Good news! Nuclear bombs do not work/exist.

[MrCapitalism]

He's not "oversimplifying atom bombs." Quite frankly, he's insulting the physics involved. That would be fine, if the physics were fake. But he hasn't come close to prove that enough to so casually dismiss them.

 

All you got is the "film evidence was faked by a magic government film studio, using techniques 60+ years ahead of their time (and not to be duplicated) hiding inside of a tiny radio building in the Hollywood hills."

 

And yes, I'm insulting your theory to the contrary. It's easier to believe that "whacking to pieces of metal together can level a city" than your position.

 

This is an argument from incredulity, 'I can't figure out how this works, therefore it's wrong.' The rest of us don't know how it works either, but at least we can believe or own eyes when we look at film footage of it doing it's thing.

[Sal9000]

Am I? Just whack a couple of these together and a whole city, gone.....

 

It works in the sun too, why shouldn't it work here on earth?

[Romulox]

 

Am I? Just whack a couple of these together and a whole city, gone.....

 

Shape them into rods and drop them into a big pot of water.  A whole city, powered....for 2 years...

[FriendlyHacker]

 

Am I? Just whack a couple of these together and a whole city, gone.....

 

Yes, and that is the puny version of it, the bigger one is about banging hydrogen gas toghether. This is obviouslly oversimplyfing the issue, but if you want to use this terminology there you have it.

[pretzelogik]

Yes, and that is the puny version of it, the bigger one is about banging hydrogen gas toghether. This is obviouslly oversimplyfing the issue, but if you want to use this terminology there you have it.

 

Like this one, the 1970 Licorne test with the impervious clouds?

 

 

Spectacular, yes?

 

[MrCapitalism]

impervious clouds?

If that big cloud on the right was so impervious, then why did it disappear 10 seconds into the footage? Why did it take 18 seconds later for it to reappear?

[pretzelogik]

If that big cloud on the right was so impervious, then why did it disappear 10 seconds into the footage? Why did it take 18 seconds later for it to reappear?

 

It disappeared because it was obscured by the video layer containing the explosion effect.  Unless the shock waves sent the original cloud scurrying and another one condensed and formed in the same size and shape in the same place (in 18 seconds).  For some, the latter explanation would stretch the boundaries of credulity to say the least.

 

The static cloud phenomenon is common to test footage, as well as the inability of the bright as the sun explosions to produce shadows.

[FriendlyHacker]

No, when I say that plutonium nukes are the puny version of banging hydrogen together, this is what I mean:

The sun

 

 

 

This is a galaxy, did you notice the thing is spiraling down like water going down the drain? That is because the thing in the middle is a huge black hole, that black hole there used to be a place that bangs atoms together (also known as star), and now is the thing that moves over 300 billion stars around.
 

[shirgall]

[MrCapitalism]

Unless the shock waves sent the original cloud scurrying and another one condensed and formed in the same size and shape in the same place (in 18 seconds).

Do you believe that a cloud has to physically move for it to disappear?

[pretzelogik]

Do you believe that a cloud has to physically move for it to disappear?

Clouds could dissipate or be vaporized by heat, movement by disincorporation, but the likelihood of another reforming in the same shape in the same spot would be rather remote.

 

If, as it would appear, the video anomalies are not a slam dunk, there are many other inconsistencies in the narrative. But assuming this investigation has led me down a garden path, what would I stand to gain by becoming convinced all over again that nukes did exist?

[MrCapitalism]

but the likelihood of another reforming in the same shape in the same spot would be rather remote.

How do you know?

[TheBen]

Lets say I had this friend who told me one day that he thinks nukes don't exist.  He says that he had been looking for proof but hasn't been able to find anything that has convinced him.  Can anyone here point me to information or resources that would convince my friend that nukes do in fact exist?

 

Also, I just want to add that my friend does think that the sun is undergoing nuclear reactions, so the sun is not proof to him that humans have mastered atomic technology to the point where they can create a nuclear bomb.  He does think that nuclear bombs are possible for humans to make.  They just haven't been able to do so yet...

[shirgall]

Lets say I had this friend who told me one day that he thinks nukes don't exist.  He says that he had been looking for proof but hasn't been able to find anything that has convinced him.  Can anyone here point me to information or resources that would convince my friend that nukes do in fact exist?

