Good news! Nuclear bombs do not work/exist.

[shirgall]

he usually debates the so called "experts" with logic. 

 

"One drop of water will cover the world if you spread it real thin." - Kent Hovind

[notjam]

230,000 Japanese would like to have a word.

 

I am not trying to dismiss your assertion out of hand, but that would be quite a large and elaborate conspiracy to be effective. Presenting, as evidence, a picture that shows a heard of sheep which survived a carpet bombing isn't a clincher for me.

 

What is the science behind the assertion that a nuclear bomb cannot explode? I remember, perhaps incorrectly, reading in Feynmen's memoir that detonation was one of the obstacles that his team was tasked with overcoming in New Mexico.

[GregMerwe]

The type of reactor in that story is not the same as the one in the video; it's water based like the rest of the commercial reactors in service.  However, it is different than most, as it is a type of "breeder" reactor that makes more fuel than it consumes.  The thorium is added around the core, and as it absorbs excess neutrons that are not consumed in the fission reaction while the reactor is operating at power, its converted to uranium which can then be used as fuel.  The upside is that you don't have the costly step of uranium enrichment, but does have all the problems of the water cooled reactors that were explained in the video.  The neighborhood nuclear reactor would be amazing and is totally feasible; I would look to places like India for these new innovations as the regulatory burden to make something like this happen in the US hurts my brain to even think about.  

 

 

The simple explanation for an explosion is that it's what happens when air tries to expand faster than the speed of sound.  When this happens, you don't need a container to build up the pressure, as the pressure builds up behind the leading edge of the expanding air (better known as a shock wave).  As discussed a few posts earlier, your basic gas laws show that one way to cause an expansion of air is to increase its temperature.  For example, when lightning strikes, the air is heated to about 50,000 degF, and the resulting shock wave/explosion is better known as "thunder". 

 

When you take an amount of energy equal to the output of a nuclear reactor over 8 hours (in the case of Fat Man) and release most of it instantaneously in the form of thermal radiation, you heat the immediate area to somewhere in the neighborhood of the sun's core temperature.  As you can imagine this sort of temperature increase will cause a shock wave with a huge pressure drop which will propagate for miles and destroy a lot of stuff along the way.

 

I think everyone on this board will agree that if this sort of weapon is possible, the state will pursue it at all costs in order to be able to impose its will on other states that do not possess this weapon.  The laws that govern the operation of nuclear reactors show that imploding a plutonium sphere can result in the destruction of a city, so I have no reason to believe the various states, by their very nature, haven't produced as many of these weapons as possible.  I see no reason why they wouldn't then test a few of them and videotape the results for further study. 

 

Why did we not observe an explosion at Fukishima or Chernobyl that took out a whole city. It seemed to be refined to the location of the power plant and not even that much more reactive in terms of an explosion that i would expected from an explosion at a chemical plant. Of I am not disputing the radiation. Although I do think that the effects are exaggerated. I used to know this engineer and he would adamantly tell me that the effects of radiation was over stated in the media.

 

Thanks for you explanation of an explosion, it was very interesting to hear. I have heard that before. I still think a distinction can be made between the type of explosive that requires pressure and one that does not. Explosives that don't require pressure are much more likely to be used end of the day. Can you imagine transporting a nuclear weapon? They would realy have to be transported carefully or built on site. This idea that they were writing words on the big bomb outter casing and joking around before they popped it to an airplane that was vibrating like crazy only to drop it on to japan. Well it all seems very unlikely.

[MrCapitalism]

Why did we not observe an explosion at Fukishima or Chernobyl that took out a whole city. It seemed to be refined to the location of the power plant and not even that much more reactive in terms of an explosion that i would expected from an explosion at a chemical plant.

Your question sent me on a quick search of youtube to maybe find the answer.

 

Here's a video on the Fukishima failure.

 

Here's another one on the 1961 meltdown of a small experimental reactor (SL-1).

 

Here's a video of Chernobyl.

[shirgall]

Harold Agnew carries the plutonium core of "Fat Man":

 

20 minutes after that core was detonated

[pretzelogik]

[Magnetic Synthesizer]

A4E is part of the disinformation campaign. He's a double agent. Shame on you A4E. 

Explain your conspiracy, why would anyone run such a disinformation campaign? To further discredit legitimate skeptics?

Harold Agnew carries the plutonium core of "Fat Man":

20 minutes after that core was detonated

What's the point fo this and the fat man?

I was trying to find alternative ways of making a large bomb that is glowing and spewing smoke upwards which will make a mushroom shape. Maybe it is possible to mix something like TNT with smoke bomb material that will be on fire. Think about it, where is the smoke coming from in alot of the test footage? Does a nuclear bomb make smoke? How does that work? Does it dig into the soil and take it up into the air? But alleged tests at sky level also make smoke, where is the smoke coming from?

Smoke is from the disentigrated matter which falls like some sort of dust.

[shirgall]

[shirgall]

[A4E]

 

What was your intention when posting that video? It is a nice video with some nice music, but what do you suggest that we can get out of it? You usually have a lot of interesting and thought provoking posts, that this board would miss without, and this could very well be one of them, but to me it looks like a 'in your face' post that plays on the perceived credibility of NASA, and the mainstream theory that there is fusion going on inside the sun.

 

When I see that someone posted in this thread, I am hoping that it is something that will push the needle towards one of the camps regarding whether nuclear bombs are real or not.

 

I could have posted videos of dynamite exploding in light and loose soil, which will make a mushroom cloud, also with nice music, but that would not do anything else than provoke the other camp, because I respect others to already have this established. I could also have grabbed that video you linked to, and posted it under a new name like "Electric Sun Art", just because I know there are alternative theories about how the sun might work. (perhaps it is a combination)

 

I admit I do not want nuclear bombs to be real, but if they are real then I am just fooling myself. That is why I wish this thread to be productive, not provocative, even if I am unable to follow that guideline myself. (really great contributions from other people)

[shirgall]

What was your intention when posting that video? It is a nice video with some nice music, but what do you suggest that we can get out of it?

 

 

Just figured we all needed a reminder of the biggest thermonuclear fireball evidence around...

[Coonage]

I sat through the entire "Flat Earth" episode earlier, and needless to say, I just don't think I can make it through 7 more pages of this sort of "argument."  Strange parallels though. Are these two issues, one and the same? Or should I say, are these assertions, all coming from the same people?

[A4E]

I sat through the entire "Flat Earth" episode earlier, and needless to say, I just don't think I can make it through 7 more pages of this sort of "argument." 

There are interesting perspectives from both, or neutral camps in this thread.

 

 

Strange parallels though.

I am interested in what you mean. Could you elaborate?

 

 

Are these two issues, one and the same?

Is a chair and a bus one and the same?

 

 

Or should I say, are these assertions, all coming from the same people?

No.

 

Do you think it would be ok with everyone if I compared people critical of governments with scientologists or jehovah's witnesses?

[shirgall]

I find the entire premise that nuclear weapons can't exist insulting.

 

[pretzelogik]

It is not a question of whether they can't exist.  The evidence for their existence is demonstrably flawed, contradictory and created exclusively by the creators of the bomb narrative itself, a conflict of interest that goes unquestioned and examined for the most part on an anarchy forum which baffles me.  We cannot trust the state on matters of fiat currency, military, education, foreign policy sure, but science and academia are above reproach.  Move along these are not the droids you are looking for.

[shirgall]

It is not a question of whether they can't exist.  The evidence for their existence is demonstrably flawed, contradictory and created exclusively by the creators of the bomb narrative itself, a conflict of interest that goes unquestioned and examined for the most part on an anarchy forum which baffles me.  We cannot trust the state on matters of fiat currency, military, education, foreign policy sure, but science and academia are above reproach.  Move along these are not the droids you are looking for.

