypton are both gaseous products of nuclear fission.

 

Thermal fission reactor core temperatures are approximately T = 737K, lots of products in gaseous phase, Iodine-131 the fission product responsible for most damage to nuclear fuel element cladding in US light water reactors has a boiling point of 474.7K and is therefor in a gaseous phase.

 

Instantaneous temperatures of nuclear fusion explosion such as that in a nuclear bomb detonation is  T = 10,000,000K, that's 10 to the power of 7 degrees kelvin.

 

The boiling point of Rhenium is approximately T = 5,500K, roughly the highest known boiling point of an element.

 

What is on fire in a nuclear explosion? EVERYTHING.

 

So am correct in saying you do not accept the validity of the fundamental laws governing the phenomena of nuclear fission and fusion?    

 

 

 

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.

[shirgall]

Only minute quantities of gas could be theoretically produced by an atom bomb.

 

Luckily it's all the gases in the area that get to the plasma state in the blast, not just the produced ones. Tons of kinetic energy ripping electrons off of everything leading to an easy jump to the plasma state. It's not a fireball, at first, it's plasma. Bright, super hot, and rapidly moving plasma.

[boethius]

Luckily it's all the gases in the area that get to the plasma state in the blast, not just the produced ones. Tons of kinetic energy ripping electrons off of everything leading to an easy jump to the plasma state. It's not a fireball, at first, it's plasma. Bright, super hot, and rapidly moving plasma.

 

"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? 

[shirgall]

"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? 

 

The superheated ball of air in the middle is plasma. It will heat anything else around it by convection and by radiation. All kinetic events with enough energy make distinctive mushroom clouds. We've covered this ground repeatedly.

[pretzelogik]

 

Are the above "historical" images of the Nagasaki "explosion" authentic?

[shirgall]

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/446911/nuclear-bomb-Russia-explosion-panic-mushroom-cloud

[pretzelogik]

 

Fotoforensics ELA (Error Level Analysis) reports indicate the Daily Star images are composites comprised of at least two layers.  Fotoforensics provides some basic tutorials for an understanding of how it works.  Viewing uploaded photos that are confirmed to be unaltered is also helpful.

 

MSM is not our friend.

[boethius]

The superheated ball of air in the middle is plasma. It will heat anything else around it by convection and by radiation. All kinetic events with enough energy make distinctive mushroom clouds. We've covered this ground repeatedly.

 

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.

[AustinJames]

The earth is flat, too, ya know... http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

[TheBen]

The earth is flat, too, ya know... http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

 

That's the cointelpro disinfo site.  The real flat earthers are at:

 

http://ifers.boards.net/

[Guest Gee]

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.

 

 

EVOLUTION AND STRATIFICATION OF A PLASMA CLOUD SURROUNDING A PELLET

 

Abstract. The 2D equation system for an ionized ablatant density integrated along the magnetic field lines and for a polarization potential is solved numerically. The pellet is modelled by B plasma source of given intensiry and spatial dimensions. The effects of a non-uniform tokamak magnetic field are mken into account. It has been shown that the vertical drift current inside the ionized ablatant produces the polarization that muses the ablatant drift in the direction of a tokamak major radius. The resulting E x B drifts lead to a rather complicated plasma cloud shape resembling a ‘mushroom’ with two clouds connected by a new ‘stem’. The ‘stem’ is unstable and splits into separate striations.

 

PlasmaPhys. Control. Fusion 37 (1995) 399-414

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/37/4/003/pdf/0741-3335_37_4_003.pdf

[boethius]

EVOLUTION AND STRATIFICATION OF A PLASMA CLOUD SURROUNDING A PELLET

 

Abstract. The 2D equation system for an ionized ablatant density integrated along the magnetic field lines and for a polarization potential is solved numerically. The pellet is modelled by B plasma source of given intensiry and spatial dimensions. The effects of a non-uniform tokamak magnetic field are mken into account. It has been shown that the vertical drift current inside the ionized ablatant produces the polarization that muses the ablatant drift in the direction of a tokamak major radius. The resulting E x B drifts lead to a rather complicated plasma cloud shape resembling a ‘mushroom’ with two clouds connected by a new ‘stem’. The ‘stem’ is unstable and splits into separate striations.

 

PlasmaPhys. Control. Fusion 37 (1995) 399-414

 

http://iopscience.iop.org/0741-3335/37/4/003/pdf/0741-3335_37_4_003.pdf

 

 

 

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.

[shirgall]

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 gasses that are ionized and turned into plasma do not have to be produced by the atom bomb, they are nearby when it explodes. When a grenade explodes, it's not the explosive but the metal shell around it that becomes shrapnel.

[AncapFTW]

The argument in a nutshell:

 

Person 1: Here's a scientific explanation.

Person 2: I don't understand science, so it's obviously not true.

Person 1: Then here's some literature so you can study it.

