A4E Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 Good news! Seems like nuclear bombs do not work. Which means nuclear bombs dont exist, which means there will be no nuclear war. http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htmhttps://www.google.no/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do+nuclear+bombs+exist I would spread far and wide if I were you since it is not cool to scare people like this, but ofcourse it benefits those in power, so they dont care, whether they would know its a hoax or not. I got the lead from a guy stopping by the "THE END OF THE WORLD" video on youtube, and I've informed myself about all the other lies in society, and have minimal trust in popular claims to begin with, so it was easy for me to be open to the idea. Personally I am not 100% sure yet, need to do more research, but I think it is important to get the message out fast because it changes alot and takes away a strong grip that states have on people imo. 3 10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 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. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff_NH Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I have no problem dismissing the assertion out of hand. The site also indicates that the ISS space station is just a balloon and re-entry/return from the space station is not possible... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted January 19, 2015 Author Share Posted January 19, 2015 This guy seems to believe they work, but explains the Japan issue. I have no problem dismissing the assertion out of hand. The site also indicates that the ISS space station is just a balloon and re-entry/return from the space station is not possible... I have gone through some things about china faking their space walk, and also heard about this before. The alledged moon landings are total fakes without question. So I would not be surprised if ISS was fake. You can ask yourself, have you been to the space station? Have you seen it upclose? Know anyone who was there who you trust to tell the truth? I know, silly questions, but its kinda important. If all we see are video or images of something, then we never really know if they are real because it is supereasy to make videos and images on computers. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff_NH Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 You can ask yourself, have you been to the space station? Have you seen it upclose? Know anyone who was there who you trust to tell the truth? I know, silly questions, but its kinda important. If all we see are video or images of something, then we never really know if they are real because it is supereasy to make videos and images on computers. While such skepticism is inherently useful, it is a pretty deep rabbit hole for if one always needs personal confirmation of everything, there is a whole lot of time that is going to be spent looking for confirmation (or more typically confirmation bias) of external events. Don't get me wrong - I do tend to walk around at all times assuming that everything and everyone is potentially wrong or lying (at some level). I've found this to be useful if for no other reason than it helps one to listen or read critically and in the end assuming you accept the information, you tend to understand it better. Have you applied this same level of disbelief to the information that you've read about the ISS and nuclear bombs? It is quite true that I have not been to the ISS. I have been to the trinity site and seen the sand turned to glass. Certainly by itself not super compelling information but of course I also have little interest in seeing an A or H bomb set off just so I can look at it. As for the ISS, while it is certainly somewhat non-trivial to do a little bit of science on this it should be doable. One theory that the author of your website puts forward is that the ISS is 'just' a balloon. The math behind orbital motion is not all that complicated. Look it up. Read about it. Then start doing your own math. Do something like measure the transit time of the 'balloon' across the sky. Calculate the velocity for a few different apparent altitudes given that transit times. Realize how much cooler it would be if we had the technology to make a balloon move that fast. If that is not enough, it might be possible to do something like make a rudimentary homemade radar system and attempt to measure the distance to the 'balloon'. Again non-trivial but I think completely within the realm of possible science for an individual. What you will find when you do these things is the awesome power of the non-falsifiability of the tin foil hat people who will immediately come forth with a new theory for their non ISS. I'm not suggesting you always take the 'official story' of everything as truth. Even if the 'official story' of some event is intended to be truthful, humans sort of suck and make mistakes so at the very least, the healthy skepticism is needed to throw away garbage input data. I just suggest applying that same garbage filter to all external sources, including the website you linked and of course my post. Signed, Official Disinformation agent of the 2016 Olympics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 @Jeff_NH Have you applied this same level of disbelief to the information that you've read about the ISS and nuclear bombs? I always assume that new information can be wrong yes. The problem is when something we have been told repeatedly, from TV and from people, and seen films about, and perhaps even been taught in school, have been transformed into a shielded immortal substance which will always be there. The people you call names have become able