The Truth about "Nuclear Weapons"

[WanderingLands]

Found some good info dispelling the myth of nuclear weapons.

http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.n ... com/forum/

A documentary that also ponders on the question.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST The New Documentary By Edmund Matthews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7Ytg9ckC0

[vegetariantaxidermy]

More of your conspiracy-tard garbage.

[NielsBohr]

Found some good info dispelling the myth of nuclear weapons.

http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.n ... com/forum/

A documentary that also ponders on the question.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS DON'T EXIST The New Documentary By Edmund Matthews:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jo7Ytg9ckC0

Hi WanderingLands,

I am happy to read you, but please provide some crunchy elements of your documentary. I saw it, the first 8 minutes don't tell anything about the "impossibility of nuclear weapons". Of couse before the Manhattan Project, there was only "maybe" and "less certain", as for any project; that doesn't tell anything, and is even less a proof of impossibility. This is total partiality to underline such purposes.

But these 8 minutes only confirm what we most believe about possibilities of nuclear. The man only titled this "don't exist" to have a publicity. I suspect you to have not seen the documentary.

This is Einstein - without any participation in the project itself - who guessed first the potential of nuclear, in a letter to the US President.

I guess the possibility of explosion of civil-fission installation is a lie, too, as Tchernobyl...

-Nowadays, US have some chemical weapons of 9 Tons, having the destruction ability "of a small nuclear weapon";
but the ability to destroy a whole town as Hiroshima can only be the fact of a nuclear weapon - on these times there were not 100 kilotons of TNT who destroyed Hiroshima by plane.

-The ill persons who were burned at 12 km of distance could not be the fact of TNT, and the diverse cancers developed could not more.

-And the biological effect unity, "Sievert", is also an invention I presume ?

N.B.:
Don't believe all we can find on the net are "infos".

[NielsBohr]

Okay, I make a second point at the minute 55' of the documentary.

WanderingLands, I don't want to make useless critics, but at this time, it appears even ridiculous, and I'll explain you why.*

But before, the large amount of TNT used before atomic tests, was to evaluate the power - approximatively, but more accurately than calculs.

The "Jumbo" was not exploded because of the large amounts of steel being irradiated would cause large amounts of radioactive fallouts.

The most pertinent argument against nuclear, are the trace doses of efficient isotope isolated, admitted by physicists or chemists.

*But if you compare the "mushroom" of the chemical weapon of 9 tons, with a nuclear one, there is no common measure. Nuclear mushrooms are very straight although the chemical ones have horizontal vast proportion.

The amount of TNT (about kilotons) is more pertinent at this point, but the light is orange, as carbon combustion, and not intensive enough to be yellow.

And these are not only questions of total energy, but of power.

The chemical mushrooms burn badly in themselves, although nuclear ones continue in shining intensively.

And the minute 55' of the documentary - which is mounted of all pieces - begin to be downright ridiculous, because they have cut the the "russian" nuclear explosion. I remember this explosion was of nuclear fusion: if you see, it doesn't begin as a mushroom, but is totally hemispherical for seconds (with the slower motion).

It is due - not to the energy - but to the power itself. This is why physicists compared energies, and not powers, because there is not common measure about powers.

In the previous motion, this obviously is due to several Machs in sound wall - we never see this with your chemical weapons.

And I don't write about seas explosions. (I think they brought TNT in wood boxes under the sea level - hopefully waterproof).

[NielsBohr]

WanderingLand,

I explain you briefly my previous post:

1. chemical weapons don't show an intensive light in the documentary, for the simple reasoning they cannot: The kinetics of molecules in gaz phase (even combustion plasma) cannot overtake the sound speed. This is why, you see at most a very brief sound wall on some war videos (as in Vietnam), due to the condensation of humidity under "high" pressure.
   This told to you, you have an excellent illustration on 1H10min in your documentary, of what chemistry is proper unable to do. Because the celerity of free neutrons, is "near" the celerity of the light - so 1'000 speeder than free molecules in gas phase. This why I deduce that the original impulsion of nuclear makes several Machs, what chemistry cannot.
2. • The light of TNT (containing carbon) is typical of carbon combustion, the light of nuclear has an intensity, which - due to the black body radiation theory I think - is nearer from white and yellow.
   • The combustion of a chemical explosion cannot be clean. Because it is fed with oxygen from atmosphere. When the reactives are sucked up in the mushroom, they are rounded by smoke - and there - relatively deprived of oxygen. This is why the explosion is not clean in a chemical mushroom, what contribute to the lesser intensity of light. In contrary, nuclear - of course - do not need oxygen. Their mushroom is clean lightened a long while.

[WanderingLands]

I am happy to read you, but please provide some crunchy elements of your documentary. I saw it, the first 8 minutes don't tell anything about the "impossibility of nuclear weapons". Of couse before the Manhattan Project, there was only "maybe" and "less certain", as for any project; that doesn't tell anything, and is even less a proof of impossibility. This is total partiality to underline such purposes.

If that's not proof of an impossibility of nuclear weapons, then why was Einstein saying that Germany had the power to, and were in the process of making nuclear bombs?

But these 8 minutes only confirm what we most believe about possibilities of nuclear. The man only titled this "don't exist" to have a publicity. I suspect you to have not seen the documentary.

It may sound like a bold title, but I do not think that the maker of the documentary would simply make this for publicity purposes. The real thing to look at more so is the information itself, and how the person presents the information. If it was for publicity, then it still would not take away from questioning the view of nuclear weapons.

This is Einstein - without any participation in the project itself - who guessed first the potential of nuclear, in a letter to the US President.

Einstein is nothing really special, as absolutely none of his theories or equations were really his (including the E = MC2 equation that's wrongly associated with Einstein himself in the Manhattan Project). He was merely a puppet in promoting the modern contradictory and nihilistic science that's promoted today, and also to preach the idea of world government.

I guess the possibility of explosion of civil-fission installation is a lie, too, as Tchernobyl...

The story about Chernobyl and the supposed 'radiation' is actually exaggerated in promoting the nuclear weapons scare propaganda. This has been reported by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, I believe back in 2000, and has been confirmed over the years in disproving the propaganda. Here are some resources citing this:

* The Truth About Chernobyl Is Told: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... nobyl.html
* Observations on Chernobyl After 25 Years of Radiophobia: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/A ... rnobyl.pdf
* The Real Chernobyl Folly: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/2 ... _Folly.pdf

-Nowadays, US have some chemical weapons of 9 Tons, having the destruction ability "of a small nuclear weapon";
but the ability to destroy a whole town as Hiroshima can only be the fact of a nuclear weapon - on these times there were not 100 kilotons of TNT who destroyed Hiroshima by plane.

The story of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is pretty much exaggerated in peddling the nuclear weapons claim. As the documentary 'Nuclear Weapons Don't Exist' documentary continues, the footage of the aftermath is quite similar to thttp://forum.philosophynow.org/search.php?search_id=unreadpostshat of the bombings in Germany during WWII. There are some buildings still standing and even many people still alive in some of the areas. This seems to be quite contradictory to the claim that these nuke bombs bring an even worse calamity on people.

-The ill persons who were burned at 12 km of distance could not be the fact of TNT, and the diverse cancers developed could not more.

That cancer has been supposedly still been developing in the aftermath is also a lie, too. Back in 1990, there was a study done on the survivors of Hiroshima that showed that there was cancer or any kind of genetic damage. It was reported in the New York Times that same year.

Hiroshima Study Finds No Genetic Damage: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/01/us/hi ... amage.html

-And the biological effect unity, "Sievert", is also an invention I presume ?

Haven't so far found any information disproving it, but I will nonetheless search more.

[NielsBohr]

Thank you WanderingLand,

I accept your answers. My post after 8 minutes regarding the videos was not developed enough.

My main argument is this:

WanderingLand,

I explain you briefly my previous post:

1. chemical weapons don't show an intensive light in the documentary, for the simple reasoning they cannot: The kinetics of molecules in gaz phase (even combustion plasma) cannot overtake the sound speed. This is why, you see at most a very brief sound wall on some war videos (as in Vietnam), due to the condensation of humidity under "high" pressure.
   This told to you, you have an excellent illustration on 1H10min in your documentary, of what chemistry is proper unable to do. Because the celerity of free neutrons, is "near" the celerity of the light - so 1'000 speeder than free molecules in gas phase. This why I deduce that the original impulsion of nuclear makes several Machs, what chemistry cannot.
2. • The light of TNT (containing carbon) is typical of carbon combustion, the light of nuclear has an intensity, which - due to the black body radiation theory I think - is nearer from white and yellow.
   • The combustion of a chemical explosion cannot be clean. Because it is fed with oxygen from atmosphere. When the reactives are sucked up in the mushroom, they are rounded by smoke - and there - relatively deprived of oxygen. This is why the explosion is not clean in a chemical mushroom, what contribute to the lesser intensity of light. In contrary, nuclear - of course - do not need oxygen. Their mushroom is clean lightened a long while.

[WanderingLands]

Thank you WanderingLand,

I accept your answers. My post after 8 minutes regarding the videos was not developed enough.

My main argument is this:

WanderingLand,

I explain you briefly my previous post:

1. chemical weapons don't show an intensive light in the documentary, for the simple reasoning they cannot: The kinetics of molecules in gaz phase (even combustion plasma) cannot overtake the sound speed. This is why, you see at most a very brief sound wall on some war videos (as in Vietnam), due to the condensation of humidity under "high" pressure.
   This told to you, you have an excellent illustration on 1H10min in your documentary, of what chemistry is proper unable to do. Because the celerity of free neutrons, is "near" the celerity of the light - so 1'000 speeder than free molecules in gas phase. This why I deduce that the original impulsion of nuclear makes several Machs, what chemistry cannot.
2. • The light of TNT (containing carbon) is typical of carbon combustion, the light of nuclear has an intensity, which - due to the black body radiation theory I think - is nearer from white and yellow.
   • The combustion of a chemical explosion cannot be clean. Because it is fed with oxygen from atmosphere. When the reactives are sucked up in the mushroom, they are rounded by smoke - and there - relatively deprived of oxygen. This is why the explosion is not clean in a chemical mushroom, what contribute to the lesser intensity of light. In contrary, nuclear - of course - do not need oxygen. Their mushroom is clean lightened a long while.

I have seen that post, and I will look at your points and respond later on. It may take a while.

[NielsBohr]

Okay, no problem.

[WanderingLands]

I only went to your second point as it seemed easier to address. I'll be addressing your first point later on.

[*]The light of TNT (containing carbon) is typical of carbon combustion, the light of nuclear has an intensity, which - due to the black body radiation theory I think - is nearer from white and yellow.
[*]The combustion of a chemical explosion cannot be clean. Because it is fed with oxygen from atmosphere. When the reactives are sucked up in the mushroom, they are rounded by smoke - and there - relatively deprived of oxygen. This is why the explosion is not clean in a chemical mushroom, what contribute to the lesser intensity of light. In contrary, nuclear - of course - do not need oxygen. Their mushroom is clean lightened a long while.[/list][/list]

A lot of these explosions show what seems to be yellow combustion flames, which are mild compared to the higher temperature of nuclear explosives. There's actually a comparison between nuclear explosives and napalm that you can view below.

http://www.big-lies.org/NUKE-LIES/www.n ... blems.html

Also, the footages of these nuclear explosions have been pointed out to have many anomalies. The video below, 'First nuke skeptic video', points out the anomalies. One, most of the footage of explosives seem to be exaggerated with special effects (such as possibly distorting the sun's image to make it look like a nuke). Two, some of the stuff used testing (such as satellites and trees), do not explode completely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aywuM-UYySM

[NielsBohr]

WanderingLands,

The dialogue seems impossible, although you have much courtesy.

-You should take your distance from these ill people.

-The first link don't tell anything:
The problem is, yellow indicates a relatively low temperature combustion of a hydrocarbon, while nuclear blasts are claimed to reach temperatures of 6000 C.
I conter this in saying that the only "color" more intense than yellow is... white. So yellow indicates a high temperature, as for metal, where it is the color following white...

What is causing the smoke in the Grable test picture above?

The smoke of nuclear weapons are as for chemical one, when they reach a temperature a little under thousands kelvins where the chemistry (molecules) re-become possible. This smoke is the future fallout, not less than that - the products of the reactives, knowing: some metals resulting of Ur-235 fission.

Your second link doesn't tell anything more:

Trees have not the same resistance one as each other - that seems obvious. And I don't understand about the blast critic. You have a back motion, due to the suck up of gas substances in the mushroom.

[NielsBohr]

Hi Bravo (the name of a test equivalent to about 15 megatons of TNT... in energy),

Yes, I also heard at these time - from my sister - that the total ammunition of all nations could "destroy the planet".

But I am not so sure as you. This is not the explosions themselves that could realize a brutal end, as we could fear in an interval of day...

but the fallouts. Nothing more. This is the principal reason of signing the treaty of moratorium on nuclear.

The fear itself was an excellent way of pacification... What the nuclear detractors do not seem to realize.

So the end of military nuclear is not only a good new about this point. But the real point was indeed the fallouts.

One of the most fallouts, Strontium-90 has a similar chemistry to calcium - what would be mean not only a radiation, but a life-time radiation in the bodies - a royal way to cancers. (And this point considers only Strontium-90.)

There is also Cesium-137, having a similar chemistry to Sodium and Potassium, so essential to cells activity and osmose, Cesium-137 is about to dissipate in all the body, irradiating it from almost all parts...

And Iodine-131, whose half-period is of 8 days. Due to this brief half-period, Iodine-131 has an intensive activity against thyroid.
----
N.B.:
Excuse me, I inverted for hours Sr-90 and Cs-137 - I was writing by memory.

[NielsBohr]

(I edited my previous post)

WanderingLand,

Some contradictors invoke some radioactive junks in chemical explosives, to justify the radioactivity...

These "ill people", as I say, only move the problem to another place:
An intensive radioactivity imply a more or less short half-period. This mean that the radioactive isotopes should have been produced with a mean or another...
At least separate the good isotopes - as for Ur-235 ! - or by producing these radioactive isotopes after a Ur-235 explosion, what definitively seem the best way, because only isolate some radioactive isotopes as such - to give cancers to the Japs - would be no rentable in time.

I insist on the fact the Japanese had a strong sense of honor, without wanting to betray their emperor. A deluge of fire would be the only solution - and I cannot see 1'000'000 liters napalm released by plane , nor 100 kT of TNT released by plane, to eradicate Hiroshima...