 

I'd start by recommending he read http://www.amazon.com/The-Manhattan-Project-Eyewitnesses-Historians/dp/1579128084 and maybe some Feynman and then we could talk about it.

[pretzelogik]

The Manhattan Project, featuring commentary from a veritable smorgasbord of statists, eugenicists and academics. 

 

Leo Szilard, later of birth control fame, was part of the wildly fantastical Szilard-Einstein letter story.  Evidently, they futzed around with this letter to the president for months, despite their fears of Germany feverishly working on this doomsday technology.  Of course, the fact  that Standard Oil was responsible for German fuel during WWII, Allied Electric helped with German planes, Henry Ford built their tanks, and Germany inexplicably had funding for all these military luxuries and more after their crippling defeat and egregious WWI reparations, casts some doubt on the level of German enmity to begin with.  Perhaps JP Morgan's coffers were not depleted after funding the Bolsheviks.

 

Also included is commentary by H.G. Wells (most are familiar with his War of the Worlds hoax), progenitors of unverifiable physics claims, a laundry list of military functionaries.  Surely, they would have no reason to lie about a Sword of Damocles weapon technology that could be hung over the neck of the world for decades.

 

Perhaps we can rely on the warm feeling of trust and credibility that Oppenheimer himself inspires:

 

 

Were those placed in acting roles that demanded more than what they had in their limited skill set wiping away non existent tears back then as well?

 

While it's worth examining the pedigree of those involved in the creation of the narrative (did you know that the brilliant Feynman thought a windshield would be an acceptable substitute for welding goggles when viewing an atomic flash?), it's best to let the only other thing that has been given to us in support of the myth speak for itself, namely imagery.

 

Below is footage of Ivy Mike.  Particularly curious is the sequence of frames from 2:00 to 2:10, one of which was featured on the cover of Life magazine, April 19, 1954.  Sympathy can be given to those who took in the news reels at movie theaters during that time for believing this to be unadulterated footage of an actual event, it was heavily promoted as such.  60 years on, not so much.

 

[shirgall]

The Manhattan Project, featuring commentary from a veritable smorgasbord of statists, eugenicists and academics. 

 

Attacking the people making an argument or offering evidence is not a counter-argument.

[pretzelogik]

Attacking the people making an argument or offering evidence is not a counter-argument.

 

Indeed, ad hominem arguments are a logical fallacy.  There is not an argument being presented, per se, as a negative cannot be proven, but the goal is to call into the question the claims made by those identified by descriptors to which the ad hominem exception was taken.

 

Courts of law (not that the court system should be considered a rational standard, but it is part of the same entity making the nuclear claim) routinely dismiss testimony when it can be shown that there is a conflict of interest or if the character of the witness can be called into question.

 

Identifying those contributing to the aforementioned book as having direct ideological and financial ties to the state is not so much an ad hominem as it is an illustration of conflict of interest, as none of the descriptors is inaccurate.

 

The argument being made here is that the still and moving image evidence of the nuclear claim is created through compositing as opposed to unadulterated capture of events in real time.  Imagery is one half of the evidence of the claim, the other being narrative.  If those creating the narrative have a conflict of interest and the narrative conflicts with itself, the reliability of the evidence of the nuclear claim is tenuous.

[AncapFTW]

I think someone's already brought it up, but how were Hiroshima and Nagasaki destroyed during WWII with the accompanying radioactive fallout?  Did an enemy country let us place 5+ kilotons of TNT in one of its buildings with radioactive materials, then blow it up so that they could save face when they surrendered?

 

What about all of the radioactive spots in the desert and the island of Bikini Atoll?  Were those simply pyrotechnic test sights?

 

It's interesting that technology that doesn't exist could be used within a decade to produce electrical power from a material that was being mass produced to make the no existent weapon.

[Bedouin]

Well crap, navigated away from the page and lost my post... Since I don't have time to do the calculations myself I will leave it to you as you are interested in the topic.

See here, that any layman with a calculator and some photographic evidence can square up the destructive effects of nukes;

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1367/4601340200_472a264c65_b.jpg

http://tinypic.com/ka0935.jpg (not sure if these are the same crater)

 

Calculating destruction:

And the density of common stone types, being an important factor in making calculations based off of craters:

http://geology.about.com/cs/rock_types/a/aarockspecgrav.htm

Just figure out the volume of rock displaced, find density and multiply them, and see how far and high the material is thrown and you should have a rudimentary figure of how powerful nuclear detonations are.