 

That you can assert that any science is unquestioned baffles me. All of fundamental physics is questioned regularly by students. The ones that are really good come up with new ways to test old theories. Sometimes they garner incredible insights in the process. They are encouraged to do so, strongly, by everyone in the scientific community.

 

I don't trust the state any further than I can throw it, but there's no compelling reason to disbelieve atomic fission, atomic power, and atomic bombs. I think that those that look too hard for a conspiracy can find it in any topic they want, when the more logical explanation is simple: poor photographic technology (compared to modern days), the strenuous effort to keep the atomic secret from getting out to our enemies, and the enormous cost of testing such technologies.

[pretzelogik]

What baffles me is not whether science is questioned (I think there are strict protocols that enforce the status quo in the scientific and academic communities, I recommend reading/listening to Disciplined Minds by Jeff Schmidt for a look at the mechanics http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Disciplined_Minds)but the conflict of interest. 

 

Any claim that is supported with evidence provided by the party making the claim should be subject to critical scrutiny and taken with extreme skepticism.

 

I do not discount improvements in photographic technology but do recognize impossible images presented as fact.  An explosion that rocks a plane 30,000 feet away (according to the narrative) cannot leave clouds 1,000 feet away unperturbed.  An explosion cannot be dynamic in one area and static in another.  These are conflicts of logic, not photographic imaging technology.

 

As far as conspiracies go, the world is built on conspiracy.  There is an open conspiracy in which those identifying themselves as government claim dominion over others in a particular area and are somehow perceived as legitimate.  This claim is enforced by murder or the threat thereof and yet the idea that they would use illusion to implement their agenda is rejected as a bridge too far.

 

And speaking of the strenuous effort of keeping secrets from our "enemies" (enemies is a concept I reject in terms of the state narrative, I have far more to fear from those in the so called USA than those outside of it, as has always been the case), if 600,000 people working on the Manhattan Project could keep that secret, why would keeping a hoax secret be any different?

[Guest Gee]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17722996

 

Paper on increase cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors.

Null hypothesis would be to compair rates vs conventional bomb survivors of which there are a great many.

[Romulox]

It is not a question of whether they can't exist.  The evidence for their existence is demonstrably flawed, contradictory and created exclusively by the creators of the bomb narrative itself, a conflict of interest that goes unquestioned and examined for the most part on an anarchy forum which baffles me.  We cannot trust the state on matters of fiat currency, military, education, foreign policy sure, but science and academia are above reproach.  Move along these are not the droids you are looking for.

 

In my previous posts, I have connected the existence of nuclear bombs to the fact that the same fission reactions that drive a bomb can be controlled inside a nuclear reactor to the extent where power can be generated in a precise manner.  In what way does this evidence involve the state?  In what way does this involve academia?  This is empirical evidence that continuously observed by hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis.  If my logic has been flawed, please tell me so I can correct my argument. 

 

I find the entire premise that nuclear weapons can't exist insulting.

 

As a nuclear power worker, the premise is incredibly insulting to me on a personal level.  Continuing to argue that nuclear weapons do not exist without addressing my previous arguments implies that I and my hundreds of thousands of nuclear power co-workers worldwide are either:

 

- Completely retarded, as we have somehow been duped into believing that a container full of metal rods is producing electricity when in fact a completely separate and hidden power source right under our eyes is heating the steam that drives the power generation. 

 

- Or liars and part of the most elaborate conspiracy in history, as not one of the several hundred thousand nuclear workers has spoken up, while simultaneously generating 370,000,000,000 watts of power in a way that is not visible to the rest of the population. 

 

So if there is some aspect of nuclear physics that perhaps you don't understand, I will be more than happy to share my knowledge on the subject.  But continuing these video-based arguments is dishonest and insulting, so please take them back to the conspiracy forums. 

