BUSTED! ATOM BOMB footage exposes the HOAX | |
Ikhthus User ID: 45836299 United Kingdom 08/27/2013 05:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | If there was a nuke there Where was all the radiation? |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 05:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Wow thank you to whoever posted this video, now I know how they made the Christchurch 6.3 quake. Here is the test done for creating this kind of quake. It was done in 1971. A large missile was lowered into a hole uncased in 54 inch steel. It was placed into a mined cavity 5875 ft beneath the surface of the Island. The hole then was completely stemmed or back-filled. With material designed to contain the (supposed) radiation. The Cannikin devise was predicted to have a yield of less than 5 mega tons. Water disturbance was observed but no tsunami was observed. Ground shock was felt as a rocking motion twenty three miles away and was faintly perceptible at a military bases about 200 miles away. Recordings of the test showed a body wave magnitude of 6.8 mag and a surface wave magnitude of 5.7. Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 05:27 PM |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 05:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Which means they had to find out -- and pronto -- if they could run soldiers out into an area that had just been hit with a tactical-yield weapon. Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 And, yeah, that was taking some risks. Imagine that! Soldiers being asked to take a risk! (Not that the US was immune to taking risks with civilian lives too, then and now.) Wasn't Hiroshima a live test? Why would they need further tests on civilians, your logic fails sorry. . |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 05:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Which means they had to find out -- and pronto -- if they could run soldiers out into an area that had just been hit with a tactical-yield weapon. Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 And, yeah, that was taking some risks. Imagine that! Soldiers being asked to take a risk! (Not that the US was immune to taking risks with civilian lives too, then and now.) Wasn't Hiroshima a live test? Why would they need further tests on civilians, your logic fails sorry. . They didn't need to test what a bomb might do to civilians. The specific question was whether soldiers would be incapacitated (from the non-nuclear effects, really; concussion, ground wave) and also if they could be motivated to get out of their trenches despite the strong nuclear fear then current. As framed, they needed to know if you could drop a nuke on a battlefield and rush armed men over the site to exploit that opening. And the only way the Army has ever had to be sure is to try it in training. Also, if the balloon had gone up that weekend, they wanted their own soldiers to know that they could do it. This is the reason why paratroopers jump from airplanes multiple times in peacetime (also a dangerous occupation) even though they only really "need" to do it in combat. There were hundreds of weapons fired over decades of tests, by multiple nations. None of these were confirmations that atom bombs actually went off. They were expansions on that basic knowledge; will THIS design go off as planned? What happens if you bury it deep underground? |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 06:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | [link to www.amazon.com] Quoting: [link to www.amazon.com] 41450183 "First into Nagasaki" by Anthony Weller relates his father's experience as one of the first Americans to enter Nagasaki after the purported nuclear bomb. First of all what stood out is he said the damage looked exactly the same as Tokyo which he just arrived from. Take a close look at these two pictures Tokyo after being fire bombed in 1945 notice the brick buildings still standing. [link to upload.wikimedia.org] Now look at Hiroshima after apparently being nuked. [link to inapcache.boston.com] Did you spot any differences? No, because both were fire bombed like Dresden. The eye witness account was correct. Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 06:37 PM |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 06:36 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Most of the effects of a large bomb are exactly the same regardless of your source of energy. Depending on the nuke and the kind of shot, you've got a neutron pulse, but everything else would unfold the exact same way if the center of the bomb was antimatter or just some really powerful chemical explosive. Thermal energy. Shock wave. This is why all surface explosions of significant size form a mushroom cloud. The mechanism of the fireball is essentially identical. (This is not to negate the role of fallout, but essentially all prompt causalities are going to be a result of blast and heat. Even those with significant prompt radiation exposure will die in days, not in the original explosion.) |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 06:39 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Most of the effects of a large bomb are exactly the same regardless of your source of energy. Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 blah blah Rubbish! You're desperately clinging to straws now. . Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 07:04 PM |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 06:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Other differences: No large flight of bombers sighted by anyone (or sent, for that matter). Radial pattern to the destruction, with a single center -- not the swath left by a bomber pass. Radial blow-down. Shadow effects from the flash; evidence of one nearly instant thermal pulse, instead of multiple lingering thermal sources. That's just off the top of my head. |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 06:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Other differences: Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 No large flight of bombers sighted by anyone (or sent, for that matter). Radial pattern to the destruction, with a single center -- not the swath left by a bomber pass. Radial blow-down. Shadow effects from the flash; evidence of one nearly instant thermal pulse, instead of multiple lingering thermal sources. That's just off the top of my head. Stop quoting bullshit propaganda. How about you use your own eyes instead. Tokyo after being fire bombed in 1945 notice the brick buildings still standing. [link to upload.wikimedia.org] Now look at Hiroshima after apparently being nuked, it's the same. [link to inapcache.boston.com] Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 06:52 PM |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 07:13 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Stop quoting bullshit propaganda. Quoting: Lamplite How about you use your own eyes instead. Tokyo after being fire bombed in 1945 notice the brick buildings still standing. [link to upload.wikimedia.org] Now look at Hiroshima after apparently being nuked, it's the same. [link to inapcache.boston.com] I guess my eyes are just plain sharper, then. |
PigsInSpace User ID: 42142537 Canada 08/27/2013 07:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Stop quoting bullshit propaganda. Quoting: Lamplite How about you use your own eyes instead. Tokyo after being fire bombed in 1945 notice the brick buildings still standing. [link to upload.wikimedia.org] Now look at Hiroshima after apparently being nuked, it's the same. [link to inapcache.boston.com] I guess my eyes are just plain sharper, then. OP fails to recognize that the bombs dropped on Japan were detonated 500 meters above street level which limited ground contamination. The largest portion of the contamination was lifted up by the mushroom cloud and dissipated in the air. The result was black rain, which has inspired several films as well. I guess the people in Japan faked the black rain to help out the Americans in their fake bomb. |
PigsInSpace User ID: 42142537 Canada 08/27/2013 07:53 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Other differences: Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 No large flight of bombers sighted by anyone (or sent, for that matter). Radial pattern to the destruction, with a single center -- not the swath left by a bomber pass. Radial blow-down. Shadow effects from the flash; evidence of one nearly instant thermal pulse, instead of multiple lingering thermal sources. That's just off the top of my head. Stop quoting bullshit propaganda. How about you use your own eyes instead. Tokyo after being fire bombed in 1945 notice the brick buildings still standing. [link to upload.wikimedia.org] Now look at Hiroshima after apparently being nuked, it's the same. [link to inapcache.boston.com] Hey Troll. The bombs dropped on Japan were detonated 500 meters above street level which limited ground contamination. The largest portion of the contamination was lifted up by the mushroom cloud and dissipated in the air. The result was black rain, which has inspired several films as well. Here is a swipe from: [link to www.straightdope.com] "Second, most of the radionuclides had brief half-lives--some lasting just minutes. The bomb sites were intensely radioactive for the first few hours after the explosions, but thereafter the danger diminished rapidly. American scientists sweeping Hiroshima with Geiger counters a month after the explosion to see if the area was safe for occupation troops found a devastated city but little radioactivity. Water lilies blackened by the blast had already begun to grow again, suggesting that whatever radioactivity there had been immediately following the blast had quickly dissipated." - [link to www.straightdope.com] |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 08:18 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 09:02 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 09:05 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 09:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Second, most of the radionuclides had brief half-lives--some lasting just minutes. The bomb sites were intensely radioactive for the first few hours after the explosions, but thereafter the danger diminished rapidly. American scientists sweeping Hiroshima with Geiger counters a month after the explosion to see if the area was safe for occupation troops found a devastated city but little radioactivity. Water lilies blackened by the blast had already begun to grow again, suggesting that whatever radioactivity there had been immediately following the blast had quickly dissipated." Quoting: PigsInSpace - [link to www.straightdope.com] I posted a first hand testimony which included a recorded broadcasted interview, remember? A Jesuits who was beyond a hill a bit further away when the blast went off was asked this question (old chip shown) "What is your opinion regarding the belief that the ruins of the city omitted deadly rays" his reply was "I think it was just a rumour as myself and others worked in the city immediately after the explosion and we suffered no ill effects what-so-ever. [link to www.youtube.com] So how is it he saw no signs of any dangerous rays or people dying from dangerous rays? Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 09:36 PM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45876885 Romania 08/27/2013 09:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 10:06 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 10:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 10:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Second, most of the radionuclides had brief half-lives--some lasting just minutes. The bomb sites were intensely radioactive for the first few hours after the explosions, but thereafter the danger diminished rapidly. American scientists sweeping Hiroshima with Geiger counters a month after the explosion to see if the area was safe for occupation troops found a devastated city but little radioactivity. Water lilies blackened by the blast had already begun to grow again, suggesting that whatever radioactivity there had been immediately following the blast had quickly dissipated." Quoting: PigsInSpace - [link to www.straightdope.com] I posted a first hand testimony which included a recorded broadcasted interview, remember? A Jesuits who was beyond a hill a bit further away when the blast went off was asked this question (old chip shown) "What is your opinion regarding the belief that the ruins of the city omitted deadly rays" his reply was "I think it was just a rumour as myself and others worked in the city immediately after the explosion and we suffered no ill effects what-so-ever. [link to www.youtube.com] So how is it he saw no signs of any dangerous rays or people dying from dangerous rays? Can Jesuits normally see ionizing radiation? Most of us need instruments to detect it. And, yes, this is about what is expected. The fallout was light, and the more radioactive isotopes are depleted quickly following the burst. If you go into Hiroshima a day later, unless you are stirring up and inhaling dust you won't even have a significantly heightened risk of long-term health effects. And nothing there is going to kill you quickly (well, aside from falling buildings, fires, trigger-happy soldiers looking for looters, etc.) |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 10:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | "Second, most of the radionuclides had brief half-lives--some lasting just minutes. The bomb sites were intensely radioactive for the first few hours after the explosions, but thereafter the danger diminished rapidly. American scientists sweeping Hiroshima with Geiger counters a month after the explosion to see if the area was safe for occupation troops found a devastated city but little radioactivity. Water lilies blackened by the blast had already begun to grow again, suggesting that whatever radioactivity there had been immediately following the blast had quickly dissipated." Quoting: PigsInSpace - [link to www.straightdope.com] Thanks for posting. My point in posting this thread was to show that NUKES are mostly propaganda and either do not exist or are not particularly harmful in regards to their radioactivity. Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 11:00 PM |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 11:03 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And, yes, this is about what is expected. The fallout was light, and the more radioactive isotopes are depleted quickly following the burst. If you go into Hiroshima a day later, unless you are stirring up and inhaling dust you won't even have a significantly heightened risk of long-term health effects. Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 Finally my trolls have woken us and can smell the coffee. NUKES are not particularity radioactive. Maybe it won't be long before you will ask yourselves the all important question ... "Are they really just dirty bombs ie painted with uranium and not Nukes at all?" Maybe you will even get around to questioning if the flash is actually a Magnetism or White Phosphorous flash bomb dropped at the same time and the bomb only a big bomb which of course will form into a mushroom cloud? . Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 11:25 PM |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 11:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well, first off, "little" is not the same as "none." And you are conflating conditions days to years following a shot, to what conditions are within minutes of a shot; where there is a host of exotic short-lived isotopes. Even iodine-131, the most dangerous isotope common in fallout, has a half-life of only 8 days. In the conventional sense, a "dirty" bomb that merely spread existing isotopes around would have had to be fueled up mere hours before the blast. And it would be too hot to handle then. You simply aren't going to get these products unless you have a strong neutron source. Now, that doesn't mean your neutron production is the same as the energy source of the explosion. But when you are pumping that many neutrons out, it might as well be. Still, the main reason not to entertain the idea that nuclear weapons are merely a fast breeder reactor parked on top of a bag of amfo is that conventional explosives just aren't that dense. Hiroshima was tiny, by nuke scale, and was still the equivalent of 16 kilotons of TNT. A massive "bunker buster" bomb like the GBU-57 is a mere 30 tons. The Hiroshima blast was the equivalent of 500 of those. The largest nuke ever set off was the 30 MEGA ton "Tsar Bomba." The equivalent of one million bunker busters packed into one place and set off together. Obviously this isn't going to hide in an ordinary bomb shell. Is also isn't going to be dropped by a single airplane. This is more like packing multiple warehouses with explosives. At that point, the sheer size gets in the way; the fastest propagation of the best high explosives is still speed of sound. A detailed and complex electrical firing system would be necessary, but even then the blast and blast products of explosions from outside the shell would interfere with explosions inside. You simply can't get that near-instantaneous flash of energy (events occuring across under a hundred milliseconds) with a large pile of conventional explosives. |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 11:35 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | This is GOLD At 5.30 in this video the soldiers go right up the just exploded (supposed) NUKE with a Geiger counter. This shows they knew all about radioactivity. But the kicker is they have no protective clothing on unless you count cloth gloves. lol. I think from this we can be assured that NUKES are not really nukes at all but rather dirty bombs ie painted with or including a little uranium for some reason but not a nuke as in full of uranium and made from a chain reaction. So celebrate this is a good day and thanks for participating in my thread! Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 11:37 PM |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 11:42 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You simply can't get that near-instantaneous flash of energy (events occuring across under a hundred milliseconds) with a large pile of conventional explosives. Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 Well apparently you can but you just don't know how. I don't either but one thing is for sure these big bombs are not NUKES as they have been explained to us. Remember that video I posted with the massive bomb, the biggest ever made, and what was found afterwards? That's right, almost zero radioactivity. . Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 11:47 PM |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 11:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Take a look at his video of the Tsar, the biggest supposed nuclear bomb ever made. Quoting: Lamplite Go to around 50 second mark and you will so the size of this humongous bomb. Now if nuclear energy is so powerful, why did this bomb need to be this large? I mean it is humongous and nuclear energy is supposed to be ever so powerful with it's chain reaction and all. It supposedly contained the same power as 58 million tons of TNT. But somehow this huge bomb when dropped only two miles above the ground, left almost no radioactive material? Odd don't you think? For absolute proof watch this video of the same bomb. At around the one minute mark they say "Because the bomb was detonated 2 miles above the ground there was very little radiative fallout." Even though the Earth below the blast was sheered by the intense head and bowled out. lol. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 17938575 Canada 08/27/2013 11:50 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Lamplite (OP) User ID: 945308 New Zealand 08/27/2013 11:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Holy crap, are you ever stupid OP. I don't mean just normally stupid. This is an entirely new plateau, breathtaking in it's sheer magnitude and scope of dumbassedness. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17938575 Read the thread before you pass judgement. We have now proved I was right. Read the previous page <<< Have fun eating humble pie. Last Edited by Lamplite on 08/27/2013 11:56 PM |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 08/27/2013 11:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Yes; the ground was too far for significant neutron bombardment. It was only affected by the shock wave and fireball. And it was large. But hardly a million times larger than a GBU-57! (In fact, it was larger than it had to be; the final and outer stage was actually removed and replaced with an inert shell. Otherwise the blast would have been roughly twice the size.) And what the soldiers were doing in 1955 WAS dangerous (at least to their long-term health). We played a lot more fast and loose around radioactivity then...and we were also playing fast and loose with soldier's lives (and civilian lives) in other ways. This was the era of the infamous Tuskegee experiments, after all. Once the bomb has gone off, the major danger is not prompt irradiation, but uptake into the body of radionuclides -- iodine-131 is absorbed, strontium is absorbed into bone, etc. What they needed -- and what they would be getting a few short years later -- was full face masks at a minimum, and a scrub-down. Because the danger is not, again, that the ground will radiate at you. The danger is that you will ingest, breath in, or worst, get into your bloodstream some of the dangerous isotopes. You don't need a lead suit. You need a hazmat bunny suit. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 17938575 Canada 08/27/2013 11:59 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Holy crap, are you ever stupid OP. I don't mean just normally stupid. This is an entirely new plateau, breathtaking in it's sheer magnitude and scope of dumbassedness. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 17938575 Read the thread before you pass judgement. We have now proved I was right. Read the previous page <<< Have fun eating humble pie. Read it, all bullshit, you are definitely the king of the dumbasses. |