The radiation is another matter but there are countless examples of how intense and severe it can be.

 

Here is a useful article with lots of good info:

http://www.notpurfect.com/travel/nuke/nevada.html

 

I'm surprised this is a discussion really, it seems too blindingly obvious that nukes are real. Reminds me of conspiracies around 'chemtrails', only nukes are so clearly devastating in their immediate effect and fallout.

[pretzelogik]

Well crap, navigated away from the page and lost my post... Since I don't have time to do the calculations myself I will leave it to you as you are interested in the topic.

See here, that any layman with a calculator and some photographic evidence can square up the destructive effects of nukes;

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1367/4601340200_472a264c65_b.jpg

http://tinypic.com/ka0935.jpg (not sure if these are the same crater)

 

Calculating destruction:

And the density of common stone types, being an important factor in making calculations based off of craters:

http://geology.about.com/cs/rock_types/a/aarockspecgrav.htm

Just figure out the volume of rock displaced, find density and multiply them, and see how far and high the material is thrown and you should have a rudimentary figure of how powerful nuclear detonations are.

The radiation is another matter but there are countless examples of how intense and severe it can be.

 

Here is a useful article with lots of good info:

http://www.notpurfect.com/travel/nuke/nevada.html

 

I'm surprised this is a discussion really, it seems too blindingly obvious that nukes are real. Reminds me of conspiracies around 'chemtrails', only nukes are so clearly devastating in their immediate effect and fallout.

 

Are photographs evidence?

 

An analogy:  I have a car I am selling for $10,000.00.  A buyer shows up with a stack of 1000 $100.00 bills.  I take out my counterfeit marker and begin the process of verification.  First bill positive, second, negative. Third, negative, fourth negative fifth positive and so on. At what point would you decide to wait for the next buyer?  Would you check all one thousand bills or stop after the first or second negative?

 

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.

[percentient]

Pretz, take care of your credibility dude, you really need it. Like with the comments about clouds. You're like someone looking at a boat being hidden by a massive wave in a storm and being surprised when you see it again. Let me explain it with quotes:

 

Clouds could dissipate or be vaporized by heat

 

Precisely. Pressure heats stuff up. Analogously, low pressure cools stuff and makes clouds appear. Low pressure zones follow the shock wave and make a condensation cloud together with the original clouds.

 

Unless the shock waves sent the original cloud scurrying and another one condensed and formed in the same size and shape in the same place (in 18 seconds).  

 

Exactly, except much faster. It's the exact same air with the same exact water and associated particles. But how can the boat reappear in the same place after the wave is gone???

[pretzelogik]

Pretz, take care of your credibility dude, you really need it. Like with the comments about clouds. You're like someone looking at a boat being hidden by a massive wave in a storm and being surprised when you see it again. Let me explain it with quotes:

 

 

Precisely. Pressure heats stuff up. Analogously, low pressure cools stuff and makes clouds appear. Low pressure zones follow the shock wave and make a condensation cloud together with the original clouds.

 

 

Exactly, except much faster. It's the exact same air with the same exact water and associated particles. But how can the boat reappear in the same place after the wave is gone???

 

Thanks so much for your concern for my credibility.  I am afraid there is little hope of rescuing it though, as people are free to down vote simply on the basis on whether they disagree with a premise; evidence and conviviality notwithstanding.   Also, thanks for your input on one possibility of static clouds pictured in the footage of atomic explosions. 

 

I still prefer Occam's Razor on this one: the simplest explanation for clouds which appear to be unaffected by tremendous heat and pressure of a nuclear blast (10,000 degrees and a shock wave that could rock the Enola Gay 31,000 feet above the blast according to legend) is most easily explained by video compositing.  The cloud video layer is unaffected by the blast video layer because the layers are only interacting on film.

 

In the boat scenario referenced above, the cloud remaining and being held in shape and position (virtually?), while the 10,000 degree high pressure wave makes it dissipate and the low pressure wave causes it to reappear in it's original form seems more farfetched.  To complete the boat analogy, the boat in the storm would be disassembled by the wave, and emerge reassembled on the recession of the wave.  And you are right, I would be very surprised to witness such a phenomenon.

