Nuclear (i.e. fission and fusion) mythologies and politics

Rerevisionist said:
@Craig4 - it's touching that you have so much humanitarian concern, though I can't help noticing that the Vietnamese, who were butchered in large numbers by the USA< get no mention from you.

Now, first, if you look at that single photo (note there are no serious photos from the ground taken by Japanese people, despite the fact they had photographic equipment in 1945 and would be likely to film a strange new phenomenon) -- as I say, if you look, you'll find it's not a single mushroom cloud. In fact, it's two separate columns of smoke, I'd guess from two separate bombed towns.

If you check on the other material, you'll find it does not carry the message supposedly given to it. For example there's supposed to be a shadow of a person on a wall. But at the time the atom bomb supposedly dropped, Hiroshima would have been alive with people. Why should there be just one shadow? How come - and there's a book extract I scanned in - an eye witness said she lived 600 yards from the epicentre; when she opened the door to see what was going on, there were burning wooden buildings - there was no wiped clean irradiated hot surface. And so on.
Click to expand...

Why would you expect I would mention the deaths in other wars when there's nothing in the OP mentioning the deaths from conventional wars?

Your other concerns don't merit consideration.
 
Horatius said:
It would seem that he thinks if you don't have an opinion on all the topics he considers to be important, you're not allowed to have opinions on any of them.
Click to expand...
Seems there's two fallacies there:

1) The Nirvana Fallacy--anything that's not perfect ("perfect" here meaning addressing all of the issues) must be discarded

2) An unnamed fallacy, where it's assumed that one's opinion is the only thing that matters in determining what topics are important.
 
LSSBB said:
I spent a month on the CGN. They recycle Navy ship names all the time. I will make a point of providing the hull number next time.
Click to expand...
My bad, man. I was just trying to make sure there was one less minor factoid that could be cherry picked out and used to support his lunatic hypothesis.
:footinmou
 
Dinwar said:
Seems there's two fallacies there:

1) The Nirvana Fallacy--anything that's not perfect ("perfect" here meaning addressing all of the issues) must be discarded

2) An unnamed fallacy, where it's assumed that one's opinion is the only thing that matters in determining what topics are important.
Click to expand...

Why do the mods move only half of the

oh, nvmnd. :confused:
 
Rerevisionist said:
<snip>

Now, whether you like it or not, whether your supposedly educated friends agree or not, whether your TV says so or not, the 1945 nuke material was faked: the supposed test, the supposed bomb, the supposed Hiroshima and Nagasaki single bomb, the radiation, the melted stone and soil etc - it was all made up. So were subsequent tests - don't take my word for it, make some effort for yourself. And try to see why it was done - there must have been varying motives, includuing making money from fraud, career advancement after 1945, dealing with Stalin, etc. I'll stop here as possibly I'm simply not getting through.
Click to expand...

OK, let's take a look at your reasons why the whole atomic weapon program was faked and the fakery has been kept under wraps until you decided it was time to spill the beans:

1. Making money - who made money on this? The money spent by the US government here went to infrastructure for the tests, not for scientist's salaries. The suppliers of the materials? Most of the money spent here is spent on the processing fo the materials. As this is a government operation and not private enterprise the profit margins are not that great, especially once the infrastructure is built.

2. Career advancement - many of the scientists (Fermi, Einstein, etc) were already Nobel laureates or had tenure a unitversity - where are they going to go from there? Leslie Groves - Was promoted twice after taking control of the project, the second time right before his retirement (granted it was backdated) and was a VP at an electronics firm after his retirement from the Army. Who got the career advancement?

3. Deals with Stalin - Potsdam was a fait acompli by the time the bombs were dropped. What deal was made? The Soviets already had a nuclear weapons project at the time - all the US bomb drops did was confirm that it was possible, and that the USSR needed to design a bomber that could carry a similar design. Again, what deal are you referring to?
 
Safe-Keeper said:
Rerev is a 9/11 CT-er. His ilk has demonstrated no comprehension of steel dynamics so far. Don't get your hopes up.
Click to expand...

I was about to type a response on his "see the witness are wrong" then i saw that, and decided it was not worth my time. The comparison of sewage to CT in another thread is definitely spot on.
 
Rerevisionist said:
** Material on nuclear power, which may or more likely may not exist. Submarines are important here as they are the only objects supposedly run entirely by nuclear power. (Every electrical grid has input from conventional sources).
Click to expand...

Atom bombs being a hoax, that I believe is true after looking at at, but nuclear power being fake? I have actually posted about even nuclear power being a hoax but as a very speculative conspiracy theory.

What I posted was the idea that some nuclear power plants may be water fuel cell plants in disguise. A really kooky theory, but I find it fun to speculate. As for submarines they would be powered by water fuel cell power plants too.
 
Except that it takes more energy to split water than you get from recombining it. You'd need a fuel source to power your fuel source.
 
twinstead said:
What did you look at to lead you to the conclusion that atomic bombs are a "hoax"?
Click to expand...

I was looking at some other conspiracy theory, such as the 9/11 attacks or something like that and came across info about atom bombs and thought it looked suspicious. Then when I looked into it a bit more it still looked suspect!
 
Dinwar said:
Except that it takes more energy to split water than you get from recombining it. You'd need a fuel source to power your fuel source.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes! Here is where the even more outrageous part of the theory comes in: they use secret zero-point energy technologies that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen very efficiently. :D And they use the nuclear power as a smokescreen to keep the knowledge about that kind of technology hidden from the public.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I was looking at some other conspiracy theory, such as the 9/11 attacks or something like that and came across info about atom bombs and thought it looked suspicious. Then when I looked into it a bit more it still looked suspect!
Click to expand...

Thank you Anders, for clearing that up for me. I now see that the atom bombs are indeed hoaxes - your logic and evidence was too compelling to ignore.

I must now go and tell all my friends.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Ah, yes! Here is where the even more outrageous part of the theory comes in: they use secret zero-point energy technologies that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen very efficiently. :D And they use the nuclear power as a smokescreen to keep the knowledge about that kind of technology hidden from the public.
Click to expand...

I see you're a graduate of the bill smith school of filling gaps in your theories by making stuff up ;)
 
Kid Eager said:
Thank you Anders, for clearing that up for me. I now see that the atom bombs are indeed hoaxes - your logic and evidence was too compelling to ignore.

I must now go and tell all my friends.
Click to expand...

First make sure they can handle the truth! :D
 
Ah, yes! Here is where the even more outrageous part of the theory comes in: they use secret zero-point energy technologies that can split water into hydrogen and oxygen very efficiently. And they use the nuclear power as a smokescreen to keep the knowledge about that kind of technology hidden from the public.
Click to expand...
Ah. So in other words "We do it by magic".

Question: If we can get zero-point energy, why do we need jet fuel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom