Are Nuclear Weapons Real or Fake?

[JaKiri]

That is all that is required to make my point.

 

I'm still unsure what your point is.

 

It is possible that government agents creep in during the night and exchange the contents of my freezer for another set which are exactly identical.

 

Something being possible doesn't make it true.

 

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

 

I was going to make something up, add in large amounts of gibberish letters, change the colours of the text and the background to ugly and garish and then post it on my website in order to demonstrate why a single unsourced link on something doesn't make it so, but I can't think of anything sufficiently absurd for it to outdo your claims.

 

I am not Ayn Rand's mother.

 

That's good, I was worried there for a moment.

 

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'm confused, you were the one who wsa supposed to be denying that?

 

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?

 

I find it interesting that you mention Einstein. If atom bombs don't exist, then the special theory of relativity is incorrect. If the special theory of relativity is incorrect, then why does all the evidence point to it being correct?

 

I can go into the evidence if you like, but the most obvious example would be when they sent an atomic clock on a plane round the earth, and found that it felt the effects of time dilation.

 

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

 

I generally find that hot gas rises. I've seen hot air balloons and everything.

 

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

 

Since you claim to have written it before, it's not even new; just copy and paste.

 

I'd also appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by a "magnitude dyslexic". Is English your native language?

 

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

 

So you expose "facts", but are unable to prove them? I notice you are unable to correctly copy the spelling of the word "burden", are you one of those magnitude dyslexics I hear so much about?

 

So now you claim atom bombs are real because computers are real. That is amusing. How do you come to that conclusion?

 

If atom bombs cannot exist, then special relativity is wrong, which means that Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are wrong, which means that the electronics in your computer wouldn't work.

 

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.

 

Are you saying they found bones of things which didn't exist? That's a pretty good trick right there.

 

I also have the option of ignoring spam like that.

 

Now now, you're never going to win a Nobel Prize in theoretical conspiracies if you don't play nice.

 

You still have not provided evidence that a mushroom cloud grows out of an airborne radial explosion

 

Hot things rise. Cold things fall. Very hot thing near explosion means that lots of stuff rises, edges cool down and don't rise as much, looks like a mushroom. You don't need an atom bomb to make a mushroom cloud, they arise from sufficiently large amounts of traditional explosives as well.

 

and you have no explanation for plant growth everywhere in Hirosdhima after the bombings

 

I'm sorry, where? My magnitude dyslexia is playing up again.

 

and you don't care to know where the historic seismograms went

 

Oh, I do care, very much. I have my best man on the case.

 

and you provided no evidence to explain the absence of a shockwave in Hiroshima

 

There was a shockwave. You can tell because of all the buildings that have been knocked over, unlike, say, Dresden.

 

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.

 

Why would there be massive radiation? If the bomb is detonated at a couple of thousand feet, all the fallout blows away.

 

There'd only be fallout if there was a crater, because local fallout is caused by a mixture between the crater debris and the remnants of the bomb.

 

Oh sorry, that's consistent and must be therefore evidence of a new world order.

 

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.

 

Why would the japanese fake mushroom cloud pictures? Were they "in" on the bombing of their own cities?

 

Are you a stand up comedian besides plying forums for atom bomb hoaxsters?

 

I am a comedy writer as it happens, yes. Only in my spare time though.

 

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

 

I don't think you know what the word "science" means. If it would help you with this kind of problem, I know a good magnitude dyslexia specialist if you want me to give you his contact details.

 

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

 

Why indeed? An insightful question!

 

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

 

You aren't going to tell me how many people have a vested interest? That's not very interesting.

 

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

 

Well, at least I know the difference between altitudes of 2,000 feet and 100,000 feet. Perhaps you have magnitude dyscalculia as well as magnitude dyslexia, fate hasn't treated you kindly I'm afraid.

 

You sound delirious. Are you ok?

 

I often confuse hilarity with delerium myself, it goes away after a while.

 

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

 

What?

 

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.

 

What?

 

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.

 

What?

 

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.

 

What?

 

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

 

What?

 

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

 

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

 

What?

 

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.

 

What?

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

What?

[ecoli]

Ok, you by your logic a claim is safe as long as it cannot be disproven.

 

Since we have not yet disproved, to your immaculate standards, that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima then obviously that proves that it was a hoax.

 

Ok... I think I understand this now. And, I must say, I completely agree with you. As long as something can't be proven false, than it's true.

 

I think in my hoax, instead a conventional bombs, US soldiers droppen a giant fish on the city. The friction due to the air cooked the raw fish meat, so when the fish landed on the city, flattening the buildings, the Japanese citizens that were left alive ate the entire fish. They were so full though, that they exploded. Therefore, the giant fish was completely gone by the time anyone was able to photograph it, and nobody who saw the fish fall ws still alive. Paul Tibbets was obviously part of the conspiracy.

Those pictures aren't of a mushroom cloud, but that's just the patterns that cloud material form when a giant fish flows through it.

 

Try disproving that one, bitches.

 

edit: By the way, if something is sufficiently high enough in the sky, they cannot have any effect on the earth. Take satellites, or the Sun. these foreign bodies have no effect on us.

[Phi for All]

Chuck keeps repeating that any blast that could rock a plane "violently" at 28,000 feet would have to leave a crater on the ground 1800 feet below. Forgetting the fact that "violently" is a pretty subjective description that changes with the observer, it seems pretty obvious he believes air = vacuum, and that it would have been the bomb explosion that reached the Enola Gay, lessened by distance.

 

Air compresses but not as much as he probably thinks. What the crew would have felt was the air under the plane being compressed upward to cause the "violent" buffeting. There was 26,000 feet of air being pushed *over* the bomb, but only 1800 feet of air *under* it.

 

The descriptions get exaggerated over the course of this thread as well; first it was oleanders that started to grow after the blast, then later it becomes "plant growth everywhere in Hirosdhima [sic] after the bombings".

[ChuckWest]

First I would like to point out that you are answering a reply I made to iNow at the end of your post where you keep repeating WHAT? over and over. I pressed the quote button on iNow's post not yours. How it ended up in your bin is a mystery to me. So, I will answer the questions relevant to your post only.

 

I'm still unsure what your point is.

 

It is possible that government agents creep in during the night and exchange the contents of my freezer for another set which are exactly identical.

 

Something being possible doesn't make it true.

 

I'm sure I don't understand your point or your analogy. Can I ask you to reformulate that statement so I can respond adequately?

 

I was going to make something up, add in large amounts of gibberish letters, change the colours of the text and the background to ugly and garish and then post it on my website in order to demonstrate why a single unsourced link on something doesn't make it so, but I can't think of anything sufficiently absurd for it to outdo your claims.

 

Glad you decided to stay honest instead.

 

 

That's good, I was worried there for a moment.

 

I don't ascribe to the politics of Ayn Rand.

 

 

 

I'm confused, you were the one who wsa supposed to be denying that?

 

I never denied that there should have been a crater nor have I denied the absence of shockwave evidence nor have I denied the absence of the historical seismograms so I really don't know what you are talking about.

 

I find it interesting that you mention Einstein. If atom bombs don't exist, then the special theory of relativity is incorrect. If the special theory of relativity is incorrect, then why does all the evidence point to it being correct?

 

Every serious scientist understands that sometimes the best theories don't pan out so well when put into application. Especially those that postulate the creation of energy where there is none. Most scientists of Einstein's time were laughing at his ideas about unleashing massive energy from a small mass of physical rock. The formulations indicated that a massive release of energy would result from a chain reaction that would split all the atoms in a mass of uranium but the technique for producing the chain reaction was also the reason I believe the mass was consumed by the conventional explosion before the chain reaction could achieve optimal velocity. I am not saying that is the reason the bomb fizzed out just saying that it would appear to be a reason why it works on paper but failed in practice. Could be that the scientific claim itself was doctored and false to start with, I don't know. What I do know is that the evidence I have examined thus far indicates that the atom bomb is a bogus claim from top to bottom. Do you deny that there is a lot of fraud in the scientific community and it's claims? Do you refute the possiblity that the money involved was so tempting that they would fake the bomb rather than admitting they could never do it?

 

I can go into the evidence if you like, but the most obvious example would be when they sent an atomic clock on a plane round the earth, and found that it felt the effects of time dilation.

 

So they say, but is it true? Do you always believe anything the scientific community claims? I know I don't unless the facts add up. With the atom bomb the facts don't add up and it's the same story with commercially-viable nuclear energy.

 

 

I generally find that hot gas rises. I've seen hot air balloons and everything.

 

What happened to the shockwave? Does that not propagte too? A mushroom cloud need a thermally and dynamically stable air mass above it or it's growth is voided. The kind of thermodynamic disturbances implied by the mathematical models presented would absolutely void the presence of a mushroom cloud. Besides, mushroom clouds do not grow out of radial high altitude detonations. A physical impossiblity. Wikipedia also agrees with this fact of high altitude explosions.

 

Since you claim to have written it before, it's not even new; just copy and paste.

 

I'd also appreciate it if you could explain what you mean by a "magnitude dyslexic". Is English your native language?

 

My english is fine. A manitude dyslexic is any person that does not grasp the magnitude of any given thing. Thus, a person that reads about a plane violently rocked by an explosion 28,000 feet beneath it and does not understand that this same blast will create a crater at 2000 feet is a manitude dyslexic or a shill fronting from the atomic hoaxsters.

 

 

So you expose "facts", but are unable to prove them? I notice you are unable to correctly copy the spelling of the word "burden", are you one of those magnitude dyslexics I hear so much about?

 

Is this an attempt at humour or are you exposing your hatred and contempt for those that expose facts you should have known on your own a long time ago? If you wish to insult me or show contempt you will talk to yourself in the future, I will not respond.

 

If atom bombs cannot exist, then special relativity is wrong, which means that Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are wrong, which means that the electronics in your computer wouldn't work.

 

Are you a fraud-in-science denier? Electromagnetism is not a hoax. You show your contempt when you insinuate I would deny the existance of electromegnetism. For an atom bomb to work there are far more elements at work than just electromagnetism and you know it so stop playing stupid with me and get back on track. You are exhausting my patience with your circular logic.

 

Are you saying they found bones of things which didn't exist? That's a pretty good trick right there.

 

I guess you never worked with plaster or plastics. My guess is you also believe everything you read as long as it has some form of "official" stamp on it.

 

Now now, you're never going to win a Nobel Prize in theoretical conspiracies if you don't play nice.

 

Who said I wanted a Nobel Prize. Vanity and prestige are not my motivations for exposing the atomic hoax clusters. Truth in the record is my prime motive. Fake atom bombs and fake commercially viable nuclear energy are presently being used as justification in taking lives massively in Iran as it was in Iraq so saving lives with the truth is another big motivator for me.

 

Hot things rise. Cold things fall. Very hot thing near explosion means that lots of stuff rises, edges cool down and don't rise as much, looks like a mushroom. You don't need an atom bomb to make a mushroom cloud, they arise from sufficiently large amounts of traditional explosives as well.

 

Yes they do and all are seeded from the ground.

 

I'm sorry, where? My magnitude dyslexia is playing up again.

 

Don't be sorry, just answer the question. Why are plants growing everywhere one week after a blast said to void plant growth for 70 years? Will you evade that question to with lame burden of proof excuses?

 

 

 

Oh, I do care, very much. I have my best man on the case.

 

Please explain. Do you mean that you are having someone photoshop a few to use in this thread or are you digging up TNT seismograms to pass of as so-called atomic seismograms?

 

There was a shockwave. You can tell because of all the buildings that have been knocked over, unlike, say, Dresden.

 

They did not use M-69 aimable cluster firebomblets in Dresden and the aerial views of Hiroshima post-bombing look more like a huge autumn leaf burning than the consequence of an earth shattering atomic explosion. The streets are clear of debris, the trees are thin, charred and still standing upright. You call that a shockwave. How is your man doing on those historical seismograms, is the ink dry yet?

 

Why would there be massive radiation? If the bomb is detonated at a couple of thousand feet, all the fallout blows away.

 

Because the authorities said people died from exposure to it. Are you making this up as you go along?

 

There'd only be fallout if there was a crater, because local fallout is caused by a mixture between the crater debris and the remnants of the bomb.

 

You are building one fallacy on top of another and you wish for me to take you seriously. Is logic your first language?

 

Oh sorry, that's consistent and must be therefore evidence of a new world order.

 

The new world order is actually a very old world order run by the same tribal affiliates generation after generation. The new world order hoax was designed specifically to hide that fact.

 

Why would the japanese fake mushroom cloud pictures? Were they "in" on the bombing of their own cities?

 

Who said the Japanese faked those pictures? Sure they were "in" on it at the highest levels. They have conspired with other nations to kill their own many times in the past.

 

 

I am a comedy writer as it happens, yes. Only in my spare time though.

 

I see you are good at it. Got me rolling on the floor laughing more than once.

 

I don't think you know what the word "science" means.

 

Methinks you don't know what the expression fraud-in-science means.

 

If it would help you with this kind of problem, I know a good magnitude dyslexia specialist if you want me to give you his contact details.

 

Now you are being silly and not living up to your stature as a good stand up comedian.

 

Why indeed? An insightful question!

 

Have you ever thought for one instant that, had they actually built the bomb, that they would have been so frightened by it's potential that they would have buried it fast and killed all those in the know about it and bought off the silence of the others? What makes you think those elites would not have seen this as a great threat to their global hedgemony?

 

You aren't going to tell me how many people have a vested interest? That's not very interesting.

 

Nobody knows the exact figures. A lot I presume.

 

 

Well, at least I know the difference between altitudes of 2,000 feet and 100,000 feet. Perhaps you have magnitude dyscalculia as well as magnitude dyslexia, fate hasn't treated you kindly I'm afraid.

 

You are being silly again.

 

 

 

I often confuse hilarity with delerium myself, it goes away after a while.

 

Cure it and get on with your life. Are you a big meat eater suffering the ravages of excessive preuric acid ingestion?

[Pangloss]

I pretty much skimmed this thread, so please correct me if I just missed it, but what does any of this have to do with whether Paul Tibbets lied about something (or not)? I feel kinda mislead by this thread, and I'm going to rename it to something more appropriate to the subject actually being discussed here.

 

Paul Tibbets felt compelled to ask for an unmarked grave because of all the anger and resentment generated again him and his family by Hiroshima. That is no way for a "greatest generation" serviceman to be remembered. You want to hold his bosses responsible, fine, but leave the late Colonel and his family alone. They've suffered enough.

[ChuckWest]

Ok, you by your logic a claim is safe as long as it cannot be disproven.

 

No, that is not true. The fact that it cannot be disproven or proven conclusively only makes it a hoaxster's paradise. Logic and reason are the tools to be used to understand the truth or fallacy of any given claim. I do not believe the atom bomb is a hoax because my debunk cannot be disproven but because the official story of it's existance is full of contradiction and the kind of messes of logic one would normally associate with a fraud or deception. The frequency of the contradictions and omissions in the official story of the atom bomb are such that I can hardly imagine why so many people come to it's defence. Like I said before, people find it easier to go along with a set of lies agreed upon rather than face the truth that they have been lied to shamelessly for so long. A lot of people have great interest in the continuation of those fallacies.

 

Since we have not yet disproved, to your immaculate standards, that the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima then obviously that proves that it was a hoax.

 

Just look at the contradictions in the official story and figure out the rest yourself. Ask yourself, would there be so many contradictions if the story were true.

 

Ok... I think I understand this now. And, I must say, I completely agree with you. As long as something can't be proven false, than it's true.

 

You forgot the sarcasm tags.

 

Try disproving that one, bitches.

 

Flamebait.

 

edit: By the way, if something is sufficiently high enough in the sky, they cannot have any effect on the earth.

 

Point?

 

Take satellites, or the Sun. these foreign bodies have no effect on us.

 

Irrelevant

 

I pretty much skimmed this thread, so please correct me if I just missed it, but what does any of this have to do with whether Paul Tibbets lied about something (or not)? I feel kinda mislead by this thread, and I'm going to rename it to something more appropriate to the subject actually being discussed here.

 

Call it whatever you like. Tibbets is central to the issue of a so-called atom bomb being dropped on the city of Hiroshima in August, 1945. My debunk says that he lied so there is no deception there. It's not my fault if the discussion has taken us away from that lie on Tibbets part once in a while during the course of this thread.

 

Paul Tibbets felt compelled to ask for an unmarked grave because of all the anger and resentment generated again him and his family by Hiroshima. That is no way for a "greatest generation" serviceman to be remembered. You want to hold his bosses responsible, fine, but leave the late Colonel and his family alone. They've suffered enough.

 

People expressed resentment towards him because they believe he roasted hundreds of thousands of people. My contention is that he was neither a fine serviceman nor a gentleman for having covered up the truth about the hundreds of B-29s that firebombed that city on that day. The contempt and resentment directed at him was completely justified if not motivated by the truth. End of that story I estimate.

[ydoaPs]

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

I have just as much proof of faked altitudes as you have of faked radiation readings.

 

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.

Actually, I have. I know exactly what every part of the core and the associated power plant does. I even know what it's made of and why. I know more about neutrons than you ever conceivably thought you wanted to know. I work with the reactor EVERY DAY. We know exactly what happens; we have to so we know what to do if things go wrong.

 

 

 

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.

Your only explanation for the continued radiation readings is that they could be faked. Why doesn't the same "elementary logic" apply to the altitudes?

 

 

 

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

Burden of proof is not a fallacy; it is the way logical debate works. Even courtrooms rely on the concept of burden of proof. If you had studied logical debate at all, you would know this.

 

 

Every serious scientist understands that sometimes the best theories don't pan out so well when put into application. Especially those that postulate the creation of energy where there is none. Most scientists of Einstein's time were laughing at his ideas about unleashing massive energy from a small mass of physical rock. The formulations indicated that a massive release of energy would result from a chain reaction that would split all the atoms in a mass of uranium but the technique for producing the chain reaction was also the reason I believe the mass was consumed by the conventional explosion before the chain reaction could achieve optimal velocity. I am not saying that is the reason the bomb fizzed out just saying that it would appear to be a reason why it works on paper but failed in practice. Could be that the scientific claim itself was doctored and false to start with, I don't know. What I do know is that the evidence I have examined thus far indicates that the atom bomb is a bogus claim from top to bottom. Do you deny that there is a lot of fraud in the scientific community and it's claims? Do you refute the possiblity that the money involved was so tempting that they would fake the bomb rather than admitting they could never do it?

Congratulations, you officially have zero knowledge in the area of nuclear physics. Get back to me when you know something.

Fake atom bombs and fake commercially viable nuclear energy are presently being used as justification in taking lives massively in Iran as it was in Iraq so saving lives with the truth is another big motivator for me.

Please, tell me how my reactor works, then. While you're at it, tell me why I am required to wear a thermo-luminescent dosimeter every day at work.

[Phi for All]

You gotta love it when the nuclear conspiracy theorist takes on Jakiri, a professional physicist, and yourdadonapogos, a Navy nuclear technician, and tells them they don't know what they're talking about.

[Pangloss]

Why would the government (or Tibbets) want to cover up a single firebombing? There were many firebombings that took place, they're well-documented, and many of them were FAR worse than what happened to Hiroshima. What is the motivation for this alleged cover-up?

 

We also have eyewitnesses from Hiroshima who say it was one airplane and one bomb.

 

(Unless, of course, Tibbets got to them somehow as well. Perhaps he parachuted in after the bombing and spent several days walking around (an American in khakis covered in US insignia in the middle of the Japanese homeland) convincing the radiation-poisoned locals that they were actually firebombed.)

[Phi for All]

We also have eyewitnesses from Hiroshima who say it was one airplane and one bomb.

I think Chuck has already covered that. Anyone who actually witnessed the blasts were obviously in on the conspiracy.

 

And this can't be Begging the Question because Chuck knows all about circular logic; he said so earlier.

[Klaynos]

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 have to say I've skimmed/read this whole thread, and frankly ChuckWest seems to have little understanding of science, or history... He accused the doubters of being unscientific and then a claim which according to his first post is his main argument is a GUESS!

 

I have no real science to add here, and don't really see a point in trying to add some as Mr West just ignores it, claiming it to be wrong....

 

As for no evidence of radiation at the bomb sites HAHAHA! Really you've got to be kidding?

[Pangloss]

I think Chuck has already covered that. Anyone who actually witnessed the blasts were obviously in on the conspiracy.

Cool. Was it a secret Marine disinformation squad, or an unusually successful dropped-leaflets campaign?

[ChuckWest]

I have just as much proof of faked altitudes as you have of faked radiation readings.

 

Actually, this thread is the first time I have heard that there was a major discrepancy in the altitude reported in the official record of the Hiroshima bombings. The vast majority of articles I have read from diffent sources indicate anywhere between 1800 feet and 2000 feet. Nothing over that. I suspect the hoaxsters are intentionally injecting the disinfo to confuse the issue now that people are getting wise to their hoax. Anyways, the higher up they place the bomb the more the mushroom cloud story falls apart, the more they bring it down the worst the absence of a crater becomes. Wherever they decide to park that hoax they are in trouble as far as I can see. As far as faked radiation reading are concerned you can't deny that a lot of fraud exists in science and scientific claims. Most of the time there is little profit in truth and billions in lies.

 

Actually, I have. I know exactly what every part of the core and the associated power plant does. I even know what it's made of and why. I know more about neutrons than you ever conceivably thought you wanted to know. I work with the reactor EVERY DAY. We know exactly what happens; we have to so we know what to do if things go wrong.

 

Does your work involve going into the core, removing the parts and examining them? I did not think so. As far as I see you are basing your assumptions on the instruments that report what you expect should be happening in the core. My contention is that the core is full of baking-oven type elements that "sink" the excess energy coming in from the grid running on conventional sources outside the building. The water circulates and cools these huge elements while the instruments running on secret proprietary software report what the technician expects to see. That is what I think. I think your statements only prove what you do for a living, not what is really going on inside the core of those so-called nuclear reactors.

 

Your only explanation for the continued radiation readings is that they could be faked. Why doesn't the same "elementary logic" apply to the altitudes?

 

Logic and inductive reasoning, you know, the stuff you apply to the study of these technologies, say that only a pack of fools would design a super bomb only to deploy it at such a high altitude that the resulting damage looks like the burning of leaves in autumn. The reason the altitudes are being played with at present is a direct result of the growing awareness of the hoax in the public mind and a last-ditch effort on the part of the hoaxsters to discredit the debunks with conflicting data. It's an old ploy. The vast majority of reports have the bomb pegged at near 2000 feet and I can't imagine why they would lie about that and expect to retain credibility. 2000 feet is already pretty high when justifying the expense and results expected. That so-called atom bomb made less damage than the raid over Tokyo several months earlier. Aside the cost of building the B-29, the cost for firebombing Tokyo and destroying 4 times as much territory was just under one million dollars. Why would anyone build a billion dollar bomb to accomplish what several B-29 could accomplish for less than one million dollars? Nobody, because that is exactly how they destroyed Hiroshima, the same way they destroyed a huge chunk of Tokyo.

 

 

 

Burden of proof is not a fallacy; it is the way logical debate works. Even courtrooms rely on the concept of burden of proof. If you had studied logical debate at all, you would know this.

 

I know about the rules of evidence in courtrooms. The rules of evidence are not the same for a civil proceeding as they are for a criminal proceeding. The civil proceeding will admit lots of circumstantial evidence that the criminal proceeding will not allow. So, that analogy is defective.

 

 

Congratulations, you officially have zero knowledge in the area of nuclear physics.

 

Who says I need a doctor's degree in physics to understand the basic and numerous flaws in the official records as they apply to the nuclear hoax clusters?

 

Get back to me when you know something.

 

Your ignorance has made you arrogant and pompous.

 

Please, tell me how my reactor works, then.

 

So-called nuclear reactors are big buildings and they are real enough, I have worked building them at the engineering level in structural development.

 

That said we can agree that the building gives no substance to the things going on inside so we won't worry about that.

 

Many many people are salaried to work in these buildings and monitor the security, supply and maintenance. Again nothing of a big deal there, everything at this level is expected to look normal and no special effects have come into play yet.

 

The game begins when we enter the control room. What is a control room anyways?

 

It is a representation of variables said to be operating to achieve the potential predicted in the mathematical models.

 

The truth is that the control panel is an advanced simulator running on highly specific top secret application software developed secretly a long time ago and refined many times since.

 

So the unsuspecting employees work all day monitoring variables fed to them by sophisticated digital processors geared to simulate a nuclear reactor core and it's cooling elements.

 

The so-called reactor has a network-type grid to distribute the energy it is said to produce to it's customers. The trick is that instead of distributing electricity it is "consuming" electricity tapped off the conventional source along it's distribution grid where they intersect.

 

The power thus dervied is fed to the brushes (electrical brush electrodes on the shaft of a rotating generator/motor).

 

You see the trick is that a generator can be a motor if the current is coming in instead of out. So, the turbines pushing the water around to give the employees that rumble feeling of might and energy are driven by electricity arriving from conventional sources.

 

That is why a so-called nuclear power plant blacks out when the conventional sources go on the blink. Some will say that it is the "grid" that is designed that way but everyone knows it would be stupid to design an inter-state highway complex that jams up completely because two cars collided on a country road, it makes no sense.

 

You see, we have people here that sweat themselves to death trying to pull themselves out of the debt burdon created by the arrival of a so-called nuclear generating plant in their district only to discover it can't even light up a common lightbulb when the conventional sources blink out.

 

I mean that has to be the most damning evidence that the industry is bogus.

 

The industry is compartmentalized and Joe knows nothing of what Al is doing and so on while the whole mess of illusions is shrouded in national secrecy protocols. The hoaxster's paradise.

 

The materials delivered and picked up are said to be radio-active so nobody checks further than their nose for fear of radiation poisoning which is another convenient fallacy to shroud the racket.

 

Lots of big money in so-called nuclear waste management and billions more for supply of fake fissionable uranium. More like they are moving simple lead around. The alchemist's age old dream of converting lead to gold.

 

I can't say for sure what is making the people said to be poisoned with radiation sick. I think time will show that it was those that had access to the bloodstreams of those people that ay have been the unsuspecting patsies to those that provided them with tainted vials to make the mark sick.

 

[Racist rant removed]

 

The atom bomb hoax also reinforces the nuclear hoax because they say you can build one hoax with the process of the other hoax so, more intimacy for the hoaxsters.

 

And we all know how hard it is to break these illusions once they have been solidly achored down into the public psyche. Hollywood has also played a MAJOR role in promoting these hoaxes and again it is no surprise that the same tribe that pulled the wool over the eyes of humanity would be pulling the levers in hollywood.

 

While you're at it, tell me why I am required to wear a thermo-luminescent dosimeter every day at work.

 

To give the commercially-viable nuclear energy hoax a great measure of credibility. It's pretty elementary I would think.

 

I have to say I've skimmed/read this whole thread, and frankly ChuckWest seems to have little understanding of science, or history... He accused the doubters of being unscientific and then a claim which according to his first post is his main argument is a GUESS!

 

Great rebuttal of my debunk. You must be a genuis.

 

I have no real science to add here, and don't really see a point in trying to add some as Mr West just ignores it, claiming it to be wrong....

 

There, now you have an excuse no to participate deeper and expose your total ignorance of the subject matter review.

 

As for no evidence of radiation at the bomb sites HAHAHA! Really you've got to be kidding?

 

No I'm not. Maybe you should go back and read the thread again before creating the illusion that this has not been discussed already.

 

You gotta love it when the nuclear conspiracy theorist takes on Jakiri, a professional physicist,

 

That is a good motive for supporting a pack of lies agreed upon. I don't blame him for being reluctant about a truth that could make him the laughing stock of his entourage. People might point at him and say what kind of genuis are you if you could not understand simple elementary logic. He has a direct interest in crushing the truth about those bogus sciences.

 

 

and yourdadonapogos, a Navy nuclear technician, and tells them they don't know what they're talking about.

 

That is a good motive for supporting a pack of lies agreed upon. I don't blame him for being reluctant about a truth that could make him the laughing stock of his entourage. People might point at him and say what kind of genuis are you if you could not understand simple elementary logic. He has a direct interest in crushing the truth about those bogus sciences.

 

I am not saying they would intentionally distort the truth just that they might find it easier to go along with the lies even when confronted by a damning evidence. Who in their right mind would want to become the laughing stock or lose their gainful employment? Not many people I estimate.

[Klaynos]

Great rebuttal of my debunk. You must be a genuis.

 

I'm glad you agree, matter dealt with.

 

I'm just wondering though, how much nuclear physics you agree with, do radioactive isotopes exist at all in your world?

 

(although that question has to be before you read my post and realised how incredibly wrong you are)

[Phi for All]

So-called nuclear reactors are big buildings and they are real enough, I have worked building them at the engineering level in structural development.

Be prepared to think quickly when our Navy nuclear tech mentions the reactors he works with are not big buildings, but rather limited-space floating structures called ships and submarines. Do you have a canned response for that, too? Do you have a canned response for that, too?

[Klaynos]

Be prepared to think quickly when our Navy nuclear tech mentions the reactors he works with are not big buildings, but rather limited-space floating structures called ships and submarines. Do you have a canned response for that, too? Do you have a canned response for that, too?

 

Big chemical batteries...

[ChuckWest]

I'm glad you agree, matter dealt with.

 

I'm just wondering though, how much nuclear physics you agree with, do radioactive isotopes exist at all in your world?

 

I don't agree with the concept of commercially-viable nuclear energy production because I don't believe one can create energy where there is none to create. I understand that energy efficiency does not translate into higher demand and I know for a fact that the big utilities must hide (read "sink") the massive energy surplusses produced by conventional means like hydro and coal for instance. I also understand that if these energy surplusses generated by the big utils become known to the public at large these big utils will lose their justifications for charging outrageously high rates for energy. The surpluses are directed invisibly to these fake reactors and "bled" into the cores. The energy flowing in is represented inversly by the instruments programmed by crews at reactor boot-up time. How else can we explain that a so-called nuclear reactor blacks out along with it's conventional counterparts? People pay up to 6 billion dollars per reactor and the damn thing can't light a 10watt bulb during a blackout. I have heard the explanation that the massive blackout that includes the reactors is to be blamed on the distribution grid but I counter that argument by asking why any fool would design a trans-national highway that cloggs up from one coast to the other every time two cars collide on a country back road. The idea is ludicrous. Anyways, can someone tell me where the big utils are bleeding their massive excess energy if not in those big fake reactor buildings??

 

Be prepared to think quickly when our Navy nuclear tech mentions the reactors he works with are not big buildings, but rather limited-space floating structures called ships and submarines. Do you have a canned response for that, too? Do you have a canned response for that, too?

 

Frankly I could care less how you describe my responses. The so-called nuclear navy is either powered by super-high efficiency batteries or battery/Sterling engine hybrids. Do you know what a Sterling engine is? One thing it is not is noisy and smelly.

[Klaynos]

You're going to have to show us some evidence that there is a surpluse.

 

ESSPECIALLY in a country like france where 78.1% of the electricity is generated from Fission nuclear reactors...

 

Another problem you're going to have is if there is no nuclear reactors+weapons then there's no tritium + helium production so how do we get all the Helium 4 that is consumed every day?

 

Also please answer:

 

I'm just wondering though, how much nuclear physics you agree with, do radioactive isotopes exist at all in your world?

 

See Phi said it'd be batteries...

[ChuckWest]

You're going to have to show us some evidence that there is a surpluse.

 

Ok, let me see, you are denying that energy efficiency produces surplus energy? Explain how that works in your topsy-turvy world. Also while you are at it explain where they are bleeding these energy surpluses. If you deny the surplus please explain why and don't say it's because they need so-called nuclear reactors.

 

ESSPECIALLY in a country like france where 78.1% of the electricity is generated from Fission nuclear reactors...

 

This may come as a surprise to you but all of Europe's power grids are interconnected. The fake reactors in France could potentially be bleeding the energy surplusses of that whole continent. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

Another problem you're going to have is if there is no nuclear reactors+weapons then there's no tritium + helium production so how do we get all the Helium 4 that is consumed every day?

 

I don't know. How many ways can Helium 4 be produced?

 

See Phi said it'd be batteries...

 

Totally possible.

[Phi for All]

Frankly I could care less how you describe my responses. The so-called nuclear navy is either powered by super-high efficiency batteries or battery/Sterling engine hybrids. Do you know what a Sterling engine is? One thing it is not is noisy and smelly.

It's pretty amazing how many things become absolute fact when you simply deny the existence of nuclear power. It's... well, it's damned convenient, especially when you're trying to convince the world there's been a coverup involving literally millions of people for almost 70 years. All so the public won't find out about... um, what were we covering up again? Why does it benefit so many to lie about their super-high efficiency batteries and their other amazing technology with a story about... well, other amazing technology?

[Norman Albers]

I do not need to get involved in specifics. Two months ago I serviced three pianos (tuner/technician) at the Medford, Oregon Veterans Administration Domiciliary. My contact, the recreation administrator, said there are many soldiers there who were near a blast concussion and who now suffer voids in their brain tissue. I pray for healing.

[Phi for All]

See Phi said it'd be batteries...

Klanos, *you* said it'd be batteries. *I* know that subs can't stay submerged as long as they do without a system to recharge them, and there's just not enough room on one to host a normal power plant AND a fake nuclear reactor.

 

I guess the Navy angle isn't going to work though 'cause Chuck won't be satisfied until YDOAPS actually climbs *into* the core to prove nuclear physics is true (at least YDOAPS isn't sailing a sub up DENIAL river...).

[ChuckWest]

It's pretty amazing how many things become absolute fact when you simply deny the existence of nuclear power.

 

Only you can take the decision what you want to believe. I am not here to force you to accept my position. I am just here to provide you with the data I have aquired and share with you the rational induction of these data so you can decide on your own what you want to believe. If you think I'm full of it then fine, that is your right. I won't lose any sleep over that. Of course I come here also in the hopes that I will find an argument that will make me rethink my position but so far my convictions are intact.

 

It's... well, it's damned convenient, especially when you're trying to convince the world there's been a coverup involving literally millions of people for almost 70 years.

 

There is nothing "convenient" about the truth except that it always seems to make more sense and sounds more believable.

 

All so the public won't find out about... um, what were we covering up again?

 

You must go about your life with blinders and earplugs if you can't see how the governments are lying through their teeth all the time for power and money.

 

Why does it benefit so many to lie about their super-high efficiency batteries and their other amazing technology with a story about... well, other amazing technology?

 

Money, lots and lots of it. If they said the truth about the batteries they would lose the far more lucrative fake atomic cluster hoaxes they use to justify genocide and create the kind of fear that induces people to the false belief that resistance is futile and they have the power to destroy the world. Deny the fraudulent practices in certain scientific fields if you feel you must and deny that millions will conspire to do unto others as they would loathe others do unto them if you must but don't expect everybody to follow suit just because you find these beliefs convenient.

 

subs can't stay submerged as long as they do without a system to recharge them, and there's just not enough room on one to host a normal power plant AND a fake nuclear reactor.

 

Why do you rule out the possibility that they are using huge Sterling engines to recharge the batteries or the more probable secret underwater recharging outposts linked to surface power grids. You know, bleeding the surface power grid excesses directly into these fake nuclear powered subs. See how little imagination one has when he wants to believe a pack of lies agreed upon. Your brain refuses to acknowledge the many ways things can be done secretly.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why do you rule out the possibility that they are using huge Sterling engines to recharge the batteries or the more probable secret underwater recharging outposts linked to surface power grids. You know, bleeding the surface power grid excesses directly into these fake nuclear powered subs. See how little imagination one has when he wants to believe a pack of lies agreed upon. Your brain refuses to acknowledge the many ways things can be done secretly.

 

A Sterling engine requires a heat source to run. I also ask you how one could hide underwater recharging outposts and the subsequent electric bills, and how one could make a recharging "network" that covers the whole sea floor.

 

You seem to think that because you can imagine a way it can work (Sterling engines!!!) it is clearly done that way. You lack the evidence to prove that it is. Find me a Navy officer that says "yeah, they're really Sterling engines running off of the metabolic heat of squid" and I might start to believe you.

 

Also, unless you bring some evidence to bear and start being serious, this thread will go into the can.

[Norman Albers]

In 1968 or so, I worked summers in the Grumman Engineering machine shop on Long Island. I mean, aircraft machine and assembly plant! I drilled holes to make the lighter honeycomb for simple things like cockpit laddrers. Then, there were many weeks making parts for the lunar lander being assembled in the white room a little ways away, on the other side of the large TCE degreasing tank in this very large assembly plant. I created and tested connectors with sixty pins, used in the gantry tower for information connection. I do believe these suckers actually got there and came back, unlikely as it seems. Ten years ago here in Oregon I met a somewhat (?) crazed Southern Californian guy who had been in the aero industry down there. He swore that after the first few lunar missions, the rest were faked by the media. Well, what do I know???