Person 2: It's a conspiracy, man.  The government's got a grip on the uranium mines.  They're stockpiling it or something!

 

[pretzelogik]

The argument in a nutshell:

 

Person 1: Here's a scientific explanation.

Person 2: I don't understand science, so it's obviously not true.

Person 1: Then here's some literature so you can study it.

Person 2: It's a conspiracy, man.  The government's got a grip on the uranium mines.  They're stockpiling it or something!

 

Person 1: Here's some figures on a piece of paper

Person 2: Do you have any actual evidence in reality?  Maybe something we can verify?

Person 1: Here's some literature so you can study it.

Person 2: Study what, the government story, backstopped by government subisidized institutions?  I thought this was an anarchy site...

Person 1: It is sorta, except when it comes to science stuff like A bombs and Apollo, then we're all in!  Government would never lie about science stuff.

[Guest Gee]

Person 1: Here's some figures on a piece of paper

Person 2: Do you have any actual evidence in reality?  Maybe something we can verify?

Person 1: Here's some literature so you can study it.

Person 2: Study what, the government story, backstopped by government subisidized institutions?  I thought this was an anarchy site...

Person 1: It is sorta, except when it comes to science stuff like A bombs and Apollo, then we're all in!  Government would never lie about science stuff.

 

Person 1. Here is an expert publication of physical science verified by peer review explaining a physical phenomena of which you have expressed interest.

If you so wish, you may repeat the experiment presented and so independently verify the result, also, all physical science used in the formulation of this publication is perfectly referenced and freely available and so if you wish you may independently verify that physical science!

Not only that, but all references will be referenced and so you can, if you wish, independently verify any physical science used in the formalization of those theories used in the formulation of the theories used in the formulation of the area your interested in.

In fact, every single bit of accepted physical science is freely available and may be independently verified if you so wish.

 

Person 2...........................................................

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.

 

Yes I understood it but I don't expect someone who hasn't spent a lot of time studying physics to understand it, if you want to understand it you can study physics and, if you so desire, verify it (see previous post).

 

If you don't want to study it that's fine, it's a lot of work and very little economic gain, but if you don't study you don't understand and you don't get to talk about it because you by definition, have no idea what your talking about.

 

Fortunately, due to the increased economic output experienced through specialization there exists people who will think about this stuff for you, and not just in physics, but in other areas too.

 

Yes ablation is the removal of material from a surface by vaporization.

The pellet refers to the nuclear fuel pellet.

Pellet ablation is then the removal of material from the surface of the nuclear fuel pellet by vaporization.

The full article explains that which is surmised in the abstract, how mushroom clouds are formed.

[pretzelogik]

Can you direct me to where I can witness an atomic explosion?

 

I understand the evidence of these super weapons (the topic of this thread, lest we forget) was only witnessed by their supposed creators, who also documented and distributed the recordings of said events.  Otherwise known as a conflict of interest.  Somehow  the contrived footage and images (some of which even contain material drawn by hand!) is conveniently sidestepped at every turn.

 

BTW, the following link describes a recent example (among many others throughout history, as science is nothing if not political) of the corrupt peer review process.  Of course, it's mainly those danged Asians, the murikans would never do such a thing...

[boethius]

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. 

[boethius]

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest Gee]

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. 

 

1. All lightning is plasma but not all plasma is lightning.

 

2. You have used the equations which logically validateS the potential of nuclear weapons to argue against the physical validity of nuclear weapons. UPB?

 

3. 

 

 

4. See 1 and 3.

 

5. If you have developed a method which can be independently verified which disproves the validity of nuclear physics would you be so kind as to let me know? I'd love to experimentally prove this and win a Nobel prize and a stake of the million dollars that goes with it.

Can you direct me to where I can witness an atomic explosion?

 

I understand the evidence of these super weapons (the topic of this thread, lest we forget) was only witnessed by their supposed creators, who also documented and distributed the recordings of said events.  Otherwise known as a conflict of interest.  Somehow  the contrived footage and images (some of which even contain material drawn by hand!) is conveniently sidestepped at every turn.

 

BTW, the following link describes a recent example (among many others throughout history, as science is nothing if not political) of the corrupt peer review process.  Of course, it's mainly those danged Asians, the murikans would never do such a thing...

 

Absolutely! Did you know EDF energy do tours? http://www.edfenergy.com/energy/education/visitor-centres

Also.......... THE TOURS ARE FREE!

[GregMerwe]

I didn't join the forum to post this but I saw the thread and as i have known about this set of idea for a number of years I though i should add something to the topic. There was a lot of discussion on this topic on the now closed forum nukelies.com. This one guy called Edmund Burke went and made a full documentary on the subject and I recommend you watch it. To be honest I am pretty convinced that all the nuke videos were faked and i am partially convinced that nukes do not exist and that japan was just carpet bombs like dresden. But ill let you watch the documentary. I did check if anyone else has posted this info but didnt see it. I am more interested in the implications of what it means to foreign relations if it is finally admitted that nukes don't exist. Would that kick off another cold war? was the nuclear weapon invented to end the world war 2? Was it propaganda that ended the world war 2?

