Are Nuclear Weapons Real or Fake?

[ChuckWest]

From: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:brCkYWwD9N0J:www.icjonline.com/eqtips/IITK-BMTPC-EQTip03.pdf+%22hiroshima+earthquakes%22&hl=en

 

"The energy released by a M6.3 earthquake is equivalent to that released by the 1945 Atom Bomb dropped on Hiroshima!!"

 

That so-called radiation sickness can be simulated with x-rays, what else? Did you know that jellied petrol incediaries can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to it and the black rain it produces when vaporized in massive firestorms?

 

 

Not Found

 

The requested URL /~hipec/conference/001.pdf. was not found on this server.

 

Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.

 

evading the issue are we????

 

I S O T O P E S ! ! !

 

Not at all. I just find it so insignificant compared to the other evidence presented thus far. I just think your insistance on this point has more to do with desperation than any desire on your part you get to the truth. Isotope readings are the easiest thing to fake. Especially when billions of dollars are at stake. This may not be the answer you were looking for but it will have to do. How about you tell me where the missing seismograms went to and why there are no signs of a shockwave at Hiroshima.

[JaKiri]

From: http://www.google.ca/search?q=cache:brCkYWwD9N0J:www.icjonline.com/eqtips/IITK-BMTPC-EQTip03.pdf+%22hiroshima+earthquakes%22&hl=en

 

"The energy released by a M6.3 earthquake is equivalent to that released by the 1945 Atom Bomb dropped on Hiroshima!!"

 

That's not what I asked for, and is irrelevent. You could express the energy released in terms of bicep curls or making cups of tea.

 

That so-called radiation sickness can be simulated with x-rays, what else?

 

As x-rays are a form of ionising radiation, that's not really surprising. It doesn't prove that the x-rays caused the effects observed, and it's anecdotal evidence in any case.

 

Did you know that jellied petrol incediaries can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to it and the black rain it produces when vaporized in massive firestorms?

 

Did you know that cremation can cause cancers and even kill those exposed to the smoke from it?

 

Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.

 

Thank you.

[YT2095]

 

Not at all. I just find it so insignificant compared to the other evidence presented thus far. I just think your insistance on this point has more to do with desperation than any desire on your part you get to the truth. Isotope readings are the easiest thing to fake.

 

oh for crying out loud, that has to be the Lamest excuse I`ve EVER encountered to date for not addressing a simple question (over 4 times!).

 

scroll Up, I`ll think you`ll find this is a SCIENCE forum, not a crackpot forum!

 

and on that note, this thread is Now moved.

[ChuckWest]

That's not what I asked for, and is irrelevent. You could express the energy released in terms of bicep curls or making cups of tea.

 

No. Don't need to in order to make my point that Hiroshima was burned down with incendiaries and not from a single blast from a so-called atom bomb. Could it be that you are suffering from the selective curiosity syndrome? I came to this forum to present these facts to educated people and all I see are evasive tactics and focus on irrelevancy. Why is that? The experts said nothing would grow in Hiroshima for 70 years and that was not true. The media and the academic literature speak of a horrible blast but the evidence provided by these same sources prove otherwise. Everyone knows that Hiroshima was/is located in a highly volcanic zone yet nobody cares if the seismograms went missing. Most people have seen airborne detonations at fireworks displays and none saw a mushroom cloud (proportionally speaking of course) yet everyone buys the mushroom cloud at Hiroshima story. Maybe I should be seeking answers on a cooking website, lol.

[YT2095]

I came to this forum to present these facts to educated people and all I see are evasive tactics and focus on irrelevancy.

 

evasive because it doesn`t fit into YOUR IDEAL, but rather fits Reality.

 

well sorry and all that, answer the Isotopes question, and then You TOO can be liberated from this nonsense.

[ChuckWest]

I`ll think you`ll find this is a SCIENCE forum, not a crackpot forum!

 

You have a lot of nerve calling this a science forum when you can't address the most elementary issues in physics. This is more like a hoax maintenance website run by those that find ignorance blissful. You can shove you isotopes where the sun don't shine. My debunk is not pseudoscience, the official story of the atom bomb is.

[YT2095]

you`ve "debunked" Nothing! that`s exactly my point, all you Have succeeded in doing is evade perfectly legitimate and valid question (I can`t even say questionS plural) there was only ONE asked, and you didge and weave around it and Try and get ansy LOL

 

it says more about YOU than us, now, Calm down, and simply address the plain and simple question I asked you a kazillion wasted posts ago.