[percentient]

The shock wave is not 10k degrees, the radiation is, and that says nothing of the intensity, let alone how much should be absorbed by clouds (hint: very, very little). You simply have to crunch the numbers to make the case, and I'm willing to check your math. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what you are talking about, but you are free to prove us wrong on the details.

 

assuming this investigation has led me down a garden path, what would I stand to gain by becoming convinced all over again that nukes did exist?

 

Is it not fun to agree with people about basic history?

[pretzelogik]

The shock wave is not 10k degrees, the radiation is, and that says nothing of the intensity, let alone how much should be absorbed by clouds (hint: very, very little). You simply have to crunch the numbers to make the case, and I'm willing to check your math. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what you are talking about, but you are free to prove us wrong on the details.

 

 

Is it not fun to agree with people about basic history?

 

The shock wave, not the heat, is what supposedly rocked the Enola Gay which was 31,000 feet above the blast.  I am not sure how much math is required to make the assumption that if a shock wave would move an airplane 31,000 feet above the blast, it would have some noticeable effect on clouds that were much closer.  Of course considering steel melts at 1510° and the heat wave is some 6+ times this temperature, there would be a noticeable effect on the clouds from the heat, as well. 

 

Granted, these figures are provided by the state, who also created the videos, who also created the entire nuclear weapons narrative, which is what is in question here.  The point is that the evidence is in conflict with itself, so at least some of the narrative must be suspect.

 

As far as basic history goes, whatever basic means, for the most part it means stories handed down by the state.  As the state is another branch of religion (though it does not self identify as such), the stories handed down by the state are on par, in terms of truth value, with those found in any religious text.  And I do think many people do take pleasure in believing in such stories.  Some of the stories also cause a great deal of anxiety.

 

The goal is to achieve certainty about the environment in which we live and breath,which is most reliably accomplished through sense perception and logic and is oppositional to belief.  It is the attainment of certainty or knowledge that allows for the best possible outcome when interacting with that environment.

[A4E]

I have been away for a while so have not been able to reply, though I see that I did not really need to reply on anything. Thanks to pretzelogik for defending the premise of the thread. It would look pretty dead without him.

 

I was wondering if we have some real concrete scientific, multiple party, non corrupt, observational data from any test. Where is the undeniable proof and evidence, and confirmed and verified data?

 

Example, I could hypothetically buy some dynamite, Put it somewhere safely away from people, and then set up several videocameras, and invite scientists and journalists, for me to then state that when I light the fuse on this object, it will eventually explode. And afterwards all the unrelated and unbiased parties who attended could promptly confirm and write about the explosive ability of dynamite.

 

After dynamite was invented, did they have to keep 'testing' its features for 70 years afterwards, and have a very effective taboo about never using it in any wars? Ok, nukes can hurt the people in charge, which Stefan use as a strong argument *. but now I dont think that is such a good argument, because what about fighter aircrafts? In theory Putin could order a fighter pilot to take out Obama today, and vice versa. (Not that those are the real people in charge). So why do we not have fighter aircraft agreements, or stopping countries from obtaining fighter aircrafts? How about the more obvious guns? Guns can hurt the leaders aswell in any number of ways, and normally police, soldiers, (and bodyguards?) have guns, which could at any moment go crazy and shoot a nearby leader. I was convinced by the nukes can hurt the people in charge argument before, but not now. Too many things can hurt the people in charge already.

 

As I have said before, one of the sure signs that something is a lie, is that it is being forcefully repeated over and over again nonstop without question. The possibility that it is all a hoax makes so much sense when it comes to everything involving the mythical nuclear bomb.

 

It is a very good feeling to accept that there is no real evidence for nukes. You all should just accept that too imo.   I know most of you probably have'nt accepted that there is no evidence that humans have been on the moon. It is 100% guaranteed humans have not been on the moon.  That is why noone will find any legitimate evidence for it. And I think the same is true for the story around the capabilities of 'nuclear bombs' at this point.

 

 

* = I know he use it as an argument for why wars between 'nuclear nations' do not start, but still it is an argument I now feel needs some disassembling.

[Sal9000]

I was wondering if we have some real concrete scientific, multiple party, non corrupt, observational data from any test. Where is the undeniable proof and evidence, and confirmed and verified data?

 

There is. Ask the people involved in the tests. Or attend a lecture on Nuclear Physics and ask questions. Also you can go to the tests sites and run tests. 

 

As I have said before, one of the sure signs that something is a lie, is that it is being forcefully repeated over and over again nonstop without question.

 

So according to you we live on a flat earth that is the centre of the universe. 

 

After dynamite was invented, did they have to keep 'testing' its features for 70 years afterwards, and have a very effective taboo about never using it in any wars? 

 

Yes new features and designs were tested constantly. Where is the problem with that?

[Guest Gee]

The issue here is not the lack of evidence, but the inability to comprehend the language in which the evidence is written.

 

If one could could understand the language and therefore the proof, one would know that making a nuke really isn't that difficult.

 

The difficult part is getting your hands on enriched uranium.

 

I suppose this is why governments take such exception to nuclear fuel enrichment programs in the middle east.

[pretzelogik]

The issue here is not the lack of evidence, but the inability to comprehend the language in which the evidence is written.

 

If one could could understand the language and therefore the proof, one would know that making a nuke really isn't that difficult.

 

The difficult part is getting your hands on enriched uranium.

 

I suppose this is why governments take such exception to nuclear fuel enrichment programs in the middle east.

 

There seems to be some miscommunication on this thread about the definition of evidence, versus theory.  Evidence simply exists, whether it is described in a particular language or not.

 

When it comes to evidence of the bomb and its destructive potential there is video evidence, aftermath, eyewitness accounts and nuclear fallout.  All of these can be and have been called into question.

 

The veracity of those making claims about the evidence can also be called into question when conflicts of interests are apparent.

 

The evidence that has been presented in support of the atom bomb explosions would not pass muster in even the most basic of low level courtroom trials.

 

As far as the math and scientific theory goes, that is an entirely different subject but should not be considered as evidence.

[Guest Gee]

Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

As far as the math and scientific theory goes, that is an entirely different subject but should not be considered as evidence.

 

Therefore the mathematical and scientific theory (and the HUGE body of work verifying the theory) should not be considered as indication of the truth or validity of a proposition.

 

Or to rephrase. 

 

The product of the scientific method should not be considered as indication of the truth or validity of a proposition.

 

Ok then, take it easy.

[shirgall]

Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

I'd add to that the concept that some kinds of evidence have even more merit when they can be independently replicated, or at least independently verified.

[pretzelogik]

Evidence is defined as the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

 

 

Therefore the mathematical and scientific theory (and the HUGE body of work verifying the theory) should not be considered as indication of the truth or validity of a proposition.

 

Or to rephrase. 

 

The product of the scientific method should not be considered as indication of the truth or validity of a proposition.

 

Ok then, take it easy.

 

Tha definition does pop up at the top of a google search for the definition of evidence.  Unfortunately, it could also be used to validate the bible.  There is a huge body of work verifying the bible.

 

The scientific method includes empiricism as far as I understand it. 

 

When I mentioned evidence I was referring to corpus delecti.  No one can be tried for arson unless there is proof that something was burned, regardless of testimony.

 

Here is a prediction I am 100% confident will be borne out: we will never see another nuclear explosion.  Nor will our children, or their children or children's children.  How many generations will pass before this legendary doomsday technology achieves the mythological status of the bilical ark of the covenant?  Would we still be believing in nuclear bomb capability if it was claimed to have been used by King Richard the Lionheart?

[shirgall]

Here is a prediction I am 100% confident will be borne out: we will never see another nuclear explosion.

 

I literally see thermonuclear explosions every day. Even in Seattle.

[pretzelogik]

I literally see thermonuclear explosions every day. Even in Seattle.

 

Please share, I am curious.

[shirgall]

Please share, I am curious.

 

The sun is not mine to share but you can see it every day.

[Guest Gee]

Tha definition does pop up at the top of a google search for the definition of evidence.  Unfortunately, it could also be used to validate the bible.  There is a huge body of work verifying the bible.

 

The scientific method includes empiricism as far as I understand it. 

 

When I mentioned evidence I was referring to corpus delecti.  No one can be tried for arson unless there is proof that something was burned, regardless of testimony.

 

Here is a prediction I am 100% confident will be borne out: we will never see another nuclear explosion.  Nor will our children, or their children or children's children.  How many generations will pass before this legendary doomsday technology achieves the mythological status of the bilical ark of the covenant?  Would we still be believing in nuclear bomb capability if it was claimed to have been used by King Richard the Lionheart?

 

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.