 

[Guest Gee]

This one guy called Edmund Burke went and made a full documentary on the subject.

 

Thankyou for sharing this video.

 

I have watched the first 30 minutes and I stopped after that.

 

Given the 30 minutes I watched I have formed the following conclusion, this is not a documentry, this is properganda.

It is propaganda because it is the presentation of a conclusion without any attempt to reason through an arugment.

 

Consider that in the first 30 minutes a very reasonable argument was made for the rarity of U235 owing to production issues.

Given that rarity the experiment to test the validity of the theory was designed such that in the event of a no explosion outcome, this U235 could be recovered.

Moving forward in time the issue of U235 production was resolved and therefore the experiment could be redesigned to take this into consideration (around 28:00).

The experiment was redesigned given this new condition.

At this point in time (28:30) Burke asserts that the experiment was redesigned because the results were to be faked making no argument and ignoring all information presented in the previous 30 minutes.

 

This is not a singular event either, all input by Burke in the first 30 minutes follow this pattern.

 

With regard to your interests, it is my understanding that if nuclear weapons did not exist (which is contary to all existing scientific proof which you may independently verify if you so choose) then this would not kick off a cold war.

Given that nuclear weapons create the 'mutally assured distruction' possibility then the none existance of nuclear weapons would rended this possibility null and void and hot wars would once again be possible between nuclear states.

[boethius]

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.

 

I would also add that I am in complete agreement that there exists many falsehoods propigated by the state about what happened during the second world war, but, if I were to make an informed bet about the veractiy of these events, I would be betting that those events which may be talked about, and investigated at will, and scientifically and independently verified and hold huge financial prizes for the negation thereof (Nobel in physics if you can prove nucelar phsyics is bunk!) would not be false and that those which required the threat of violence by the state to prevent inquiry would not be true.

 

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.

[Guest Gee]

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.

 

So your saying nuclear physics is valid and nuclear weapons exist now but you do not beleive they existed in the second world war?

[pretzelogik]

With regard to your interests, it is my understanding that if nuclear weapons did not exists (which is contary to all existing scientific proof which you may independently verify if you so choose) then this would not kick off a cold war.

Given that nuclear weapons create the 'mutally assured distruction' possibility (ie. mutally assured destruction of political masters) then the none existance of nuclear weapons would rended this possibility null and void and hot wars would once again be possible between nuclear states.

 

I would also add that I am in complete agreement that there exists many falsehoods propigated by the state about what happened during the second world war, but, if I were to make an informed bet about the veractiy of these events, I would be betting that those events which may be talked about, and investigated at will, and scientifically and independently verified and hold huge financial prizes for the negation thereof (Nobel in physics if you can prove nucelar phsyics is bunk!) would not be false and that those which required the threat of violence by the state to prevent inquiry would not be true.

 

I am curious as to how one goes about veriying anything that is decreed by the high priests of big science, what with their particle guns and gold foil, cyclotrons, large hadron colliders, rockoons, red shift radio listening devices (thank goodness for that pigeon poop), etc.  (The rockoons are my favorite!)

 

There is an entire world of academic research that is funded by the government (not a reliable repository of trustworthiness) to produce results demanded by the particular pysop of the day, whether it's nuclear weapons, global cooling, acid rain, global warming, climate change, ebola, ad infintum.  These psyops come and go as needed and are maintained through the Hollywood/military industrial complex, which includes news broadcasts.  A lower third graphic picturing the word: "Live" on a TV screen in no way indicates that the footage being shown at that instant was not created in advance.  Later these "news" reports become what is commonly referred to as "history".  Reference any current high school textbook in regard to September 11, 2001 for confirmation of this.

 

As far as hot/cold wars are concerned there is ample evidence of collusion between the leaders of the fictions referred to as nations. Mutually assured destruction is simply an exit strategy for winding down the hoax.  There is never any doubt among those who orchestrate and conduct the wars in their various "theaters" what the new paradigm will be once the explosions stop. War is a tool to thin the herd to manageable levels and dramatically reconfigure social convention in short bursts, as opposed to Fabian style. It's a win/win!  For the parasites, that is...

[shirgall]

I am curious as to how one goes about veriying anything that is decreed by the high priests of big science, what with their particle guns and gold foil, cyclotrons, large hadron colliders, rockoons, red shift radio listening devices (thank goodness for that pigeon poop), etc.  (The rockoons are my favorite!)

 

 

One way is that they release the data of basic research for others to view after a time. I can only hope they do something similar with all nuclear research, but a lot of data from earlier quantum research is available for anyone to sift through. Even the LHC provides data if you can handle it. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/computing

 

Obligatorycredibility: I used to coordinate responses to customer problems with systems used for data dumps like this.