 

ok?

[ydoaPs]

perhaps you`d like to explain away the Radiation that has contaminated many ordinary things and objects there too, isotopes that CAN NOT be found in nature or without the use of such a device?

Radiation doesn't contaminate things; contamination does. Radiation, however, can activate things.

Not at all. I just find it so insignificant compared to the other evidence presented thus far.

So, the incendiary bombs were laden with contamination to further the facade of US having detonated a nuclear weapon?

 

I just think your insistance on this point has more to do with desperation than any desire on your part you get to the truth.

I was actually thinking the same about you. He brought up a point which you repeatedly ignored.

 

Isotope readings are the easiest thing to fake.

How so?

 

You have a lot of nerve calling this a science forum when you can't address the most elementary issues in physics. This is more like a hoax maintenance website run by those that find ignorance blissful. You can shove you isotopes where the sun don't shine. My debunk is not pseudoscience, the official story of the atom bomb is.

Flaming is against the site rules.

[JaKiri]

I knew something was amiss with the quote ""I was taken to an area near Mt. Hiji where American doctors from a research institution known as ABCC tested me over and over. I was X-rayed repeatedly in the chest, and from the front and back of my abdomen. I lost count of the actual number. Then I started to bleed about 8 o'clock that night, and the bleeding did not stop until 8 o'clock the next morning. I had miscarried." (From the screenplay of the documentary film directed by Mori Zenkichi, "For The International Community: A Documentary on Korean A-Bomb Victims")". I've just remembered what it was.

 

The ABCC wasn't founded until 1948. Is there a webpage or resource, other than http://www.jca.apc.org/~izm/sadakoeiyaku.html , that has this quote, preferrably with a timeline or at least some kind of indication of when the events took place?

 

Could it be that you are suffering from the selective curiosity syndrome? I came to this forum to present these facts to educated people and all I see are evasive tactics and focus on irrelevancy.

 

You claimed to have calculated that the amount of force required to buffet an airplane at 30,000 feet would have created a massive crator at ground zero. I merely asked to see your justification for it.

 

Surely if you're trying to convince us, then presenting your evidence should be the first step? It would be the crux of my argument because it's something that cannot be argued qualitatively.

 

Why is that? The experts said nothing would grow in Hiroshima for 70 years and that was not true.

 

Sources?

 

Most people have seen airborne detonations at fireworks displays and none saw a mushroom cloud (proportionally speaking of course) yet everyone buys the mushroom cloud at Hiroshima story.

 

I personally buy it because it was photographed.

 

 

You have a lot of nerve calling this a science forum when you can't address the most elementary issues in physics.

 

You haven't actually made any statements that can be addressed yet.

 

Where do you stand on the issue of nuclear power and radioactivity in general? I presume you don't have an education in the area, as you seemed amazed that radiation, in the form of x-rays, could produce radiation poisoning.

 

That's not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

[iNow]

FYI - The original pdf had a period at the end of the url causing the not found error. Here's the original (DRAFT) copy "Chuck the evasive fu(k with excuses enough to fill my truck" was trying to share:

 

http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hipec/conference/001.pdf

 

 

 

 

Not too many things make a mushroom cloud this big.

 

Mushroom clouds do not grow out of high altitude blasts. Read the following quote from Wikipedia:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud

 

"Detonations produced high above the ground do not create mushroom clouds."

Saying the detonation occurred "above ground" is not the same as saying the detonation occurred "at high altitude."

 

What your wiki link failed to address is that "high altitude" in this literature is a description of detonations occurring above 100,000 feet.

 

 

 

http://www.nv.doe.gov/library/films/fulltext/0800062.htm

Dominic on Fishbowl Phenomenon - 1:12[/url] - Color - Silent - Operation Fishbowl was the high-altitude testing portion of a larger Operation Dominic I. This video is a compilation of footage of the five nuclear tests comprising Operation Fishbowl conducted in the Johnston Island area of the Pacific Proving Ground in 1962. A high-altitude burst is one occurring above 100,000 feet. The video does not identify the date, time or name of the tests.

 

When a nuclear weapon detonates at a high altitude, many of the effects are attenuated. Most of the x-ray energy is absorbed in the air, which decreases the fireball temperature. Absorption of thermal x-ray energy also decreases the energy available for a shock wave. This all results in the development of a toroidal or donut-shaped cloud instead of the usual mushroom shape of ground or near ground explosions.