to turn off the shielding and lift these substances up from the undeserved protection of all the substance around it, so that they can apply the same level of disbelief to it, as you described. I think this is the way to go if we want to become a species based on rationality and truth, but sadly most people find it easier and more motivating to use all their protected substances to attack those who have become able to uhhinge it from all the protective systems in the brain, so to speak. As for the ISS, while it is certainly somewhat non-trivial to do a little bit of science on this it should be doable. One theory that the author of your website puts forward is that the ISS is 'just' a balloon. The math behind orbital motion is not all that complicated. Look it up. Read about it. Then start doing your own math. Do something like measure the transit time of the 'balloon' across the sky. Calculate the velocity for a few different apparent altitudes given that transit times. Realize how much cooler it would be if we had the technology to make a balloon move that fast. I have very little information or verification of ISS. Never done any research on it. Does it go in orbit? Do you know for sure? I have not seen it other than in pictures and some videos and just accepted that it is real and that it is going in orbit. If that is not enough, it might be possible to do something like make a rudimentary homemade radar system and attempt to measure the distance to the 'balloon'. Again non-trivial but I think completely within the realm of possible science for an individual. Ok. I would be interested in the results too. What you will find when you do these things is the awesome power of the non-falsifiability of the tin foil hat people who will immediately come forth with a new theory for their non ISS. I always get offended and dissapointed and dismayed about the human race when I see name calling hurled at people like me. They are usually very proficient at making strawmen like you did now. So is it your opinion that all people like me are flimsy, and will always create new thoeries if we are challenged, and that we always wear tin foil hats?I do not wear a tin foil hat, so either I am not one of these people that you are talking about. Or I am, which means your statement is wrong. Or you are talking about some other group that you did not specify to me. I'm not suggesting you always take the 'official story' of everything as truth. Even if the 'official story' of some event is intended to be truthful, humans sort of suck and make mistakes... There is a big difference between making mistakes, and forinstance putting blame 1 hour after the event and telling a grand tale of the entire operation, and its perpetrators, and how the buildings went down. All on the same day, which was the case with 911. No investigation needed since they already knew everything about it on the same day. Such is the awesome power of propaganda. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProfessionalTeabagger Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 A4E is part of the disinformation campaign. He's a double agent. Shame on you A4E. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yagami Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 We keep a tight grip on each other. It's not the state and their bombs that scare the people it's the people who scare the people. Even if this were true I dont think it would make much difference. It's not like we would get invaded because we could only retaliate with non nuclear force. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 I think the point is that using nukes on our own country to repel invaders makes very little sense, and the video A4E cites makes some pretty good arguments that destroying enemy cities makes very little sense too. The negative social consequences of using nuclear weapons alone seems like too high a cost. Far too much money and effort is spent on nuclear power, nuclear weapons, thermonuclear weapons, nuclear monitoring and detection, and radiation medicine for it to be a hoax. The sun is far too bright for thermonuclear explosions to be impossible. I've observed ISS directly with a telescope. If it's a balloon it sure is fancy. At such a high altitude it's pretty put together for such a thin atmosphere. I have a friend who was paid to make an ipad app for use aboard it. I've observed a launch at Cape Canaveral too, for that matter. But that was the space shuttle and a heck of a long time ago now. I didn't stay for the landing, though, it was going to be five days later, and on my birthday. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted January 21, 2015 Author Share Posted January 21, 2015 Shirgall said: Far too much money and effort is spent on nuclear power, nuclear weapons, thermonuclear weapons, nuclear monitoring and detection, and radiation medicine for it to be a hoax. The following guy also seems to believe that nuclear bombs are real, but he addresses your argument: For those who do not want to see the video, here is a short text version from a debunker website: After an long career in the humanity-disgracing nuclear weapons industry, he went on speaking tour for the ultra-right-wing John Birch Society, suggesting that: Gamma radiation does not cause mutations; Health dangers of Gamma radiation exposure are surface burns at worst; Drinking radioCesium-contaminated water is perfectly safe; Even in his presentation’s more lax pre-Chernobyl times, he found nuclear safety measures already ‘ridiculous’, ‘absurd’, way too strict; He believed that ‘steam explosions’ (just like at coal plants) are the only thing that can possibly go wrong at a nuclear power plant; A nuclear power plant’s ECCR (Emergency Core Cooling System)’s only function is to intentionally destroy a reactor; He claims that the Three Mile Island nuclear accident was no accident, but done on purpose as part of a movie-scripted operation to keep people fearful about radioactivity; as well as trick rate payers into paying more; The radioactive waste disposal system exists primarily for the benefit of ‘organized crime': so it can dispose of all its piles of dead bodies, weapons, etc. without ever getting detected. He asks, “Who owns the Plutonium?” and “How much is it worth?” His answer boils down to his belief that “using it beneficially” threatens a number of powerful interests, most notably an alleged “federal energy cartel” which controls the price and availability of energy. Also I can add that he said along the lines of plutonium being the most valuable thing for future energy. And a google search mentions that he apparently died from leukemia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejCQrOTE-XA Shirgall said: Far too much money and effort is spent on nuclear power, nuclear weapons, thermonuclear weapons, nuclear monitoring and detection, and radiation medicine for it to be a hoax. Since it seems like most of the FDR community has accepted that manmade climate change is a hoax, I can use it as an example to make a counter argument. Far too much money and effort is spent on global climate change, carbondioxide limitations, carbondioxide depositing, carbondioxide filtering, research on ways to stop using fossil fuels, and public information campaigns on the evil carbondioxide, the most important food for all life on the planet, for it to be a hoax. The sun is far too bright for thermonuclear explosions to be impossible I dont know how the sun does what it does. The electric universe theory has a section on the sun. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 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. In another way I suppose it could be bad news, if it means that tiny countries cannot rely on the threat of using nuclear bombs to safely and cheaply accommodate most national defense issues.Then again... if it's true that nuclear bombs aren't real, but they are believed to be real, and will continue to believed to be real, you get the best of both worlds... at least in this particular application. As you get the deterrent against invasion, without the (however remote) possibility of all out mutually assured destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 Use http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php to find the ISS. Also, please explain how the modern physics is wrong with regard to thermonuclear weapons. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted January 22, 2015 Share Posted January 22, 2015 I keep looking forward to the day when media fakery and hoaxes are seriously analyzed on this forum. I had hoped this might be a thread that would stir curiousity for deep research into historical government and media claims: who the players are, what the primary documentation purports, whether conflicting images can be resolved, etc. It is an uphill battle as reports from the media are generally sacrosanct. Stefan is constantly critical of the media, their spin, distortions, framing, editing, misrepresentations, and even lying, but the idea that an event could be created out of whole cloth is never considered. Is it possible that it is not mere coincidence that the first Deputy Administrator of NASA, T.Keith Glennan, was a former studio manager for Paramount and Samuel Goldwyn studios? He also served as a member of the Atominc Energy Commission, which provides one of dozens if not hundreds of links between Hollywood, NASA and atomic weapon perception management. Even to this day the perception of nuclear weaponry is primarily managed through Hollywood in TV shows like 24. Saving the world from nuclear apocolypse is an evergreen plot device. The state is constantly exposed here for its contradiction, manipulation and prevaricarions, but the the idea they would rely on hoaxes to continue their fleecing of the public is not entertained, even as a thought experiment. I believe this has to do with the idea that once the first hoax is exposed, one's entire perception of history unravels, the same way childhood trauma becomes exposed when the idea that "Taxes are theft" is understood. On the plus side, I worry about any nuclear threat nowadays about as much as I worry about the sun refusing to rise. Which is saying a lot, as I vividly recall the terror that was instilled in me during the cold war. I also remember the printed, posted instructions on how to respond to a nuclear attack, one of which was "...place head between knees," (after which a graffiti comic would invariably pencil the words: "Then kiss your ass goodbye!") 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 I am still waiting for arguments which part of nuclear physics is wrong. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 Seeing that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were probably firebombed, it would mean that nuclear weapons have never been used in any wars. Did humans suddenly become so nice to eachother in wars that they gently put nuclear bombs aside? Knowing how many assholes and evil inconsiderate people there are everywhere, I dont buy that. 