 

For everyone else, don't forget:

 

[pretzelogik]

In my previous posts, I have connected the existence of nuclear bombs to the fact that the same fission reactions that drive a bomb can be controlled inside a nuclear reactor to the extent where power can be generated in a precise manner.  In what way does this evidence involve the state?  In what way does this involve academia?  This is empirical evidence that continuously observed by hundreds of thousands of people on a daily basis.  If my logic has been flawed, please tell me so I can correct my argument. 

 

 

 

There may be a disconnect as to what qualifies as evidence.  Sorry to tread in conspiracy territory, but to use a familiar example: At a certain temperature steel will melt.  A certain accelerant burns at temperature X.  In theory, once the acceralerant was applied to the steel and ignited for a particular period of time, the steel should indeed melt. We know that steel will melt, as it was created in a forge.  We know the accelerant will ignite.  This knowledge is not evidence.  The evidence is the remains of the twisted metal that was melted by the accelerant.  One degree of separation from the physical evidence would be photographic evidence.  If the photographic evidence offered as proof conflicts with itself, i.e. conflicting shadows, missing/added elements that could only be explained through compositing, then there is a problem with the narrative.

 

The conflict of interest comes into play when the only evidence provided is supplied by the claimant.  In the case of atomic/nuclear bombs, the only photographic evidence available is provided by the military, who stand to reap tremendous benefits so long as the narrative remains credible.  It has been shown time and again, in ways no one in this thread has even taken the slightest attempt at debunking, that the imagery presented as evidence is impossible and contrived.

 

I see no need in examining any other aspects of the nuclear narrative until someone can explain static clouds or a half static and half dynamic explosion.

 

To all takers I say:  Good luck!

[A4E]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17722996

 

Paper on increase cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors.

Null hypothesis would be to compair rates vs conventional bomb survivors of which there are a great many.

If true and correlative, it can be evidence, but can also be evidence for:

 

From wiki:

 

"A dirty bomb or radiological dispersal device (RDD) is a speculative radiological weapon that combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. The purpose of the weapon is to contaminate the area around the dispersal agent/conventional explosion with radioactive material, serving primarily as an area denial device against civilians. It is however not to be confused with a nuclear explosion, such as a fission bomb, which by releasing nuclear energy produces blast effects far in excess of what is achievable by the use of conventional explosives."

 

 

It would be sort of saying santa claus exists because the presents are under the tree.

[Guest Gee]

If true and correlative, it can be evidence, but can also be evidence for:

 

From wiki:

 

"A dirty bomb or radiological dispersal device (RDD) is a speculative radiological weapon that combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. The purpose of the weapon is to contaminate the area around the dispersal agent/conventional explosion with radioactive material, serving primarily as an area denial device against civilians. It is however not to be confused with a nuclear explosion, such as a fission bomb, which by releasing nuclear energy produces blast effects far in excess of what is achievable by the use of conventional explosives."

 

 

It would be sort of saying santa claus exists because the presents are under the tree.

 

"A dirty bomb or radiological dispersal device (RDD) is a speculative radiological weapon that combines radioactive material with conventional explosives. The purpose of the weapon is to contaminate the area around the dispersal agent/conventional explosion with radioactive material, serving primarily as an area denial device against civilians. It is however not to be confused with a nuclear explosion, such as a fission bomb, which by releasing nuclear energy produces blast effects far in excess of what is achievable by the use of conventional explosives."

 

"A dirty bomb or radiological dispersal device (RDD) is a speculative radiological weapon that combines radioactive material with conventional explosives.

 

a speculative radiological weapon

 

speculative

[MrCapitalism]

A4E, on 12 Nov 2015 - 11:23 PM, said:

speculative

So....what.....radiation doesn't exist too?

[shirgall]

So....what.....radiation doesn't exist too?

 

I think the point is that an A4E has posited an imagined weapon that is somehow a preferable explanation to one which had thousands of witnesses but supposedly cannot exist.

[Guest Gee]

So....what.....radiation doesn't exist too?

 

I think the point is that an A4E has posited an imagined weapon that is somehow a preferable explanation to one which had thousands of witnesses but supposedly cannot exist.

 

Bang on.

 

If true and correlative, it can be evidence, but can also be evidence for:

 

From wiki:

 

"A dirty bomb or radiological dispersal device (RDD) is a speculative radiological weapon.

 

 Did you know the next paragraph from wiki on dirty bombs reads as follows?

 

Though a radiological dispersal device (RDD) would be designed to disperse radioactive material over a large area, a bomb that uses conventional explosives and produces a blast wave would be far more lethal to people than the hazard posed by radioactive material that may be mixed with the explosive. At levels created from probable sources, not enough radiation would be present to cause severe illness or death. A test explosion and subsequent calculations done by the United States Department of Energy found that assuming nothing is done to clean up the affected area and everyone stays in the affected area for one year, the radiation exposure would be "fairly high", but not fatal. Recent analysis of the nuclear fallout from the Chernobyl disaster confirms this, showing that the effect on many people in the surrounding area, although not those in close proximity, was almost negligible.

[shirgall]

At the risk of annoying everyone, I'll add more evidence to the topic... 

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a21382/how-kodak-accidentally-discovered-radioactive-fallout/

 

 

More than 1,900 miles away from Alamogordo, at the Rochester, NY headquarters of Eastman Kodak, a flood of complaints came in from business customers who had recently purchased sensitive X-ray film from the company. Black exposed spots on the film, or "fogging," had rendered it unusable. This perplexed many Kodak scientists, who had gone to great lengths to prevent contaminations like this.

 

•  

Trinity atomic bomb test

 

Julian H. Webb, a physicist in Kodak's research department, took it upon himself to dig deeper and test the destroyed film. What he uncovered was shocking. The fogging of Kodak's film and the Trinity test in New Mexico were eerily connected, revealing some chilling secrets about the nuclear age.

[shirgall]

Since we're talking about evidence...

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvGO_dWo8VfcmG166wKRy5z-GlJ_OQND5

[pretzelogik]

Meanwhile 666 miles from Alamogordo, bathroom tiles were mysteriously less grimy....

 

Regarding video evidence (apparently this bears repeating, heaven knows why), the movie Ghostbusters is evidence that a giant Staypuft marshmallow man once attacked New York city.

 

But you see, those A bomb videos were clipped from actual footage shot at the test sites.  That were rendered at a fully equipped Hollywood style movie studio:

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2015/02/23/lookout_mountain_secret_film_studio_in_laurel_canyon_hollywood.html

 

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired.  - Jonathan Swift (perhaps attribution is in question)

[Caley McKibbin]

The first thing that a skeptic needs to do is set the goalposts.  Otherwise anyone trying to convince does not know which way to kick the ball and the skeptic can merely say that any way the ball went is not a goal.  Anyone trying to argue with a skeptic with no goalposts will simply exhaust himself attempting to kick the ball in every direction.

[jimofflorida]

On 6/17/2015 at 11:58 PM, A4E said:

It is ofcourse up to Nasa to prove that they have been on the moon,

actually it is not, YOU can prove it by investing some time in science <add impressive echo effect when saying science>...

at first I thought this thread was a thread of everyone just posting silly things for fun, but, well, do some of you people actually believe that ISS does not exists (very easily observed by anybody), that moon landing did not happen (once again, you can do some fairly basic science and know it did). Same with flat-earthers, it takes only the most rudimentary understanding of math and a telescope near a lake and well, curvature proven...

thorium (molten salt)  reactors are still fission reactors (not fusion) but much safer and more costly to build..unless you consider the cleanup costs for a "fukushima" type mess! 

so, ahh... this was just a thread with everybody joking, right????

or did a lot of people graduate with Jethro Bodine and not  learn past their "naughts and ones" ;-)

Much of what is around us today can actually be personally "proven" without a great deal of effort... no billion dollar facility needed ;-)

low cost precision time keeping that would stun a scientist from 50-60yrs ago..(no not a quartz watch!)