 

 

 

Since you've already conceded in your own posts that the plane itself was only 28,000 feet above the ground, your argument does not hold because the bomb must have exploded at 28,000 feet or less (much less I'm sure, but for the sake of making my point, 28K or less feet above ground would still result in a mushroom cloud).

 

 

For video on Operation Dominic, see below (or watch Trinity and Beyond):

[D H]

YT, you might want to delete the link to the woo-woo site in posts number 26 and 27 (quoted from #26). It underlies the word "THIS" in

 

Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.

[ChuckWest]

Radiation doesn't contaminate things; contamination does. Radiation, however, can activate things.

So, the incendiary bombs were laden with contamination to further the facade of US having detonated a nuclear weapon?

 

Incendiary bombs only irradiate heat and fire, nothing else. I never said there was radioactivity in Hiroshima. Where is the evidence that Hiroshima was radioactive? All the evidence says otherwise.

 

 

I was actually thinking the same about you. He brought up a point which you repeatedly ignored.

 

I ask you, how easy is it to lie about radio isotopes?

 

Flaming is against the site rules.

 

Actually, if you were paying attention you would have noted who threw the first stone. The moderator that jacked this thread to it's present location for no good reason did so qualifying it as a crackpot thread. In other words the moderator should moderate himself or expect the elevator be sent back up to her/him.

 

I knew something was amiss with the quote ""I was taken to an area near Mt. Hiji where American doctors from a research institution known as ABCC tested me over and over. I was X-rayed repeatedly in the chest, and from the front and back of my abdomen. I lost count of the actual number. Then I started to bleed about 8 o'clock that night, and the bleeding did not stop until 8 o'clock the next morning. I had miscarried." (From the screenplay of the documentary film directed by Mori Zenkichi, "For The International Community: A Documentary on Korean A-Bomb Victims")". I've just remembered what it was.

 

The ABCC wasn't founded until 1948. Is there a webpage or resource, other than http://www.jca.apc.org/~izm/sadakoeiyaku.html , that has this quote, preferrably with a timeline or at least some kind of indication of when the events took place?

 

The fact is that the Americans were irradiating people with x-rays and documenting the subsequent illness as so-called atom bomb fallout illness. What part of that don't you get? The quote indicates that the Americans had the equipment and the means at their disposal to irradiate people with x-rays and describe their illness as radioactivity-induced. People also got sick and died from exposure to the direct effects of a raging firestorm and exposure to the oil-laden black rain that fell everywhere following that massive raid.

 

You claimed to have calculated that the amount of force required to buffet an airplane at 30,000 feet would have created a massive crator at ground zero. I merely asked to see your justification for it.

 

Obviously you are suffering from magnitude dyslexia. You are the one saying I need physics math to prove the obvious. If a blast can rock a b-29 violently at 30,000 feet above it what do you think will be the effect felt by those directly below it? I wish you would stop being silly about that.

 

Surely if you're trying to convince us, then presenting your evidence should be the first step? It would be the crux of my argument because it's something that cannot be argued qualitatively.

 

It can also be demonstrated quite clealy with the elementary math I provided in my graphic. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a detonation at 2000 feet from the ground that can rock a B-29 violently twice at 30,000 feet has to be uttery devastating and leave a massive crater directly under it. How hard can that be to fathom I ask? Do you need to see the simple graphic again?

 

I personally buy it because it was photographed.

 

Good for you.

 

 

You haven't actually made any statements that can be addressed yet.

For some people there will never be enough evidence to prove they have been lied to massively. Especially to those that should have known better and not fallen for those shameless lies put forth by the atom bomb hoaxsters.

 

Where do you stand on the issue of nuclear power and radioactivity in general? I presume you don't have an education in the area, as you seemed amazed that radiation, in the form of x-rays, could produce radiation poisoning.

 

Why do you ask if you have already made up your mind that I don't have enough education to address the issue adequately. A person must be seriously deluded to think that one needs a masters in physics to see the multitudes of contradictions, ommissions and outright lies in the atom bomb stories.

 

That's not a criticism, I'm just trying to understand your reasoning.

 

No you are not, you are fishing for something to poke redicule and contempt at. A serious resercher would have already grasped the most elementary points of my debunks. Assimilate those and we might be able to move on to some tougher stuff.

 

FYI - The original pdf had a period at the end of the url causing the not found error. Here's the original (DRAFT) copy "Chuck the evasive fu(k with excuses enough to fill my truck" was trying to share:

 

http://home.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/hipec/conference/001.pdf

 

And that's not flamebait? Don't the site rules work both ways around here? Be civil and I will address your posts.

[ydoaPs]

Actually, if you were paying attention you would have noted who threw the first stone. The moderator that jacked this thread to it's present location for no good reason did so qualifying it as a crackpot thread. In other words the moderator should moderate himself or expect the elevator be sent back up to her/him.

Is it a crackpot thread?

[ChuckWest]

YT, you might want to delete the link to the woo-woo site in posts number 26 and 27 (quoted from #26). It underlies the word "THIS" in

 

Worked for me. I am not resposible for maintaining that site but I did export the content to THIS webpage. You can read it there if you like.

 

Quick, hide the link before somebody gets an education by accident. You sound just like those body snatcher aliens in the hollywood movie screaming because they have detected someone not put to sleep by them. Are you a thread cop, lol?

 

you`ve "debunked" Nothing! that`s exactly my point, all you Have succeeded in doing is evade perfectly legitimate and valid question (I can`t even say questionS plural) there was only ONE asked, and you didge and weave around it and Try and get ansy LOL

 

I answered that spamming you called a question. I told you that the information could have been faked. Very easily in fact. Do you take everything the government says as gospel truth? I hope not for your sake.

 

it says more about YOU than us, now, Calm down, and simply address the plain and simple question I asked you a kazillion wasted posts ago.

 

I am calm. You are very silly asking someone you just described as a crackpot to answer your question. You shoved this thread in the crackpot section of the forum so why are you still interested in what I have to say?

 

ok?

 

What do you expect? You want me to kiss your *** for calling me and my work crackpot? You have high expectations.

 

Is it a crackpot thread?

 

What's your excuse for showing interest in a so-called crackpot thread? Don't you have better things to do?

[ydoaPs]

I answered that spamming you called a question. I told you that the information could have been faked. Very easily in fact. Do you take everything the government says as gospel truth? I hope not for your sake.

 

ANY evidence that it was faked? Or does it just not fit with your conspiracy theory?

[JaKiri]

The fact is that the Americans were irradiating people with x-rays and documenting the subsequent illness as so-called atom bomb fallout illness. What part of that don't you get? The quote indicates that the Americans had the equipment and the means at their disposal to irradiate people with x-rays and describe their illness as radioactivity-induced. People also got sick and died from exposure to the direct effects of a raging firestorm and exposure to the oil-laden black rain that fell everywhere following that massive raid.

 

A quote demonstrates nothing. Even assuming the event took place, that demonstrates nothing either.

 

You have asked us to cast off the lies of the hoaxers, but if you cannot see that an unsourced and, by context, misleading or downright inaccurate quote is exactly the kind of misdirection you are professing to be working against then I don't know what to say.

 

Why should we believe you over the conspiracy?

 

Obviously you are suffering from magnitude dyslexia. You are the one saying I need physics math to prove the obvious. If a blast can rock a b-29 violently at 30,000 feet above it what do you think will be the effect felt by those directly below it? I wish you would stop being silly about that.

 

Things that are obvious are not always true. It's the reason why the scientific method rests upon experimentation rather than guesswork. You said you calculated it. Why are you so resistant to supplying us with that calculation?

 

It can also be demonstrated quite clealy with the elementary math I provided in my graphic.

 

There is no maths in your graphic.

 

You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a detonation at 2000 feet from the ground that can rock a B-29 violently twice at 30,000 feet has to be uttery devastating and leave a massive crater directly under it. How hard can that be to fathom I ask? Do you need to see the simple graphic again?

 

What I'd like is a mathematical demonstration. If it's so obvious, it should be simple; what physical processes are you using to demonstrate this? How have you factored in the form that a nuclear explosion would take? What about the asymmetry of what can affect a plane and what is required to blast a hole in the ground?

 

Good for you.

 

Thank you.

 

For some people there will never be enough evidence to prove they have been lied to massively. Especially to those that should have known better and not fallen for those shameless lies put forth by the atom bomb hoaxsters.

 

Perhaps this is true. However, as you haven't presented any evidence or argument the question of what amount would be found convincing is moot, unless that amount is zero.

 

Why do you ask if you have already made up your mind that I don't have enough education to address the issue adequately. A person must be seriously deluded to think that one needs a masters in physics to see the multitudes of contradictions, ommissions and outright lies in the atom bomb stories.

