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

I hadn't realised there'd been some extra posts. However, the moderators here as so incompetent I just can't continue. I'm not as keen to waste time as most posters here!
 
Anders Lindman said:
So you are 'deaf' then?
Click to expand...

You'll note at no time do I take interest in your ideas. I've told you how to make good your deficiencies and pointed out your errors in logic. Your input is not required beyond asking to be educated which any number of people here will be willing to do.

I'll try to be gentle here but there's no nice way to explain this. You are what's known as the crank lobby. The most influence you're capable of exerting is being either mildly annoying or mildly amusing to secretaries, public affairs officers and student interns. No one is going to do anything about your concerns. The people who deal with the reality of nuclear weapons don't care about what you think of videos on you saw on Youtube. They know there are people like you out there but they'll simply do their jobs and laugh about people like you when they have drinks with their friends after work. I hope you like trolling internet forums. This is best you're going to get.
 
Craig4 said:
You'll note at no time do I take interest in your ideas. I've told you how to make good your deficiencies and pointed out your errors in logic. Your input is not required beyond asking to be educated which any number of people here will be willing to do.

I'll try to be gentle here but there's no nice way to explain this. You are what's known as the crank lobby. The most influence you're capable of exerting is being either mildly annoying or mildly amusing to secretaries, public affairs officers and student interns. No one is going to do anything about your concerns. The people who deal with the reality of nuclear weapons don't care about what you think of videos on you saw on Youtube. They know there are people like you out there but they'll simply do their jobs and laugh about people like you when they have drinks with their friends after work. I hope you like trolling internet forums. This is best you're going to get.
Click to expand...

Actually, I started looking into the nuclear hoax only two years ago or something like that and at that time there was very little written about nuclear hoax theories. Today there's a lot of nuke hoax conspiracy theories on the Internet. So there has been an enormous acceleration of people starting to questioning the reality of nuclear weapons.

One of the few sources I found at first was the documentary Only the U.S. Has Nukes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK15iLD19qE
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
That's what I just said.

Do you understand why this makes your claim that the bomb should have destroyed the cloud invalid?
Click to expand...

I claim that the heat radiation from the nuclear explosion should have evaporated those clouds. Compare with the other video that showed how buildings far away from another nuclear explosion started burning! That's a massive heat radiation. So either both videos are false (which I believe) or one of them is false. You cannot have buildings much farther away than the clouds start burning and then being blown to pieces and at the same time have the clouds remain virtually intact.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I claim that the heat radiation from the nuclear explosion should have evaporated those clouds.
Click to expand...

This is where you have to show your math. Saying the heat should have evaporated the clouds is insufficient.

You need to show the temperature of the explosion at the center if the blast. You need to show the rate at which the temperature drops as distance from ground zero increases.

You will also need to show how quickly the water droplets in the cloud will cool after the event has ended.

All of this requires math.

Get to work.

Compare with the other video that showed how buildings far away from another nuclear explosion started burning!
Click to expand...

Water is hydrogen and oxygen that have already burned once. It can't be made to burn again.

So either both videos are false (which I believe) or one of them is false.
Click to expand...

Or.... both videos are accurate and you don't have a bloody clue.

Anders Lindman said:
You cannot have buildings much farther away than the clouds start burning and then being blown to pieces and at the same time have the clouds remain virtually intact.
Click to expand...

Water can't burn (see above). Clouds can't be blown to pieces because they are already in pieces (also see above).
 
Anders Lindman said:
But wouldn't the heat radiation have evaporated the closest clouds?
Click to expand...

I'm just going to repeat what I pointed out above:

You need to show the temperature of the explosion at the center if the blast. You need to show the rate at which the temperature drops as distance from ground zero increases.

You will also need to show how quickly the water droplets in the cloud will cool after the event has ended.

All of this requires math.

Get to work.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I'm just going to repeat what I pointed out above:

You need to show the temperature of the explosion at the center if the blast. You need to show the rate at which the temperature drops as distance from ground zero increases.

You will also need to show how quickly the water droplets in the cloud will cool after the event has ended.

All of this requires math.

Get to work.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to calculate that. I'm already convinced that atom bombs are a hoax. So I'm basically just waiting for evidence to the contrary.
 
Anders Lindman said:
I don't know how to calculate that. I'm already convinced that atom bombs are a hoax. So I'm basically just waiting for evidence to the contrary.
Click to expand...

You can find the evidence by following these steps:

You need to show the temperature of the explosion at the center if the blast. You need to show the rate at which the temperature drops as distance from ground zero increases.

You will also need to show how quickly the water droplets in the cloud will cool after the event has ended.

All of this requires math.

Get to work.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
You can find the evidence by following these steps:

You need to show the temperature of the explosion at the center if the blast. You need to show the rate at which the temperature drops as distance from ground zero increases.

You will also need to show how quickly the water droplets in the cloud will cool after the event has ended.

All of this requires math.

Get to work.
Click to expand...

First I need a video or image of an atom bomb explosion I think look convincing enough for me to bother even attempting that.
 
Anders Lindman said:
First I need a video or image of an atom bomb explosion I think look convincing enough for me to bother even attempting that.
Click to expand...


That requires a level of evidence you will never cop to (troll, remember?). Why don't you just show your math.
 
But you don't. Your whole argument(s) is(are) just one long argument from ignorance. Given that you don't believe the nonsense you spout, why should anyone else?
 
TheRedWorm said:
But you don't. Your whole argument(s) is(are) just one long argument from ignorance. Given that you don't believe the nonsense you spout, why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

Correction: I do believe the video and image evidence shows a nuclear hoax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom