Remove this ad

I'd like to hear the evidence on why people think nuclear weapons are fake (which I do not)

Rss     Subscribe     Share     Tweet    


0 Points

avatar

DReam

Posts: 15 Member Since:07/01/16

#41 [url]

Jul 5 16 3:52 PM

I never claimed to be sure or to have comprehensive knowledge...just that I thought it was interesting, that the evidence I had read [e.g.Mathis link] had persuasiveness that combined with my "Chomskyian" reasoning lead me to think that nukes were fake. I am not that bothered despite the issue being crucial, hence I am not spoonfeeding you your bullet points. If you are genuine you would read the links instead expecting me to reproduce the claims of evidence for you... claiming that makes me like a Flat Earther is just a dick move.
The nuclear winter M.A.D. theory stinks of globalist terrorist psy op fakery. If nukes were not real you can be sure They would claim they were. I see some pics of Japanese with apparent radiation burns and hairloss... but you know they could have been produced by other means with ease. So I am sceptical.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#42 [url]

Jul 5 16 4:12 PM

I find it interesting that shills Eric Dubay and Jungle Surfer both advocate the nuclear hoax and the dinosaur hoax, both of which I think are true, although, I am not certain of the full extent of the dino-hoax. These are two of the most unattractive shills out there and the mere mention of their names sends cringy chills up the spine of any accurate thinker. I don't think it's for no reason they were both given the task of these two disclosures. Along with space fakery and the holohoax (another one I am not certain of its full extent) make up the the four biggest trance breakers to the modern worldview.

This is how cointel operates, they don't just hide their juicy secrets. They release them in detail and then strongly associate belief in them with something as ridiculous as the flat earth. This is the kind of thing we should be spending our energy figuring out rather than wasting our time trying to convert flat earthers. Know thy enemy.

P.S. For what it's worth I once had a facebook chat with Eric Dubay before flat earth blew up. He seemed to genuinely believe it, and did not seem nearly as much of a shill as someone like Lift the Veil or Changing Reason. This has always caused me to question exactly how the cointel program is organized. I have no doubts he is a part of it, but I suspect this is more than an acting gig for him. I suspect MK-Ultra.

Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 5 16 4:17 PM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

ohm

Posts: 18 Member Since:06/28/16

#43 [url]

Jul 5 16 7:01 PM

psmith85 wrote:
Stop lying. The otherworldly comment and explanation of it you claim was edited is still there and was never removed. The edits were for minor grammar and syntax tweaks. The original Tsar Bomba video setting also looks otherworldly. It's an uninhabited area of an island in the Arctic Ocean off the north coast of Siberia. You have exposed yourself as a paid shill. Please find another forum to harass. Any further posts you make will have zero credibility.


I had hoped this forum wouldn't allow trolls to stink up the place but, once again, I am disappointed. Oh, well -- serves me right for thinking there are any real forums on the web.

Buh bye, TPS.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#44 [url]

Jul 5 16 7:18 PM

Don't leave just because he's got a hang up about the nuclear hoax. Everybody else on the forum is either open to the idea or strongly advocating it.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#45 [url]

Jul 7 16 2:24 AM

Yes please do leave ohm, it's clear you're not here for good reasons.

I looked over the Mathis paper. There is admittedly some evidence of a deception with nukes, above all the fact that the plans for Little Boy were not classified, but actually destroyed, not for national security purposes but for being 'no longer required,' and that the Little Boy's bomb type had never once been tested before use. This is the kind of stuff I was expecting to see posted. People who make claims about these kinds of things should be familiar with the evidence if they expect to convince others. That alone doesn't meet the bar, but it definitely puts up a red flag to warrant further investigation. Ohm is making empty claims and thus discrediting any legitimate evidence that may exist, while ostensibly propounding nuke hoax theory.

What is your evidence of a dinosaur hoax? I really think you're pushing the envelope there, since there have been thousands of finds in a variety of countries (not just those at the center of the power structure), many in private digs unaffiliated with governments, and digs sponsored by government are not classified.

Dubay is clearly a shill, likely on a salaried, full-time basis. Flat earth didn't blow up, it was resurrected almost exclusively by disinfo agents and promoted by social media platforms and Youtube.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 7 16 2:42 AM. Edited 9 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#47 [url]

Jul 13 16 12:18 PM

Degraded? I'm somehow the only one in this thread who has actually put out any evidence whatsoever, 50-odd responses later. It's not quite enough, but it's definitely fishy. If the only evidence of Apollo hoax was the destroyed rocket plans, not many people would be convinced, but there are dozens and dozens of other strong pieces of evidence. All you have done in response to this topic is point to non-evidence concerning the tracer rockets. The rest is speculation that may or may not have a basis in evidence.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#48 [url]

Jul 13 16 12:38 PM

Well if I and others haven't been presenting evidence and arguments is because you seem like you are unwilling to explore or consider the complexity and subltly of this topic. I'd like to bring up points about the logistics about how nuclear weapons are suppose to work and how they would require impossibly precise engineering even beyond the absurd preciseness that would be required of NASA and SpaceX. However, I feel based on your attitude that such an argument would be immediately dismiessed on the basis that it's "not evidence" so I haven't even bothered. 

The nuclear testing footage is as cheezy and fake looking at the ghostplane video of United 175 or the Moon Landing footage, and should alone raise considerable suspicion. The fact that you consider the footage to look completely real makes me think you aren't even willing or able to shift worldviews and so it would be a waste of time to present anything further.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

psmith85

Posts: 310 Member Since:11/22/15

#49 [url]

Jul 13 16 2:14 PM

Yes, the old 'If you kids didn't have a fight I was going to take you out for ice cream' argument. I will certainly read and consider your points, but I would think if you were interested in proving this point, you would offer it for other readers anyway. Of the (original) videos posted, there isn't any apparent fakery, or at least none you can articulate since the tracer rockets show nothing. With 9/11, there are dozens of anomalies that can be pointed to and explained, and even things like the case where two videos use the same footage. You haven't done that here.

Last Edited By: psmith85 Jul 13 16 2:23 PM. Edited 3 times.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#50 [url]

Jul 13 16 3:03 PM

I didn't know that argument had a name. Okay well let's get some ice cream then and take a look at some of the claims of how nuclear weapons work.

First off, when you start looking into technical explainations about nuclear weapons you're going to find that there are no publicly available equations or in-depth scientific descriptions about how they work. This is even true in nuclear physics textbooks. Now the main excuse for the absence of this information is that it would be a threat to national security for it to be publicly available, well get used to hearing that, because you're going to come up against that one a lot in this line of inquiry.

Here is literally all that is said about fission based explosives in Introduction to Nuclear Physics by Kenneth S. Krane:

image
image
imageimage
image
image
image
image


I encourage you to read all of this, however you aren't going to find any more information here than you could expect to find in National Geographic.

There's one thing in particular which I find amazing about these claims which is that for the putonium based implosion bomb a series of convention explosives must be explode in perfect sync so that the plutonium core has an equal amount of force acting on it from all sides. If the force from one side were to be even a bit stronger than the other or go off a split second faster than the other the mechanims of the bomb wouldn't work. Now, can anyone point to any type of conventional explosive which can be made to react with such precision? The fundamentals principles of chemistry regarding the necessary statistical variance in rates of oxidation would seem to suggest such precision isn't even possible, but apparently this was the more reliable of the two fission mechanisms.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

gianthoax

Posts: 136 Member Since:06/02/16

#51 [url]

Jul 31 16 9:43 AM

If you want some good info on the dino hoax there is a decent thread on cluesforum about it.

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=1594&sid=ad4163f90e9acd4489ec0a85d8c3ff2b

For the record I am not endosring the Clues Forum as a good source for information. I know it is tainted, but this thread mostly features organic users pointing out the true extent of absurdity that exists in modern day palentology and the public's perception of dinosaurs.


 

Last Edited By: gianthoax Jul 31 16 9:49 AM. Edited 1 time.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Northbert

Posts: 46 Member Since:09/15/16

#52 [url]

Oct 27 16 7:55 AM

psmith85 wrote:
I don't at all dismiss the idea of Russia being part of the NWO,...

Of course Russia is in on it. Thats the most heard argument when discussing the fake moon landings. "Oh, the moon landings must be genuine, because if they weren't, the Russians, our biggest enemies at that time, would surely have said something if they traced the radio signals not back to the moon, etc."

The communist revolution was financed by Wall Street and prepared for in (mainly) Switzerland. It was a conspiracy against the Tsar of Russia because he torpedoed a first push by the Illuminati for a World Government at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 after the Napoleonic Wars.

And of course Putin is on it, too. He is "Ex"-KGB and now president of Russia, and there is also something called the long-term strategic plan of the Soviet Union, as revealed by the KGB-defector Anatoliy Golitsyn.


Regarding the smoke of the tracer rockets appearing out of nowhere: After the moment when the white flash appears from the 'nuclear' explosion they are suddenly there. Bevor the white flash they weren't there. In my opinion it would take more than 1-2 seconds for the tracer rockets to start from the ground and disappear out of the frame of the camera. In this video the tracers are fired before the 'nuclear' explosion and not at the same time:

Here the tracer rockets also seem unreal:
?t=442

Maybe its the same footage as this:


Anyway, some of the footage where you can see how the tracers react to the blast, like this one: just seem unreal. To have a fragile column of smoke next to a supposedly gigantic nuclear explosion and all you can see is how the smoke columns are moved very gently a little bit away just seems not plausible to me.

Its like watching all the various moon-landing footage and deciding which one is real.

With the moonlanding footage you wonder: Who put that camera there on the outside of the Lander to record the first steps on the moon; or who is operating the pan & tilt on the camera at the last start from the moon?

At Atomic bombs you are left wondering: Of what material is the camera made that took the footage of all the melting cars and buildings in the atomic blast?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Sleeping Apples

Posts: 38 Member Since:09/10/16

#53 [url]

Oct 29 16 2:29 AM

I didn't read all the topic but this videos looks fake to me. How is it possible that the camera survive a nuclear blast where everything around get destroyed? In this videos the ppl near the blast seems to have no reaction from the windforce. The explosion seems walt disney made.

If you believe this films you can believe the moonlanding also. Nuclear weapons are real in theory but the films are fake, this is my thought.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help