High resolution telescopes, cameras, compute power and shareware software such as opencv that will let YOU personally prove things that would have taken entire government science teams to solve 60 years ago...

or, I suppose, you could watch reality TV and wear a fitbit...I guess...

 

[A4E]

1 hour ago, jimofflorida said:

actually it is not, YOU can prove it

Non arguments, somewhat ordinary personal attacks, a straw man, 'science' fogging. So you are joking right?... hahaha... You got me at first.

1 hour ago, jimofflorida said:

believe... that moon landing did not happen

I don't believe that the Apollo moon landings did not happen. I know that the Apollo moon landings did not happen. In the same way I know that water is a liquid.

[jimofflorida]

4 hours ago, A4E said:

I know that the Apollo moon landings did not happen.

 

so how did the laser reflectors get up there then? Or do you believe in flat earth and moon is fake..

While there are some people that mess with quite powerful lasers on youtube (scary stuff), I doubt that even now you could get close to the power output needed to actually get a few photons back hehe

You may be able to go to your local observatory and see if any  nearby are setup with the necessary detectors and lasers to give it a try, there are a couple around that can do it. Do not fear science, there are good scientists and they are actually friendly! (probably really lonely lately as real scientist do not chat with the "Faith based" crowd)

as a ham radio operator I can tell you that EME is a real thing and you can do it yourself! hams regularly send out signals, bounce them off the moon, and exchange info; the "math" will tell you exactly how far away the moon is. If you do not believe in meteors you can also try meteor scatter comms, you need to be really lucky for that one and wait for meteor showers.

ISS is really there and you can chat with it using equipment you hold in your hand!...get with you local ham club, they will show you how for less than $100 and some time; depending on who is up there.(actually, there was an ARRL announcement last month or so that the space station finally got a replacement handheld radio so they can chat VHF again. You can make your own circularly polarized hand-help yagi antenna, $10 and a trip to a local hardware store and you are good to go. (you can try those really cheap chinese handheld ham radios but their sensitivity is terrible. I am a kenwood fan but for $25 I had to get one of those boefeng radios...junk hehe...well thats rude, for the money you spend you are actually getting a lot I suppose; but compared so a nice icom/kenwood/etc. well, no comparison ;-)

if you do the math on what it would take to "see" things on the moon I am sure the mirror size would be insane (ignoring all the issues of atmosphere, temperature, and how many pixels you would want across a bus size object ); however, it would be an interesting experiment to take a array of lower cost aligned telescopes and oversample over a long period of time to get a very nice increase in subpixel resolution. You could not pull it off decades ago but now, with all the computer horsepower available, high resolution sensors, good optics, precision tracking, well, it would be very interesting to see what you could pull off with $100k or so.

have fun, and remember, everything around is all just one big math problem that is free for you to explore.

 

[A4E]

4 hours ago, jimofflorida said:

so how did the laser reflectors get up there then?

According to wikipedia you don't need reflectors to bounce lasers off the moon.

If there are reflectors on the moon, they would not have to put them there with the help of people. A rocket loaded with a ton of glass shards sent to crash on the moon might even have been enough. I don't know how or if they did send something reflective to the moon, but the point is that it is not an evidence for humans setting foot on the moon. Just as the other usual arguments are not.

There is however quite a lot of evidence that we did not go there, and probably still do not have the required technology to safely get to the moon and back.

You are lucky that I even bothered replying since you still could not contain yourself calling me names after I had notified you.

[ofd]

You need a reflector that sends a laser back at the same angle it was sent it. Those look like a mirrorbox with one wall missing

[RichardY]

Why does it matter if Nuclear weapons are not real, the earth flat, moon landings staged, Free Energy, UFO's, Chem-trails or  False Flag demolitions? Isn't this an equivalent of a religion in some ways.