 

If I have made up my mind, it's because you have not presented anything to analyse. An unsourced quote, an appeal to common sense and flat statements of a conspiracy are not a persuasive argument. You came to a science forum to put forward your views, why are you getting angry that scientific standards of evidence are being applied to your hypothesis?

 

No you are not, you are fishing for something to poke redicule and contempt at. A serious resercher would have already grasped the most elementary points of my debunks. Assimilate those and we might be able to move on to some tougher stuff.

 

What debunks?

[ecoli]

I answered that spamming you called a question. I told you that the information could have been faked. Very easily in fact. Do you take everything the government says as gospel truth? I hope not for your sake.

 

 

so anything you post is undeniable fact and everything thing that disagrees is fake information. I think I've read enough.

[iNow]

<cough>TrollAlert</cough>

[ChuckWest]

A quote demonstrates nothing. Even assuming the event took place, that demonstrates nothing either.

 

It does demonstrate that the Americans had the means at their disposal to irradiate the survivors of the incendiary raid with x-rays they could later describe as the effects of so-called atomic bomb radioactive fallout. Doesn't get simpler then that.

 

You have asked us to cast off the lies of the hoaxers, but if you cannot see that an unsourced and, by context, misleading or downright inaccurate quote is exactly the kind of misdirection you are professing to be working against then I don't know what to say.

 

The quote indicates the means to simulate atomic radioactive fallout with x-ray bombardment. That is not misdirection. As I was saying, you appear to be on a fishing expedition. You are flogging a dead horse when you claim misdirection.

 

Why should we believe you over the conspiracy?

 

Believe whatever you like and I won't lose a moment's sleep over that.

 

Things that are obvious are not always true.

 

I guess so.

 

It's the reason why the scientific method rests upon experimentation rather than guesswork.

 

The atom bomb hoax is rife with scientific method and formula yet it is a hoax.

 

You said you calculated it.

 

No I did not. I showed a graphic and explained in simple terms why the story is bogus.

 

Why are you so resistant to supplying us with that calculation?

 

That is because my so-called calculations are a figment of your imagination. Where are your calculations to prove that a blast over a city at 2000 feet that rocks a B-29 violently at 30,000 feet will not crush everything below it and leave a massive crater? I have not seen your so-called evidence yet.

 

 

 

There is no maths in your graphic.

 

Take another look and you will see there is an altitude scale and representative values. Probably not the mind-boggling physics math you are expecting but it is very clear in it's simplicity. Why should I bog myself down with complex math when a simple elementary formula is good enough to make my point?

 

What I'd like is a mathematical demonstration. If it's so obvious, it should be simple; what physical processes are you using to demonstrate this? How have you factored in the form that a nuclear explosion would take? What about the asymmetry of what can affect a plane and what is required to blast a hole in the ground?

 

Where's your simple model to prove the contrary? You ask a lot but provide very little. Why don't you show us how to muddle an issue with convoluted formulas a lay person won't understand?

 

Perhaps this is true. However, as you haven't presented any evidence or argument the question of what amount would be found convincing is moot, unless that amount is zero.

 

You are starting to sound like a parrot by repeating yourself and showing us that you can not assimilate elementary logic without bogging yourself down in myrad formulas and scientific wishwash.

 

If I have made up my mind, it's because you have not presented anything to analyse. An unsourced quote, an appeal to common sense and flat statements of a conspiracy are not a persuasive argument. You came to a science forum to put forward your views, why are you getting angry that scientific standards of evidence are being applied to your hypothesis?

 

You call what your rants a scientific method, lol? That's rich. Like I said, some people will believe a pack of lies and defend them with confident ardor instead of facing the fact that they have been lied to massively about the atom bomb. Do you have the slightest idea how many people have a vested interest in maintaining that hoax? Do you have any idea what is at stake for those people if the truth becomes widely accepted?

 

What debunks?

 

The ones you are desperately trying to bury under a pile of semantic hogwash.

 

so anything you post is undeniable fact

 

Not true.

 

and everything thing that disagrees is fake information.

 

Not true.

 

 

I think I've read enough.

 

Is that also what you said after reading the first paragraph of the official atom bomb story? Maybe you should read MORE instead. Thanks for not giving me a reason to doubt my debunk.

[JaKiri]

It does demonstrate that the Americans had the means at their disposal to irradiate the survivors of the incendiary raid with x-rays they could later describe as the effects of so-called atomic bomb radioactive fallout. Doesn't get simpler then that.

 

I don't think anyone doubted they had the means.

 

The quote indicates the means to simulate atomic radioactive fallout with x-ray bombardment. That is not misdirection. As I was saying, you appear to be on a fishing expedition. You are flogging a dead horse when you claim misdirection.

 

So you can't source the claim?

 

The atom bomb hoax is rife with scientific method and formula yet it is a hoax.

 

Can't argue with logic like that. Ever look into the works of Ayn Rand? A=A sounds right up your street.

 

No I did not.

 

In my estimation a blast that intense would leave a massive crater at 2000 feet from the detonation if it can rock a huge aircraft at 30,000 feet.

 

Yes you did. Unless you meant that you guessed that this was the case, in which case please go away and demonstrate it.

 

I find amusement in your resistance to basic mathematics, as you implored someone earlier in the day to "do the math chum".

 

That is because my so-called calculations are a figment of your imagination. Where are your calculations to prove that a blast over a city at 2000 feet that rocks a B-29 violently at 30,000 feet will not crush everything below it and leave a massive crater? I have not seen your so-called evidence yet.

 

Turbulance can be caused by a pressure wave. A pressure wave can be caused by heat, which disproportionately moves upwards due to the difference in density between the super-heated gases and the surrounding air (which coincidentally forms a mushroom cloud). The ground need not be affected.

 

Take another look and you will see there is an altitude scale and representative values. Probably not the mind-boggling physics math you are expecting but it is very clear in it's simplicity. Why should I bog myself down with complex math when a simple elementary formula is good enough to make my point?

 

Could you please point out the formula, for those of us who can't immediately discern it?

 

Where's your simple model to prove the contrary? You ask a lot but provide very little. Why don't you show us how to muddle an issue with convoluted formulas a lay person won't understand?

 

You were the one who said it was impossible. The burden of proof is upon you.

 

Furthermore, if you think that mathematics is an exercise in muddling the issue why are you able to use a computer right now?

 

You are starting to sound like a parrot by repeating yourself and showing us that you can not assimilate elementary logic without bogging yourself down in myrad formulas and scientific wishwash.

 

Unfortunately, if you don't answer the questions I present I have little option but to repeat them. Why are you trying to distract from something which, if you have evidence, should be easy to demonstrate?

 

You call what your rants a scientific method, lol?

 

No, I call the process by which hypotheses are arrived at and tested by empirical methods using repeatable experiments the scientific method, lol. It's been quite successful over the years, too.

 

That's rich. Like I said, some people will believe a pack of lies and defend them with confident ardor instead of facing the fact that they have been lied to massively about the atom bomb.

 

When you say "lied to massively about the atom bomb", do you mean that it was used at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or that it exists?

 

Do you have the slightest idea how many people have a vested interest in maintaining that hoax? Do you have any idea what is at stake for those people if the truth becomes widely accepted?

 

None whatsoever.

 

The ones you are desperately trying to bury under a pile of semantic hogwash.

 

Could you quote them please? Humour me.

 

Here's something I missed earlier:

 

Most people have seen airborne detonations at fireworks displays and none saw a mushroom cloud (proportionally speaking of course) yet everyone buys the mushroom cloud at Hiroshima story

 

This is hilarious.

[ChuckWest]

I don't think anyone doubted they had the means.

 

That is all that is required to make my point.

 

So you can't source the claim?

 

I did and gave you a link. You are playing the parrot again. Are you that desperate?

 

Can't argue with logic like that. Ever look into the works of Ayn Rand? A=A sounds right up your street.

 

I am not Ayn Rand's mother.

 

Yes you did. Unless you meant that you guessed that this was the case, in which case please go away and demonstrate it.

 

No guesswork. Fact 1= Enola Gay at 30,000 feet, Fact 2= so-called atom bomb detonated at 1826 feet above the ground, Fact 3= B-29 rocked violently twice, Fact 4= trees still standing and streets clear and underground sewers barely damaged and seismograms missing, Fact 5=no crater. Deny that.

 

I find amusement in your resistance to basic mathematics, as you implored someone earlier in the day to "do the math chum".

 

I find it unusual that someone pretending to know so much about physics can't grasp elementary logic. All you do is play the selectively curious card and turn circles around that hoping the reader will interpret that as scientific wisdom. Where are your mathematical formulations, Einstein?

 

Turbulance can be caused by a pressure wave. A pressure wave can be caused by heat, which disproportionately moves upwards due to the difference in density between the super-heated gases and the surrounding air (which coincidentally forms a mushroom cloud). The ground need not be affected.

 

In a radial airborne detonation the shockwaves go in all directions. Except of course when you describe them.

 

Could you please point out the formula, for those of us who can't immediately discern it?

 

I don't write for the benefit of the magnitude dyslexics that are dead set against assimilating elementary logic. Get a tutor.

 

You were the one who said it was impossible. The burden of proof is upon you.

 

I recognize no such burdon. I expose the facts as I see them and that is the limit of my so-called burdon.

 

Furthermore, if you think that mathematics is an exercise in muddling the issue why are you able to use a computer right now?

 

So now you claim atom bombs are real because computers are real. That is amusing. How do you come to that conclusion? I never denied the existance of computers. I sometimes hear other say that public schools can't be all that bad, after all, they put a man on the moon with that type of instruction, lol. Next you will claim that dinosaurs existed because they found bones.

 

Unfortunately, if you don't answer the questions I present I have little option but to repeat them.

 

I also have the option of ignoring spam like that.

 

Why are you trying to distract from something which, if you have evidence, should be easy to demonstrate?

 

You still have not provided evidence that a mushroom cloud grows out of an airborne radial explosion and you have no explanation for plant growth everywhere in Hirosdhima after the bombings and you don't care to know where the historic seismograms went and you provided no evidence to explain the absence of a shockwave in Hiroshima and you neglected to give an explanation why the city started rebuilding the very next day in spite of the massive radiation that should have been present. You are also totally oblivious to the fact that Tibbets was a Hollywood insider and you probably deny they had the means to show a fake mushroom cloud in the post bombing pictures of Hiroshima and you accuse ME of distracting, lol. Are you a stand up comedian besides plying forums for atom bomb hoaxsters?

 

No, I call the process by which hypotheses are arrived at and tested by empirical methods using repeatable experiments the scientific method, lol. It's been quite successful over the years, too.

 

Lying has also been a SUCCESSFUL science over the years. Very profitable science.

 

When you say "lied to massively about the atom bomb", do you mean that it was used at Hiroshima or Nagasaki, or that it exists?

 

I deny it's very existance and believe they will never build one. Why else would they have to fake it?

 

None whatsoever.

 

Yes, that's right. Is that a banning offence at atombombhoaxmaintenance.com?

 

Could you quote them please? Humour me.

 

Your question shows without doubt that you don't know the first thing about the conditions required for the growth of a mushroom cloud.

 

Here's something I missed earlier:

 

 

 

This is hilarious.

 

You sound delirious. Are you ok?

[ydoaPs]

No guesswork. Fact 1= Enola Gay at 30,000 feet, Fact 2= so-called atom bomb detonated at 1826 feet above the ground, Fact 3= B-29 rocked violently twice, Fact 4= trees still standing and streets clear and underground sewers barely damaged and seismograms missing, Fact 5=no crater. Deny that.

Don't you know how easily altitudes can be faked?

 

 

I recognize no such burdon. I expose the facts as I see them and that is the limit of my so-called burdon.

The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim, i.e. you. You are saying it was a hoax, so YOU must provide the evidence. It is not up to us to prove your declarations false; the defense is under no obligation to prove the prosecution incorrect..

 

 

 

I deny it's very existance and believe they will never build one. Why else would they have to fake it?

You're right. Fission doesn't exist. My reactor is just a room full of hamsters turning generators.

[iNow]

Not only are you failing to respond to reasonable objections... not only are you failing to support your views with anything more than your own graphic which has no support... but you also are claiming things that are outright false. Many of these falsehoods have already been pointed out to you.

 

 

The atom bomb hoax is rife with scientific method and formula yet it is a hoax.

Repeating yourself doesn't make your comment any more valid. Prove it. Show us, don't tell us.

 

 

That is because my so-called calculations are a figment of your imagination. Where are your calculations to prove that a blast over a city at 2000 feet that rocks a B-29 violently at 30,000 feet will not crush everything below it and leave a massive crater? I have not seen your so-called evidence yet.

Your suggestion that a detonation at 2000ft must leave a massive crater is false.

 

 

 

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77b1.html

When the fireball touches the earth's surface, a crater is formed as a result of the vaporization of dirt and other material and the removal of soil, etc., by the blast wave and winds accompanying the explosion. The size of the crater will vary with the height above the surface at which the weapon is exploded and with the character of the soil, as well as with the energy of the explosion. It is believed that for a 1-megaton weapon there would be no appreciable crater formation unless detonation occurs at an altitude of 450 feet or less.

 

The bomb detonated more than 4x higher than that.

 

 

 

Take another look and you will see there is an altitude scale and representative values. Probably not the mind-boggling physics math you are expecting but it is very clear in it's simplicity. Why should I bog myself down with complex math when a simple elementary formula is good enough to make my point?

Because the only point you've made is that the cartoon you drew disproves something... which it does not. If your theory is so true and accurate, you should be able to support it with the math. It's not hard, but if you don't understand how to do it, it also calls into questions your conclusions.

 

 

 

You are starting to sound like a parrot by repeating yourself and showing us that you can not assimilate elementary logic without bogging yourself down in myrad formulas and scientific wishwash.

Conclusions from logic are fine, but you've based these conclusions in false premises, so your conclusions are false themselves.

 

 

 

You call what your rants a scientific method, lol? That's rich. Like I said, some people will believe a pack of lies and defend them with confident ardor instead of facing the fact that they have been lied to massively about the atom bomb.

Proof? Once your claim has been substantiated, you can call all those who disagree with you all the names you want. However, you can't seem to substantiate your claim. Where's the beef? Why can't you answer the most basic of questions posed to you?

 

 

Is that also what you said after reading the first paragraph of the official atom bomb story? Maybe you should read MORE instead. Thanks for not giving me a reason to doubt my debunk.

More dribble. Show us, don't tell us.

[ChuckWest]

Don't you know how easily altitudes can be faked?

 

Is that what you are saying happened? That they faked the altitude and the so-called atomic blast was a ground detonation?

 

 

The burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim, i.e. you. You are saying it was a hoax, so YOU must provide the evidence. It is not up to us to prove your declarations false; the defense is under no obligation to prove the prosecution incorrect..

 

The official story of the atom bomb is no defense. It is a fable riddled with contradictions and omissions and outright lies. My only burdon is providing the reader with the data I have examined and the conclusions this has led me to so they may do their own research and reach their own conclusions.

 

You're right. Fission doesn't exist. My reactor is just a room full of hamsters turning generators.

 

How do you know what is really going on in the core of a so-called nuclear reactor, have you taken one apart and examined the pieces on your kitchen table. If you have not themn you are merely speculating.

 

Not only are you failing to respond to reasonable objections... not only are you failing to support your views with anything more than your own graphic which has no support... but you also are claiming things that are outright false. Many of these falsehoods have already been pointed out to you.

 

That is a lie. I get the distinct feeling you are setting me up for banishment. I have responded adequately to all questions whether they satify your inability to grasp elementary logic or not.

 

Repeating yourself doesn't make your comment any more valid. Prove it. Show us, don't tell us.

 

The only reason you refuse to prove me wrong is because you are hiding behind your burdon of proof fallacy.

 

Your suggestion that a detonation at 2000ft must leave a massive crater is false.

 

Where is your evidence that it would not make a crater?

 

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/nukeffct/enw77b1.html

 

The bomb detonated more than 4x higher than that.

 

What kind of idiots would spend billions designing a bomb they will blow up so high in the sky nobody will notice? I think your assumption that the so-called atom bomb was detonated at 4 times the height reported for decades is rediculous. Proof that the web is also full of disinfo. They did not build their so-called atom bomb just to give the Enola Gay a few jolts you know.

 

Because the only point you've made is that the cartoon you drew disproves something... which it does not. If your theory is so true and accurate, you should be able to support it with the math. It's not hard, but if you don't understand how to do it, it also calls into questions your conclusions.

 

I made many other points. That you choose to ignore them or consider them trivial is your problem not mine.

 

Conclusions from logic are fine, but you've based these conclusions in false premises, so your conclusions are false themselves.

 

Are you going to prove me wrong or rant about all day?

 

Proof? Once your claim has been substantiated, you can call all those who disagree with you all the names you want. However, you can't seem to substantiate your claim. Where's the beef? Why can't you answer the most basic of questions posed to you?

 

What have you contributed to this thread besides gratuitous comments and trivial marginalizations. You have done nothing to defend that pack of lies they call an official story of the so-called atom bomb.

 

 

 

More dribble. Show us, don't tell us.

 

I don't owe you nothing. If you are not satified with my explanations that is fine and you can move on and let some other genuis pick up the slack.

[iNow]

ChuckWest -

 

You are a troll.

You are not even a very good troll.

This is not a flame.

This is not an ad hominem.

This is a statement of fact.

 

 

You hinted above at your own banishment, so I can see that you knew of your troll behavior before I pointed it out to you.