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? I cannot find anything that explains why they produce alot of smoke. The reason I focus on the smoke, is because allthough some of the video footage is probably fake, many have realistic looking smoke and pyroclastic effects that would be very hard to simulate at the time imo. Also the shockwaves look real, so there probably would have been somekind of explosives involved. We know that it is possible to make large explosions wiithout the mythical nuclear bomb. It would probably cost alot of money and such, but so do the mythical atombombs. I know if I could use taxpayers money for anything I wanted, I would probably have some fun making large explosions, except I would have a hard time lying to people about what it really was. But considering that it was probably a propaganda power wrestle between USA and Russia, it would be deemed ok. With the added sideeffect of making people scared. And fear equals control. I dont know much about bombs, maybe someone else can come up with an alternative that would be able to make sufficiently powerfull bombs with alot of smoke. The chinese test footage looks very different from american test footage. I am still waiting for arguments which part of nuclear physics is wrong. That is a reasonable point of view, but you are protecting those who claim that nuclear bombs are real. If I claim that lightning is energy weapons from aliens, then it should be up to me to prove that, not others to disprove me. Again I can use the example of climate change. They have no evidence that releasing carbondioxide will make any significant changes to the climate. Is it up to me to disprove their climate science? Thankfully I dont really need to either since lord Monckton is doing alot on that front. Ok, so you could argue that nuclear physics is 100% correct and real because of nuclear power stations. Perhaps so, but it would be sort of like saying manmade climate change, with the release of carbondioxide, is real because plants absorb and use carbondioxide for fuel. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-William Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I originally thought this thread was a joke... I'm still not quite sure. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted January 25, 2015 Author Share Posted January 25, 2015 I feel I have to thank freedomainradio for this forum even existing, because my legitimate concern (and joy) that nuclear bombs do not exist is not being deleted. Not only that, but every reply is an intelligent approach to the topic. And no flaming. Thanks! Any other forum and I imagine it wouldnt stay up for even an hour. I found a 7 year old thread on a science forum with this topic. It quickly deterioated into personal attacks and other flaming. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 This clip used in this analysis was taken from an official release and was one of many (if not all) of the official releases which have the same indicators of compositing that were used to sell the A bomb story. Imagery, including photographs was the primary method of conveying the narrative, but fails under scrutiny. Does the perfectly symmetrically expanding ellipse in the above footage look real? The second method was eyewitness accounts, which conflicted with one another despite being controlled by the military and press. The third was reporting by the creators themselves. (Holllywood can be included here and in the imagery category, as the narrative is continued through the nuclear plot device in numerous movies and television shows, as well as in the "news") 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. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 That is a reasonable point of view, but you are protecting those who claim that nuclear bombs are real. If I claim that lightning is energy weapons from aliens, then it should be up to me to prove that, not others to disprove me. You are making an extraordinary claim and you have to show where the flaw in nuclear physics is. What specifically is wrong? Experimental data is confirmed by tests with nuclear weapons. They work as they should. Again I can use the example of climate change. They have no evidence that releasing carbondioxide will make any significant changes to the climate. There is plenty of evidence that CO2 has an effect on climate. Also, have a look at this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 26, 2015 Share Posted January 26, 2015 There is plenty of evidence that CO2 has an effect on climate. Also, have a look at this Sure, lots of things effect climate. What's not clear is if it has a negative effect. There's evidence that CO2 had higher concentrations in the past and that it does not correlate with temperature. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/04/dr-vincent-gray-on-historical-carbon-dioxide-levels/ Meanwhile we are planning to starve the plants of our world and not provide them adequate nutrition. Luckily carbon dioxide is not the only driver of climate changes, otherwise this particular aspect of the argument would make the whole debate murky. In the meantime, I look forward to a model with moderate predictive power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 You are making an extraordinary claim and you have to show where the flaw in nuclear physics is. What specifically is wrong? Experimental data is confirmed by tests with nuclear weapons. They work as they should. Can you direct me toward evidence of them "working as they should"? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Can you direct me toward evidence of them "working as they should"? Let's get all of these countries, ostensibly in conflict with one another, to perpetuate the hoax: http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/history-of-nuclear-testing/nuclear-testing-1945-today/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Let's get all of these countries, ostensibly in conflict with one another, to perpetuate the hoax: http://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testing/history-of-nuclear-testing/nuclear-testing-1945-today/ Is this to say that the images and reports referenced in the links are to be taken prima facie as evidence? Do you find it curious that the CTBTO includes photos of nuclear explosions, but no video? Could it be that the existing video footage of nuclear tests is so hopelssly dated and contrived that it no longer serves the narrative? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I'm having difficulty following your replies. Can you make sure they appear outside the material you are quoting instead of inside which makes it appear to attribute what you are saying as what *I* am saying? I'm also having difficulty giving your claim credibility because it would require decades of somehow-kept-secret collusion between countries that are supposedly in conflict, including thousands of scientists and engineers that just don't have any good reason to carry a lie to their deathbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 I cannot find anything that explains why they produce alot of smoke. Atomic bombs don't produce smoke. What happens is fairly simple. Put a very hot spot close to the earth and it heats up dust and soil. This in turn gets up high in the atmosphere and cools off during the process. When it has gotten as cold as the surrounding atmosphere it won't climb up anymore and will be pushed to the side. This produces the mushroom shape. The stem of the mushroom is the particles getting up, the head of the mushroom are the particles being pushed around in Brownian motion while cooling off. Meterological conditions may change a perfect symmetrical mushroom head to a distorted one. Can you direct me toward evidence of them "working as they should"? Again, Nuclear Physics is an established science. You say that it does not work according to the theory. I say excellent, show me the mistakes in the theory of fission and fusion. If you can't, your claim can be dismissed instantly. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Again, Nuclear Physics is an established science. You say that it does not work according to the theory. I say excellent, show me the mistakes in the theory of fission and fusion. If you can't, your claim can be dismissed instantly. The OP referenced Heiwa's claim about the theory, which may or may not be correct on paper. My point is that the smashing two pieces of metal together, enriched or not, can create enough force to level a city is an extraordinary claim. The one making the claim should be the one to provide the evidence of the claim, not the other way around. There may be equations that say a mag lev train could get from New York to Tokyo in 30 minutes and they may be absolutely undebunkable. That does not mean that such a thing exists. Proof is demonstration in the real world. So far, everything provided as evidence of nuclear bombs (imagery and narrative) has major problems as far as source of origin, continuity, signs of compositing, contradiction and simple logic. My question to you would be: "What is it about the narrative of nuclear bombs that makes you want to continue to believe it?" I find it to be a tremendous relief that psycopaths who could and certainly would employ such devices do not have the means at their disposal to do so. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 "What is it about the narrative of nuclear bombs that makes you want to continue to believe it?" https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/pioneering-nuclear-science-discovery-nuclear-fission The decades of experimental results, the widespread use of radioactivity for other purposes, the fact that so many scientists seem pretty sure that fission happens, the fact that we spent trillions (literally) of dollars on researching it, the fact that nuclear power plants produce power, the fact I had to deal with alpha particles in chip design and use ECC memory critical systems... along with all the other things I've already mentioned in this thread. I'm sure I'm part of the conspiracy because I have not one but two science degrees. I'm thinking that I'm done with this discussion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 My point is that the smashing two pieces of metal together, enriched or not, can create enough force to level a city is an extraordinary claim. Of course it is, since this claim is wrong. Thermonuclear weapons work like that: You create an implosions around a sphere of Fission Material. This causes a chain reaction in which the atomic cores are split up. The new atomic cores that come into existence weigh less than the previous core. The difference is emitted in energy. This triggers a fusion, that causes Deuterium and Tritiums atoms to form a Helium atom. Same play again, the difference in mass is equivalent in energy. You can observe all this phenomena either in nature or in nuclear powerplants (Uranium emits Neutrons, a nuclear power plant uses a controlled chain reaction, the Sun uses fusion). Also, next time before you criticize a theory make sure you understand it. If not, you appear like an utter fool. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Of course it is, since this claim is wrong. Thermonuclear weapons work like that: You create an implosions around a sphere of Fission Material. This causes a chain reaction in which the atomic cores are split up. The new atomic cores that come into existence weigh less than the previous core. The difference is emitted in energy. This triggers a fusion, that causes Deuterium and Tritiums atoms to form a Helium atom. Same play again, the difference in mass is equivalent in energy. You can observe all this phenomena either in nature or in nuclear powerplants (Uranium emits Neutrons, a nuclear power plant uses a controlled chain reaction, the Sun uses fusion). Also, next time before you criticize a theory make sure you understand it. If not, you appear like an utter fool. I am not critizing the theory, and have made a point of not doing so. I am simply asking for evidence of nuclear explosions. The evidence provided for such (imagery and narrative, both of which are provided by the entity resposible for the creation of the bomb hoax, namely the state) does not pass the authenticity test. In a forum dedicated to anarchy one would hope to find a lesser degree of unquestioning reverance for state narrative, but apparently not when it comes to the technology of the state. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I am simply asking for evidence of nuclear explosions. The evidence is found in the existence of fission material in the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'm also having difficulty giving your claim credibility because it would require decades of somehow-kept-secret collusion between countries that are supposedly in conflict, This is a strawman, there does not have to be any collusion. And your argument can be countered with this example: Lets say you are stealing candy from a store. And then you see another guy stealing candy from the store. What do you do? Tell on him? You have a mutual interest to continue stealing from the store. including thousands of scientists and engineers that just don't have any good reason to carry a lie to their deathbed. In this argument I suspect you are assuming that scientists and engineers know everything there is to know about one field, and as such you are insinuating that if there are any lies, they would automatically know about it. Scientists and engineers are people too and as such also susceptible to misinformation and lies. (see: global warming) The other reason your argument fails is that scientists and engineers are not omnipotent, they probably dont even have a clue what is going on outside their office, figuratively speaking. And certainly those staging events did not knock on their door to tell them what they had done. So no they dont have to be complicit in any significant manner other than not asking questions, and not actually doing scientific research. If you think most or all scientists are doing real scientific, rational and logical, from the ground up, research, then I have this bridge for sale... Those who did ask questions were probably fired, which is also the case today in other fields. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 The evidence is found in the existence of fission material in the atmosphere. So we are to ignore all the fabricated video evidence, the conflicting eyewitness accounts, the fact that a "bomb" has not been deployed in any conflict by these psychopaths in 70 years, the dubious origins, etc., and rely on fissionable material in the atmosphere as confirmation? Just so I know what to look for, can you give me an idea about your pesonal experience of fissionable material and let me know how I might observe or confirm it for myself? It sounds like something I might want to avoid if possible and I spend quite a bit of time in the atmosphere. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sal9000 Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 So we are to ignore all the fabricated video evidence, the conflicting eyewitness accounts, the fact that a "bomb" has not been deployed in any conflict by these psychopaths in 70 years, the dubious origins, etc., and rely on fissionable material in the atmosphere as confirmation? 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. Just so I know what to look for, can you give me an idea about your pesonal experience of fissionable material and let me know how I might observe or confirm it for myself? I taught maths for physicists. One of the topics was Nuclear Physics. Study Physics and do some research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st434u Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Also, next time before you criticize a theory make sure you understand it. If not, you appear like an utter fool. 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. Your insult-hurling is just projection. Ignored. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A4E Posted January 28, 2015 Author Share Posted January 28, 2015 Atomic bombs don't produce smoke. What happens is fairly simple. Put a very hot spot close to the earth and it heats up dust and soil. This in turn gets up high in the atmosphere and cools off during the process. When it has gotten as cold as the surrounding atmosphere it won't climb up anymore and will be pushed to the side. This produces the mushroom shape. The stem of the mushroom is the particles getting up, the head of the mushroom are the particles being pushed around in Brownian motion while cooling off. Meterological conditions may change a perfect symmetrical mushroom head to a distorted one. Thanks. I found the wiki page for mushroom clouds too. Seems like they had been sighted as early as 1782. And can be created a number of ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud Again, Nuclear Physics is an established science. You say that it does not work according to the theory. I say excellent, show me the mistakes in the theory of fission and fusion. If you can't, your claim can be dismissed instantly. I cant see any evidence that nuclear bombs have ever been used in any wars, and I have never seen one explode personally. This is very strange, because if it is such a powerfull weapon, then I believe that someone would atleast use it. So is it ok if I instantly dismiss the claim that nuclear bombs exist? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts