View Full Version: The Nuke Hoax

Reality Shack > The Big Ones > The Nuke Hoax

Pages: [1] 2

Title: The Nuke Hoax
Description: Is The Bomb for real?


hoi.polloi - October 19, 2009 10:59 AM (GMT)
...

simonshack - November 29, 2009 03:30 AM (GMT)
*

THE NUKE HOAX

Let's face it : this forum is dedicated to uncover the 'best kept secrets' of this planet, so let's give this most crucial matter of our times some scrutiny. The quoted text below is what Piper, our newly registered member (-welcome!-), expounded in another discussion of this forum. I thought it very much deserved its own thread - so here it is.

PIPER wrote:
QUOTE


I discount the existence of "nuclear" bombs as a fear-mongering "Sword of Damocles"-type illusion that has now successfully kept billions of people living in fear of nuclear annihilation for 65 years. This is based on the improbability behind the science of the explosive device and the alleged mechanism that powered it, as well as the obviously forged videos and the high propaganda value behind the idea, since the firebombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki served to kick off the fake "cold war" and the fabricated "arms race", which featured both the US and Russia pocketing billions in their taxpayers' money for the manufacturing of these fake "nukes" and, some years later, for the "disarming" of same fake "nukes".



I hope Piper will elaborate on this and further develop this extremely important topic. Meanwhile, here's my little contribution to this subject. Enjoy :P

A comparison of 2 photos of the Nagasaki nuking as we know it :
user posted image
Of course, one of them must be fake. Or perhaps - uh...- could both be? :blink: To those unfamiliar with photo-analyses: Note that the background in the pictures has evidently moved - as if the 2 shots were snapped at different moments in time(as the airplane moved along). Now, look at the mushroom cloud in the foreground: It is identical in shape. Enough said?

As the story goes, the Nagasaki Bomb was dropped by a Boeing B-29 named "BOCKSCAR". Another B-29 (named "THE GREAT ARTISTE") was supposed to back it up with reconnaissance equipment and stuff. The problem is, neither of these B-29's had a side-window which would have allowed the above-right picture with that wing... (Nor do we know of any other plane flying in the area of the 'Nagasaki nuking').
user posted image

If you're interested in this subject matter, check out what 'official' writings about this episode of our history say about it. There seems to be, at first glance, some confusion even over the crews and/or the planes involved:

BOCKSCAR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bockscar

THE GREAT ARTISTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Artiste

A CLIP FROM A 1964 documentary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrZUhEMcbfY&feature=related

terbates - November 29, 2009 06:05 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Piper @ Nov 28 2009, 11:43 PM)
QUOTE (antipodean @ Nov 28 2009, 11:27 PM)
Having personally met the family of a geoligist, who was one of 4 that later worked within the fallout zone, all of whom later died of cancers contracted there.
http://www.google.co.nz/search?sourceid=na...a+nuclear+tests

Hi antipodean,

I do not doubt some powerful explosives were tested, some of which could have even contained radioactive materials (aka "dirty bombs"), but it would be a false assumption that only "nuclear" explosions can cause mushroom clouds, so those tests need not have been anything other than large incendiary devices.

While I do have doubts as to the real causes of cancer being known, the point is that what I discount is the "nuclear" aspect of said bombs, the science behind them and the great fears of annihilation these ideas bring up in people, as opposed to normal explosives.

Piper, with respect to your initial postings:

To those of us who live along the borders of the Columbia River and its dangerous elephant in the room (The Hanford Nuclear Reservation) we place a lot of belief in that our government built and tested many bombs from materials produced since 1944 from that site.

From the waste that still pours into the Columbia River present day, we can only assume that the terrible offerings of Hanford were used in not just “Fat Man” and “Little Boy” but also for a lot of other nuclear testing done since then, but the side effects are still affecting millions of people here in the NW.

By 1960 more curies of radioactivity had been dumped or leached into the Columbia River than that of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. It is estimated that over 444 billion gallons of radioactive and chemical waste have been discharged into the soil with over hundreds of billion of contaminated waste water discharged into the River itself. About 180 square miles of contaminated ground remains as a public health hazard.

Of concern to us is strontium-90, cesium-137, tritium, uranium, technetium, Cobalt-60, Chromium, Chloroform, Cyanide, Carbon-14, iodine-129, plutonium, americium and other toxic leftovers.

If in the future, it is shown that the whole nuclear arms race and bomb building was a strawman exercise, we are still left with the after effects of a stupid cold war then. Be careful when attempting to describe a “dirty bomb” as something added to an explosive, all nuclear testing leaves “dirty” after effects.



Piper - November 29, 2009 06:51 AM (GMT)
Thank you very much for the welcome Simon, and for starting this thread. I loved your contribution! :D

If we are to learn to easily see through the fabrications from which a large part of the general knowledge base is composed, it is best to expose as many of those fabrications as we can. This section of the forum is important because 9/11 was but one in a long line of such scams pushed by the media onto an unquestioning public.

I recently posted a list of what I believe to be the top-10 "most widely accepted and perpetrated lies in human history" in a discussion thread on another forum, and while I placed the Apollo Moon hoax and #6 and the existence of hijackers and planes used on 9/11 at #4, the topic currently under discussion came in at #2 because of its widespread belief, its effect on the human psyche and on world politics, and the length of time the lie has been in place.

There are so many lies that make up what we call history, a.k.a. the Scaliger-Petavius (mainstream) textbook version of history that is taught in our schools, that it is what stood in the #1 position on my list - yes, the biggest lie in history is history itself. That really deserves a thread of its own, perhaps some other time.

After seeing that 9/11 was a total lie and then researching the Moon hoax, the Electric Universe theory, the Zapruder film tampering, the lies in history, the lies in science, lies in medicine, etc. I was ready to question all of my beliefs, which is what I started doing.

While watching a documentary called Trinity and Beyond sometime around 2005 I noticed that some of the nuclear bomb test footage looked rather fake, mainly what appeared to be model houses, cars, trees and ships. I posted my thoughts on a forum I frequented at the time called Liberty Forum and got into an interesting discussion that brought out a lot of good questions about the "nukes" issue that I believe everyone should ask themselves. I repeat some of these questions here in order to stir up potential discussions:

- Do you understand the science behind a nuclear explosion? Do you understand the mechanism that triggers the explosion? Do you understand E=mc^2? What does it mean to square a speed? Do you believe in Einstein's relativity? Do you believe in the current model of the atom? Do you believe that only nuclear bombs can create mushroom clouds?

- Could Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been firebombed like Dresden and Tokyo were? Could you visually discern between victims of firebombings and radiation burns? Could the various videos of nuclear tests be propaganda? Could 1940s and 1950s effects technology create believable nuclear explosions for the newsreels?

- What about the war, do you believe 'the bomb' was necessary? Some say the Japanese had already capitulated. Do you believe in the 'cold war' and that the Americans and Soviets were dangerously poised on the verge of nuclear annihilation? Do you believe in a beneficial government? A transparent government? Do you have faith in the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower later warned people about?

- What about money? The money spent (pocketed) on the Moon hoax is minimal when compared with the billions in taxpayer money spent on the nuclear "arms race", in both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., for the construction of these expensive but never utilized weapons of mass destruction. And of course years later for the "disarming" of these same weapons.

Note that I am referring to nuclear bombs here, as I do believe that nuclear reactors probably exist since they are based on a completely different technology, which is that of radioactive materials heating up water -> creating steam -> spinning turbines -> generating electricity.

- Have you ever wondered why no rogue group of terrorists or any nation other than the most powerful have been able to build their own atomic bombs if it was possible to build them with technology from 65 years ago? Are their scientists and researchers that dumb? Are they missing some magic ingredient that is only available to chartered members of the elite "nuclear club"? Perhaps that ingredient is the power of their media to back up their lies?

If we go back to the pre-Hiroshima nuke propaganda, we find talk of areas being urned into a glass parking lot where no life would be able to grow for the next 500 years. This obviously did not happen! Here are a few photos comparing the aftermath of a firebombing of Tokyo and the aftermath of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima. Are they very different other than that of the larger Tokyo having more surviving buildings? Is it possible that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets for this deception instead of a more strategic target like Tokyo because they were mainly filled with cheap light paper-thin wooden structures, thereby making the devastation of the firestorm appear more complete?

user posted image
Tokyo, photo take March 10, 1945 after a firebombing

user posted image
Hiroshima, photo taken after nuke attack

Should any buildings, bridges and trees have been left standing after a nuclear devastation? Where is this glass parking lot?

user posted image
Hiroshima aftermath, ground view

user posted image
Hiroshima aftermath, poles and trees

What about the nuclear "shadows" allegedly burned in behind objects and victims? Do the following shadow effect photographs seem realistic?

user posted image
Hiroshima, shadows of roadside posts (missing horizontal shadows?)

user posted image
Hiroshima, wheel shadow (too perfect?)

It seems that the idea that nukes don't exist has recently caught on with more researchers. Here are links to a few YouTube videos offering additional research for those interested in taking a closer look at the topic:
jessewaugh's NUKE LIES
jessewaugh's NUKE LIES Evidence Clip 1
Atomic Bpmb Does Not Exist 1 by A.F.M. (Part 2) (Part 3)
The Nuclear Bomb Hoax - Biggest Secret

I look forward to all comments, thoughts, photo comparisons or any other contribution to what I consider to be another very important historical part of the mass manipulation that has taken hold of our society.

Cheers,
Piper

(*edit for photo sizes)

SmokingGunII - November 29, 2009 11:52 AM (GMT)
An interesting thread addition and a subject that I suspect few of us have researched.

I notice the 77 on the B-29. Where have I seen that number before?

antipodean - November 29, 2009 11:54 AM (GMT)
QUOTE
Note that I am referring to nuclear bombs here, as I do believe that nuclear reactors probably exist since they are based on a completely different technology, which is that of radioactive materials heating up water -> creating steam -> spinning turbines -> generating electricity.

- Have you ever wondered why no rogue group of terrorists or any nation other than the most powerful have been able to build their own atomic bombs if it was possible to build them with technology from 65 years ago? Are their scientists and researchers that dumb? Are they missing some magic ingredient that is only available to chartered members of the elite "nuclear club"? Perhaps that ingredient is the power of their media to back up their lies?



Intersting stuff. A country like Iran becomes demonised, because people are brainwashed into believing that a capability to produce nuclear energy = a capability to produce 'the nuclear bomb'.

Maybe there really is nothing to fear, except fear itself.

D.Duck - November 29, 2009 12:44 PM (GMT)
Piper,

QUOTE
There are so many lies that make up what we call history, a.k.a. the Scaliger-Petavius (mainstream) textbook version of history that is taught in our schools, that it is what stood in the #1 position on my list - yes, the biggest lie in history is history itself. That really deserves a thread of its own, perhaps some other time.


It sure deserves a thread of its own so I started one and thanks for pointing in this direction cos I think the time has come to start to look into the education system and the history books.

Education Sucks: http://z6.invisionfree.com/Reality_Shack/i...hp?showtopic=58

D.Duck

simonshack - November 29, 2009 05:58 PM (GMT)
(Admins message: Something inexplicable happened as we transferred some relevant posts from the moon hoax thread over to this one. We are sorry for this mishap - the 3000+ viewcount of this thread is in fact that of the old moon hoax thread).

Piper, thanks for developing this interesting topic which you have proposed.

I think the direction this discussion should take is to determine whether it is plausible that the very development/existence of nuclear bombs may be another piece of military/establishment propaganda. It certainly is a quite difficult concept to accept at this time and needs a lot more elements & evidence to be at all envisaged by the general public. IMHO, one thing is to question the Hiroshima/Nagasaki destruction - another is to question whether the more recent military nuke development programs are real or fake. To be sure - considering the bulk of false information we are showered with - no questions can any longer be dismissed offhand. However, we need to tread carefully on this particular matter - lest we be tagged as 'military-build-up deniers" :D ...

terence.drew - November 30, 2009 02:15 PM (GMT)
Check these fellows out B)

Czeck nuclear bomb hoax

"Prague – A Czech court Tuesday acquitted seven young guerilla artists of scaremongering charges for sneaking images of a fake atomic mushroom cloud onto live national television."

"After years of preparation, they managed to plug a camcorder with their atomic tape into one of the programme’s unmanned stationary cameras in the northern Krkonose Mountains in June 2007."

"The artists, who were accompanied to the district court in the northern town of Trutnov by a busload of collaborators, said earlier that the aim of their action, dubbed Media Reality, was not to frighten anyone, but to prompt people to question the validity of what they see in the media."

I think they deserve a mention at the annual Reality Shack gala dinner!



simonshack - December 1, 2009 09:45 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (terence.drew @ Nov 30 2009, 02:15 PM)
I think they deserve a mention at the annual Reality Shack gala dinner!

:lol:
Yes - those fellows will be invited for sure!

hoi.polloi - December 3, 2009 10:57 AM (GMT)
I heard that all the nuclear bomb footage passed through some editing studio embroiled in the "Laurel Canyon scene" ... is this true?

If so, it would be darn strange that Kubrick is implicated in both the Apollo moon hoax AND the scene in Doctor Strangelove at the end, when - (sorry for spoilers if you haven't seen the movie) - every bomb footage ever made seems to go off at once as a conclusion.

brianv - December 3, 2009 11:03 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Dec 3 2009, 11:57 AM)
I heard that all the nuclear bomb footage passed through some editing studio embroiled in the "Laurel Canyon scene" ... is this true?

If so, it would be darn strange that Kubrick is implicated in both the Apollo moon hoax AND the scene in Doctor Strangelove at the end, when - (sorry for spoilers if you haven't seen the movie) - every bomb footage ever made seems to go off at once as a conclusion.

Yes, apparently there was a clandestine film studio in Laurel Canyon. To be more precise it was on Lookout Mountain (Overlook?). I remember reading about a hotel that burned down in 1910 or something. The kids were playing with matches - so I corrected them too!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Canyon...les,_California

hoi.polloi - December 3, 2009 11:12 AM (GMT)
OH! You changed the wiki article, good man. Since we are censored on that place in every other regard, our only hope for people seeking truth is to give them clues where it is "allowed" by the wikinazis.

brianv - December 3, 2009 11:18 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Dec 3 2009, 12:12 PM)
OH! You changed the wiki article, good man. Since we are censored on that place in every other regard, our only hope for people seeking truth is to give them clues where it is "allowed" by the wikinazis.

Huh? Me no change wiki!

edit/ Oh! I think I understand. I was referring to O'Grady correcting the twins for playing with matches. :)

hoi.polloi - December 3, 2009 11:49 AM (GMT)
Interesting.

So we have discussed the ability for the perps to completely fake the footage and photos of nuclear bomb explosions, but now we must answer other questions.

Imagining we remove the shape of our mushroom cloud from the picture, remaining is:

1. Nuclear "fallout" and poisonous radiation
and
2. The spectral, highly-publicized difference between a nuclear facility and a nuclear bomb

If the hypothesis is that our science is wrong about nuclear bombs, what can we answer about the existence of these two phenomena? My guesses would be so:

1. Nuclear radiation is a series of unstable metals developed under specific laboratory conditions - and which sometimes necessitate NASA-type outer space travel, possibly to "collect" radiation. Any way it is developed, "nukes" are basically just normal explosives with radioactive poisonous metals as shrapnel contained within
and
2. The apparent difference between weaponized radiation and radiation used to heat water in nuclear energy facilities is just that: an apparent media difference which is a contradiction/paradox kept in the public eye in order for people to never grasp that there is no difference


But the joke's on me if my science is just so horrible that all I can come up with is the above.

Tufa - December 3, 2009 04:38 PM (GMT)
I vote for real nukes; they can be built and do work.
It should be easy ... to check?

I have noticed that there are some systematic errors in reporting science facts,
and I don't argue any on the videos.

... sorry, I have kind of a full schedule here, but I come back later to
this topic, and then I have a list we can go through.

Tufa Video

fred - December 3, 2009 10:15 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Tufa @ Dec 3 2009, 05:38 PM)
I vote for real nukes; they can be built and do work.

I vote for real nukes too.

There were all sorts of cover-ups of the lasting effects of atomic radiation and a lot of hushed up medical studies of the blast survivors and their children.

With any military technology you can probably find a lot of deliberate disinformation and propaganda, but I would say that the nukes themselves are real.

Big weapons budgets, big bombs.

From the 1940's to the 2000's you can see that the military emphasis has shifted from mass-murder to mass-brainwashing. I suppose they call that "progress".

brianv - December 3, 2009 10:47 PM (GMT)
I'm going to be non-committal on this one - but to be honest I have had thoughts along these lines previously. When I was a kid at school we were given booklets "What to do in the Event of Nuclear War" - which kinda smacks of what's going on still with "Al-Queda" and Anthrax and Swine-Flu etc.

If it's a hoax then all those Bikini Islanders and the like who were kicked off their islands into a life of degradation were double hoaxed. It could simply have been for tactical military purposes. It would be interesting to learn more now that the can has been opened.

What to do in the Event of Nuclear War? "Stick your head between legs and kiss your ass goodbye", was the catch-phrase de-jour!

idschmyd - December 4, 2009 12:33 AM (GMT)
Floating voter. I remember seeing images of the destruction as a kid and wondering how the spindly tree stalks and a few buildings had survived where everything else had been blown away. Too busy not having a life right now to give it the time it deserves, but I'm grateful the idea has been put forward.

Unclear Weapons

brianv - December 4, 2009 12:40 AM (GMT)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_state...nuclear_weapons

Fat-Man looks a little "LEM", if you ask me!!

Your thoughts on this one Simon and Hoi? Lookout Mountain Labs? A celluloid bubble? Why is it black all around? Was it fired at night?

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/photos/images/PA-98-0520.jpeg

Kudos to idschmyd Unclear Weapons :D

idschmyd - December 4, 2009 02:13 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (brianv @ Dec 4 2009, 01:40 AM)
Fat-Man looks a little "LEM", if you ask me!!

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/photos/images/PA-98-0520.jpeg


Weapon of mass hilarity. Like something out of Pink Panther... A Beum!!



terence.drew - December 4, 2009 03:46 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (idschmyd @ Dec 4 2009, 01:33 AM)
Floating voter. I remember seeing images of the destruction as a kid and wondering how the spindly tree stalks and a few buildings had survived where everything else had been blown away. Too busy not having a life right now to give it the time it deserves, but I'm grateful the idea has been put forward.

Unclear Weapons

B)
The cameras also! I have heard of underwater ones but not nuke proof.This is like lighting a cigarette under water. Most of the footage of that testing era looks faked.
A mixture of smoke rings, liquid gushings slowed down and simple shots of the sun on the horizon through an opened aperture layered on top of each other.


Check out 1:15 to 1:25 in this 'nuke video' - watch the clouds - nuke proof clouds very impressive.
NUKES 1:15 to 1:25 here is defo faked

And what about 'Big Ivan' , the 'king of bombs' - be afraid be very afraid

Check out the parachute on big IVAN

We are told in the middle of all the specs and tech stuff that Ivan " was dropped from an altitude of 34,500 feet AGL (10,500 meters), and it detonated a little over three minutes later at an altitude of 13,100 feet AGL (4,000 meters)"

Parachute a little on the small side (same size as for human) to retard something weighing 27 tons for 3 mins and only fall 20,000 feet???!!! Dont think so

windows were smashed 500 miles away but luckily the plane survived.

Oppenheimer (you were never going to be a dustbin man with a name like that!) and the early nuke mush 'Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.' sounds exactly liked the scripted 911 anchors doing the heavy gravitas stuff.

Faked images dont mean there is nothing behind it all but it does point towards your everyday bog standard fear trap, perhaps to bide time while the actual technology catches up.







simonshack - December 11, 2009 09:57 PM (GMT)
OMG ....


British Bomb test propaganda :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFRIiflSgU


US Bomb test propaganda :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA8z94MXo9M


Russian Bomb test propaganda :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmQIkDkZ7sk


No words, folks... :rolleyes:


Well...I'll say a word or two - or maybe just one general statement :
IT IS HIGH TIME TO STOP THIS WORLD'S DEMENTED WARMONGERING PROFITEERS BY DENOUNCING THEIR LONGSTANDING, INSANE FEAR PROPAGANDA - AND INTRODUCE PROPAGANDA-AWARENESS CLASSES INTO EVERY SCHOOL OF THE PLANET.

brianv - December 11, 2009 11:01 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (simonshack @ Dec 11 2009, 10:57 PM)
British Bomb test....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFRIiflSgU


US Bomb test...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA8z94MXo9M


No words, folks... :rolleyes:


Well...I'll say a word or two - or maybe just one general statement :
IT IS HIGH TIME TO STOP THIS WORLD'S DEMENTED WARMONGERING PROFITEERS BY DENOUNCING THEIR LONGSTANDING, INSANE FEAR PROPAGANDA - AND INTRODUCE PROPAGANDA-AWARENESS CLASSES INTO EVERY SCHOOL OF THE PLANET.

user posted image

We were talking about this on another thread. Nice find Si. Wacky footage!

McCob - December 19, 2009 09:26 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Piper @ Nov 29 2009, 07:51 AM)



- Do you understand the science behind a nuclear explosion? Do you understand the mechanism that triggers the explosion? Do you understand E=mc^2? What does it mean to square a speed? Do you believe in Einstein's relativity? Do you believe in the current model of the atom? Do you believe that only nuclear bombs can create mushroom clouds?

-

piper---Einstein had 2 theories of relativity: special and general. The special theory states that the speed of light doesn't change no matter your orientation. In other words 2 bodies traveling at different speeds will still measure the speed of light as being the same. In fact, 2 light beams traveling towards each other will regester the velocity of the opposite light beam as still being the speed of light often denoted by c (186,000 miles per second). Immutable speed of light came as a result of late 19th century interferometry experiments.

Anyway since the speed of light didn't change for either body it must be that the dimensions of space must change or be different for the 2 bodies. Hence one of the bodies will lose mass with respect to the other body because space is smaller (or larger depending on what body you are talking about)...The c squared comes about due to mathematical formula for the relative displacements of the 2 bodies.
( Isasc Newton said that a bodies energy due to it's motion compared to a mass at rest is 1/2 m(velocity squared))

When Einstein, or whoever, came up with this nobody believed there was such a thing as an atomic nucleii.

What makes Einsteins theory interesting: After the discovery of the nucleus much study was done on radioactive isotopes. For instance Madam Curie's experiments. It was shown by trial and error that as Isotopic nucleii broke down they gave off energy and lost mass. And this energy was shown to be equal the mass lost times the speed of light squared. An identical equation to what Einstein derived from a totally different direction. A coincidence of sorts? Perhaps.

I think the bomb works. But, I hope I am wrong.

McCob - December 19, 2009 09:37 PM (GMT)
When uranium 235 (or plutonium 240 something) is bombarded by Neutrons it will break apart into smaller atoms. These atoms will not weigh as much as the original U235 or Plutonium. The mass will convert to energy. The nuetrons have to be going within a certain range of speed when they hit the nuclear fuel. If there is enough nuclear explosive packed into a tight enough area (critical mass) there will be enough neutrons at the right speed, then it is a virtual certainty that massive amounts of energy will be liberated as the nuclear fuel turns into other elements and energy. All one needs to do is split the first atom with a neutron collision. Then as that atom splits it will liberate more neutrons to collide with other nucleii. A chain reaction as it is refered to.

This stuff began in the 20's with the invention of the cloud chamber and these particles and reactions can be observed 1st hand.

Tufa - December 20, 2009 10:34 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (McCob @ Dec 19 2009, 10:37 PM)
When uranium 235 (or plutonium 240 something) is bombarded by Neutrons it will break apart into smaller atoms

The odd-numbered atom weight is what you are looking for. Natural Uranium U238 or the Plutonium Pu240 ain't any good, U239 and Pu239 shall be used.

When the atom split, some 2-3 new neutrons are emitted as well, and much energy is released. The deficiency in mass is a peculiar thing not much relevant to the industrial application; when you have burned-out fuel cell packages from a nuclear reactor submerged 15m below the surface the mass deficiency 0.5% of the fuel calls; I guarantee the smallest of your concerns!

QUOTE (McCob)
The nuetrons have to be going within a certain range of speed when they hit the nuclear fuel.

Precisely. In fact, the new produced neutrons that have a high energy will go vary fast, and unfortunately the cross-section of your target is low for fast neutorons. In a reactor you usually put a lot of water around the fuel to slow the neutrons, and they can then find an acceptable cross section in Pu240.

So, dear friend, if you pour out the water from your reactor (!!!!!!!!!!) the reaction will actually stop rather quickly. There is a residue energy production, that unfortunately prevent this being used as a security measure.

This is why you need the (U239/Pu239) fuel for you bomb. The odd-numbered atoms have a small cross-section for fast neutrons, so neutrons from one split atom can go and split the atom next to it (if it hit the cross-section). This is the basis for the chain-reaction.

In industrial terms, the tricky part is producing a first neutron to start from. There are natural neutrons, but you don't gamble on having one when you need them, right? So you need some device to produce neutrons by technical means.
A typical solution would be an electrical energy source -> X-ray flash ->beam hit a target in the centre of your bomb -> neutrons produced, most likely in a two-step process.

The "Critical mass concept" is important, if you could imagine a bomb sitting on a rack to be loaded on a plane .... and it start raining .. and then the bomb starts heating up with some modest amount, like 1 degree each second --- I promise, it will spoil your coffee break! Especially if some deck-nerd try to extinguish the "fire" and pull out a hose!

Compressing the metal sphere by explosives. You often find pictures on this, the "fast" and "slow" explosives are often replaced, as well as the initiator at the wrong place. I'll thought this to be a "security" feature, before :huh:. It could, possibly, set back the so-called "Terrorists" several minutes, to figure this out, but I much doubt that. If I can upload some pictures, I'll show you.

The usual U238 metal is reported to have a small cross-section for fast neutrons. You cannot build a bomb using it, but if your nuclear device sits close to some tons of U238, you should get a bigger blast.

I seen some report, that physical consequences of Bombs is much exaggerated such as the "atomic Winter" scenario. Since the air density is a bit low, it is difficult to transfer the energy long distances. So a bigger bomb is not that much more effective.

If public "Atomic tests" was made to scare an enemy, there would be much incentive to "improve" on the test results. Most likely the "pictures" would be backed up with "adjusted" pressure sensors, that send "secret" signals protected by some moderate encryption that the enemy could work on, and also "spies" that leak some "reports" that tell the real "truth".

If the bomb is a complete LIE, it should be easy to check it by beeing careful with the basic facts.


McCob - December 20, 2009 04:16 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Tufa @ Dec 20 2009, 11:34 AM)
QUOTE (McCob @ Dec 19 2009, 10:37 PM)
When uranium 235 (or plutonium 240 something) is bombarded by Neutrons it will break apart into smaller atoms

The odd-numbered atom weight is what you are looking for. Natural Uranium U238 or the Plutonium Pu240 ain't any good, U239 and Pu239 shall be used.

When the atom split, some 2-3 new neutrons are emitted as well, and much energy is released. The deficiency in mass is a peculiar thing not much relevant to the industrial application; when you have burned-out fuel cell packages from a nuclear reactor submerged 15m below the surface the mass deficiency 0.5% of the fuel calls; I guarantee the smallest of your concerns!

QUOTE (McCob)
The nuetrons have to be going within a certain range of speed when they hit the nuclear fuel.

Precisely. In fact, the new produced neutrons that have a high energy will go vary fast, and unfortunately the cross-section of your target is low for fast neutorons. In a reactor you usually put a lot of water around the fuel to slow the neutrons, and they can then find an acceptable cross section in Pu240.

So, dear friend, if you pour out the water from your reactor (!!!!!!!!!!) the reaction will actually stop rather quickly. There is a residue energy production, that unfortunately prevent this being used as a security measure.

This is why you need the (U239/Pu239) fuel for you bomb. The odd-numbered atoms have a small cross-section for fast neutrons, so neutrons from one split atom can go and split the atom next to it (if it hit the cross-section). This is the basis for the chain-reaction.

In industrial terms, the tricky part is producing a first neutron to start from. There are natural neutrons, but you don't gamble on having one when you need them, right? So you need some device to produce neutrons by technical means.
A typical solution would be an electrical energy source -> X-ray flash ->beam hit a target in the centre of your bomb -> neutrons produced, most likely in a two-step process.

The "Critical mass concept" is important, if you could imagine a bomb sitting on a rack to be loaded on a plane .... and it start raining .. and then the bomb starts heating up with some modest amount, like 1 degree each second --- I promise, it will spoil your coffee break! Especially if some deck-nerd try to extinguish the "fire" and pull out a hose!

Compressing the metal sphere by explosives. You often find pictures on this, the "fast" and "slow" explosives are often replaced, as well as the initiator at the wrong place. I'll thought this to be a "security" feature, before :huh:. It could, possibly, set back the so-called "Terrorists" several minutes, to figure this out, but I much doubt that. If I can upload some pictures, I'll show you.

The usual U238 metal is reported to have a small cross-section for fast neutrons. You cannot build a bomb using it, but if your nuclear device sits close to some tons of U238, you should get a bigger blast.

I seen some report, that physical consequences of Bombs is much exaggerated such as the "atomic Winter" scenario. Since the air density is a bit low, it is difficult to transfer the energy long distances. So a bigger bomb is not that much more effective.

If public "Atomic tests" was made to scare an enemy, there would be much incentive to "improve" on the test results. Most likely the "pictures" would be backed up with "adjusted" pressure sensors, that send "secret" signals protected by some moderate encryption that the enemy could work on, and also "spies" that leak some "reports" that tell the real "truth".

If the bomb is a complete LIE, it should be easy to check it by beeing careful with the basic facts.

Tufa-- Obviously, you are up on degeneration of radioactive isotopes more than I. I was pretty much regurgitating info I got in a physics class I took over 30 yrs ago. I do believe the bomb works. I believe the theory can be shown to be repeatable in cloud chambers.

I find fusion much more hard to undertand. I mean first they have to explode a fission bomb and then turn hydrogen (deuterium) into helium. I have no idea how they could countrol such a thing. I would be glad to hear your ideas on the subject. How do they know all those little atoms are going to collide in all of that cacophony???

For interested onlookers: Hydrogen collisions making helium liberates much more energy than uranium or plutonium turning into iron and cobalt. Which is why the hydrogen bomb is so much more powerful.

terence.drew - December 21, 2009 05:37 AM (GMT)
McCob and Tufa ... your depth of knowledge about nuclear stuff is amazing .. did you come by this knowledge yourselves or did someone TELL you about all this??
I do not mean to be a smart ass or anything but surely the point of this thread is that the information regarding nuclear weapons/energy may be suspect, and may also be intended to induce a state of perpetual dread and a shitting of pants in the population?

Gravity. You would/may think that this would be a non issue in our now all encompassing and materialistic view of the world?
However gravity, according to the 'know-alls'(the Scientists), can only account for a tiny percentage (5-10%)of what is perceived in to be the active force of the COSMIC glue which is holding our COsmos together?
So what do they do?
they simply make up terms like 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' ? (BS BS BS BS?)
Pull the other one man.. A universe which is ELECTRICALLY charged, having the the properties of attraction and REPULSION, explains the the unexplainable phenomenon of the arms of spiral galaxies much better than GRAVITY.

Nuke stuff is the same. Certain materials are radioactive and it is clear that beams of energy can be directed...look to your old fashioned TV.

But look at nuke weapons and our wonderful(-ly expensive) CERN ( is this 'lord of the RINGS' also fake/ a money grab ?)Beams of particles are supposedly accelerated over 26000 meters to collide with other particles, and then, as it happens, huge machines detect hitherto fore unknowable god like elements(Do you not need a god like element particle detector to detect these God like elements????) But, is not the splitting of the atom,which is also very God-like and cosmic, similar in a fashion to these CERN experiments?? I mean the dimensions of an atom 'bomb are 2-4 meters to allow for acceleration while CERN's is 26000 meters ? ? and all of these beams and collisions are happening with perfect accuracy and first time-ed-ness while the 'bomb' is descending at a mad rate and being buffeted around by wind resistance on its descent? Jet engines were not jet in regular use, and amazingly, there was at this time a perfect micro mini universe system in operation??? - exactly copying the conditions in the sun .... here is a question ??did they get the idea for nuke bombs from the workings of TV sets and simply invent the rest with a bit of Flash Gordon and ming the merciless thrown in?

P.S Ireland is the latest country to join the nuke race .. our great leader cowman dropped his mushrooms in ALDI

McCob - December 21, 2009 04:25 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (terence.drew @ Dec 21 2009, 06:37 AM)
McCob and Tufa ... your depth of knowledge about nuclear stuff is amazing .. did you come by this knowledge yourselves or did someone TELL you about all this??
I do not mean to be a smart ass or anything but surely the point of this thread is that the information regarding nuclear weapons/energy may be suspect, and may also be intended to induce a state of perpetual dread and a shitting of pants in the population?

Gravity. You would/may think that this would be a non issue in our now all encompassing and materialistic view of the world?
However gravity, according to the 'know-alls'(the Scientists), can only account for a tiny percentage (5-10%)of what is perceived in to be the active force of the COSMIC glue which is holding our COsmos together?
So what do they do?
they simply make up terms like 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' ? (BS BS BS BS?)
Pull the other one man.. A universe which is ELECTRICALLY charged, having the the properties of attraction and REPULSION, explains the the unexplainable phenomenon of the arms of spiral galaxies much better than GRAVITY.

Nuke stuff is the same. Certain materials are radioactive and it is clear that beams of energy can be directed...look to your old fashioned TV.

But look at nuke weapons and our wonderful(-ly expensive) CERN ( is this 'lord of the RINGS' also fake/ a money grab ?)Beams of particles are supposedly accelerated over 26000 meters to collide with other particles, and then, as it happens, huge machines detect hitherto fore unknowable god like elements(Do you not need a god like element particle detector to detect these God like elements????) But, is not the splitting of the atom,which is also very God-like and cosmic, similar in a fashion to these CERN experiments?? I mean the dimensions of an atom 'bomb are 2-4 meters to allow for acceleration while CERN's is 26000 meters ? ? and all of these beams and collisions are happening with perfect accuracy and first time-ed-ness while the 'bomb' is descending at a mad rate and being buffeted around by wind resistance on its descent? Jet engines were not jet in regular use, and amazingly, there was at this time a perfect micro mini universe system in operation??? - exactly copying the conditions in the sun .... here is a question ??did they get the idea for nuke bombs from the workings of TV sets and simply invent the rest with a bit of Flash Gordon and ming the merciless thrown in?

P.S Ireland is the latest country to join the nuke race .. our great leader cowman dropped his mushrooms in ALDI

No offense taken. I am not an expert on anything. As I mentioned before I took an undergraduate course in physics (actually, I took 3 courses in physics and they were rigorous) whilst on my way to a degree in math. I only venture my opinion and I don't believe people should believe anything I say just because I say so.

Your ideas may be right and I can't really prove the points you put forward to be false.

For the record: I LOVE any good hearted truther! But, I don't expect everyone to agree with me which is a good thing as I am often wrong.

I can tell you Tufa is much farther ahead in this field than I am.

CERN uses electromagnetism to accelerate particles whereas a nuclear weapon uses explosives.

A lot of what you say I agree with.

hoi.polloi - December 24, 2009 10:30 AM (GMT)
I personally know a nuclear physicist who works at CERN now.

I am disturbed that when I ask them questions about this science, they tend to buckle under any sort of questioning - "I don't know, I really don't know ... it's possible ..?"

Is it clear what's going on at CERN?

"Well, you see what's going on on the computer so we know it's happening."

That seems rather dubious. So I would actually have to talk to the person who built CERN's computers in order to see whether my lovely white-coated fellows are getting the right information to interpret? And each of them is not personally trained in the full operations of the machine?

You would assume if you are trying to make a black hole, you would pretty much want everyone on board with how the darned thing is going to work, more or less. No? Well, why should they? Delegation and pyramid schemes work well enough. No need for brainiacs to understand what the heck they are doing while watching the pretty lights.

To me, CERN so far resembles more ISO (aka hypocritical swiss fascism) delegation pyramid schemes again. Very disconcerting. The quest for public info continues!

McCob - December 27, 2009 02:42 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (hoi.polloi @ Dec 24 2009, 11:30 AM)
I personally know a nuclear physicist who works at CERN now.

I am disturbed that when I ask them questions about this science, they tend to buckle under any sort of questioning - "I don't know, I really don't know ... it's possible ..?"

Is it clear what's going on at CERN?

"Well, you see what's going on on the computer so we know it's happening."

That seems rather dubious. So I would actually have to talk to the person who built CERN's computers in order to see whether my lovely white-coated fellows are getting the right information to interpret? And each of them is not personally trained in the full operations of the machine?

You would assume if you are trying to make a black hole, you would pretty much want everyone on board with how the darned thing is going to work, more or less. No? Well, why should they? Delegation and pyramid schemes work well enough. No need for brainiacs to understand what the heck they are doing while watching the pretty lights.

To me, CERN so far resembles more ISO (aka hypocritical swiss fascism) delegation pyramid schemes again. Very disconcerting. The quest for public info continues!

I have to admit I am starting to wonder. All that money that went into research and defense.

Things are going to turn upside down very quickly I think.

wraith36 - January 6, 2010 12:37 PM (GMT)
Double A-bomb survivor dies at 93.


Tsutomu Yamaguchi, the only person officially recognised as a survivor of both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings at the end of the Second World War, has died aged 93.

Mr Yamaguchi died of stomach cancer on Monday.
Mr Yamaguchi was in Hiroshima on a business trip for his shipbuilding company on August 6, 1945 when a US B-29 dropped an atomic bomb on the city. He suffered serious burns to his upper body and spent the night in the city.

He then returned to his home town of Nagasaki, about 190 miles south west, which suffered a second US atomic bomb attack three days later.

On August 15 1945, Japan surrendered, ending the war.

Mr Yamaguchi was the only person to be certified by the Japanese government as having been in both cities when they were attacked, although other dual survivors have also been identified.

"My double radiation exposure is now an official government record. It can tell the younger generation the horrifying history of the atomic bombings even after I die," Mr Yamaguchi was quoted as saying in the Mainichi newspaper last year.

In his later years, he gave talks about his experiences as an atomic bomb survivor and often expressed his hope that such weapons would be abolished.
He spoke at the United Nations in 2006, wrote books and songs about his experiences, and appeared in a documentary about survivors of both attacks.

Last month he was reportedly visited in hospital by film director James Cameron, who is considering making a movie about the bombings.

Link : http://news.uk.msn.com/world/articles.aspx...entid=151632198

Wonder how all the radiation from two bombs didnt kill him first.?
So it looks like carpet bombing really did take place.

hoi.polloi - January 17, 2010 04:33 PM (GMT)
I have just been watching more nuke tests from across the world.

I am amazed that the "thing" seen in Pakistan recently was declared a successful nuclear test. It's almost as bad as 9/11 footage (and that's bad.) In other words, it appears that even in 1998 the technology to make these propaganda videos is cheap - affordable. Probably far more affordable than a single crate of TNT apparently used to blow up this mountain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QD6hEqoTc40&feature=related


The Chinese thermonuclear bomb is hilarious - it really looks like some sort of kung-fu movie special effect. To me there is no doubt that fakery is involved with all the tests I have seen so far.

THERMONUKE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1FsiYhpZqg&feature=related

So are they faked because the bomb is fake - or is there some special hierarchy of information - some giddy pleasure in viewing a true nuke explosion reserved for those with the Ralph E Eberhart "pocket rocket" badge?

Or is there so much radiation and fallout it is merely impossible to actually film such explosions?

I talked to a man from the European Space Agency who works on project Cassini recently who assured me that several feet of lead is adequate to protect astronauts in outer space. He was not, however, able to explain how space walks were possible under such circumstances. Astronauts don't go out of the shuttle in Iron Man costumes (or Lead Man, as it were) after all. Considering the article above from wraith36, we might consider either:

1. radiation is less deadly and less effective in disrupting electromagnetic forces than we think.

~or~

2. the places where deadly X-ray and Gamma radiation are most prevalent are not ventured in as often as the bomb tests would have us believe.


The question is: if we could visit the Nagasaki or Hiroshima WW2 bomb museum, what kinds of clues could we look for in the photos that the whole thing was staged - or that different bombs were being used?

Because although there are conflicting reports about the "first detonation" of such a weapon, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are literally supposed to be THE FIRST. So is that museum like some sort of historical equivalent to the 9/11 propaganda museum starring Billy Crystal and Robert DeNiro - coming summer 2012 to a propaganda-flooded city near you?

Uranus - January 17, 2010 06:35 PM (GMT)
Do you think it makes a big difference to real victims
- when they are blown away into little pieces -
if this was done by TNT, NukeBomb or Marshmellows ?

Do you think they could refuse dying, because the bomb
which just exploded does not exist in the reality of an internet forum ?

Faking the BOMB does not make sense to me,
faking some videos to make a nice show makes perfect sense.

------------------------

The first A-bombs had around 10 thousand tons of TNT equivalent,
which you could still put into a very large number of planes
you would need in WWII around 2 thousand planes to do that.

The H-Bomb has several Mega (=million) tons TNT equivalent,
you would need tenthousands of planes to transport the TNT
and a good question would be: why waste all the good TNT

there are many more questions, which to me make it more likely
that A- and H-Bomb exist and I see no reason to believe it does not exist

So, why bother with this question ?

ozzybinoswald - January 17, 2010 06:51 PM (GMT)
QUOTE (Uranus @ Jan 17 2010, 07:35 PM)
The first A-bombs had around 10 thousand tons of TNT equivalent,
which you could still put into a very large number of planes
you would need in WWII around 2 thousand planes to do that.

The H-Bomb has several Mega (=million) tons TNT equivalent,
you would need tenthousands of planes to transport the TNT
and a good question would be: why waste all the good TNT

there are many more questions, which to me make it more likely
that A- and H-Bomb exist and I see no reason to believe it does not exist

So, why bother with this question ?

Haven't you ever heard the theory that the bombs were detonated on the ground?

hoi.polloi - January 17, 2010 08:35 PM (GMT)
QUOTE
Do you think it makes a big difference to real victims
- when they are blown away into little pieces -
if this was done by TNT, NukeBomb or Marshmellows ?


Yes, it probably makes a difference if they live. That's what we're discussing.

Someone who survives or witnesses such an attack - as seen in countless "nuke test" videos - would conclude from them that the weapon being used upon them has no defense against it, that every country must race to have one to prevent M.A.D. ("Mutually Assured Destruction") and that without such a weapon - or without the alleged scientists/propagandists necessary to make the world know that they have it - their citizens should feel powerless and "undeveloped".

The nuke race - if it is propaganda rather than actuality - is a perfect excuse for every country on the planet to race to the nuke experts and beg for initiation. Perhaps such "experts" are trained in "propaganda system installation" rather than uranium physics.

If the nuke doesn't exist, perhaps killing a thousand or a million people with a button is not as easy as the fearmongers behind 9/11 would have us believe. And if everyone knew it, perhaps it wouldn't have been so easy for a single story - a single big lie like 9/11 or 7/7 or 11-M or whatever BS comes out next - to be distributed through the "nuke warning" channels in every country.

Uranus - January 17, 2010 09:20 PM (GMT)
ozzy and hoi:

I can neither prove they exist nor they do not exist.
During the 80s I served as officer in the german army
within the electronic warfare and later within the signals division.
Also I had to explain to school-kids about the "logic" of our Defense System.
Over a few decades the NATO strategy changed from "massive retaliation"
to "flexible response" (which it was still, when I was there), bcs nobody
believed that a country would risk the own extinct after a first strike.
(with submarines both US an UdSSR had the capability of a massive second strike)

Nowadays the word "ATOM" is very much used to threaten people,
no matter if it is green policy about nuclear energy or geopolitics
to intimidate us of countries like IRAN.
In the case of IRAN I would with the benefit of the doubt let them develop their
nuclear program to build nuclear energy plants, which are the pre-requisits of
low cost energy for several industry-branches (like Aluminum).
The US corporations of course would rather want the world to stay non-developed
and buy everything everyday from Big Brother.
Therefore they use the word "Atom" to sync our thoughts with the "Bomb".

Ok, sorry for the long text to say I DO NOT KNOW IF THE BOMB EXIST OR NOT.


fbenario - January 23, 2010 06:43 PM (GMT)
The 'real horror', of course, was the government's knowledge that they got away with faking it, and we have been reaping the consequences ever since.

QUOTE
After Atom Bombs’ Shock, the Real Horrors Began Unfolding

The term “ground zero” originated with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those who survived up-close encounters with these new American bombs did so thanks to sheer, blind good fortune. They were in exactly the right place at the right time, sheltered from the gamma and infrared death rays, and then from the flattening blast, in spots that acted as natural shock cocoons.
...
This doctor confessed: “Those of us who stayed where we were, those of us who took refuge in the hills behind the hospital when the fires began to spread and close in, happened to escape alive. In short, those who survived the bomb were, if not merely lucky, in a greater or lesser degree selfish, self-centered — guided by instinct and not by civilization. And we know it, we who have survived.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/20/books/20....html?th&emc=th


Of course these guys survived - they were beyond where the fire-bombing spread.

groovygoolie - January 26, 2010 08:07 PM (GMT)
I wrote a person that sudies the nuke thing and he replied to me concerning a book Titled The Jesus Factor, and that is the premise of the book.




Hosted for free by zIFBoards