THE NUKE HOAX

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb

Postby fred on December 3rd, 2009, 11:15 pm

Tufa @ Dec 3 2009, 05:38 PM wrote: I vote for real nukes; they can be built and do work.



I vote for real nukes too.

There were all sorts of cover-ups of the lasting effects of atomic radiation and a lot of hushed up medical studies of the blast survivors and their children.

With any military technology you can probably find a lot of deliberate disinformation and propaganda, but I would say that the nukes themselves are real.

Big weapons budgets, big bombs.

From the 1940's to the 2000's you can see that the military emphasis has shifted from mass-murder to mass-brainwashing. I suppose they call that "progress".
fred
Member
 
Posts: 592
Joined: October 20th, 2009, 1:43 pm

Postby brianv on December 3rd, 2009, 11:47 pm

I'm going to be non-committal on this one - but to be honest I have had thoughts along these lines previously. When I was a kid at school we were given booklets "What to do in the Event of Nuclear War" - which kinda smacks of what's going on still with "Al-Queda" and Anthrax and Swine-Flu etc.

If it's a hoax then all those Bikini Islanders and the like who were kicked off their islands into a life of degradation were double hoaxed. It could simply have been for tactical military purposes. It would be interesting to learn more now that the can has been opened.

What to do in the Event of Nuclear War? "Stick your head between legs and kiss your ass goodbye", was the catch-phrase de-jour!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Postby idschmyd on December 4th, 2009, 1:33 am

Floating voter. I remember seeing images of the destruction as a kid and wondering how the spindly tree stalks and a few buildings had survived where everything else had been blown away. Too busy not having a life right now to give it the time it deserves, but I'm grateful the idea has been put forward.

Unclear Weapons
idschmyd
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 10:33 pm

Postby brianv on December 4th, 2009, 1:40 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_st ... ar_weapons

Fat-Man looks a little "LEM", if you ask me!!

Your thoughts on this one Simon and Hoi? Lookout Mountain Labs? A celluloid bubble? Why is it black all around? Was it fired at night?

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/photos/imag ... -0520.jpeg
[UPDATE Sept. 30 2013: this is now a broken link. Copied image below. -hp]

Image

Kudos to idschmyd Unclear Weapons :D
Last edited by hoi.polloi on September 30th, 2013, 3:40 am, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: broken link
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Postby idschmyd on December 4th, 2009, 3:13 am

brianv @ Dec 4 2009, 01:40 AM wrote: Fat-Man looks a little "LEM", if you ask me!!

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/photos/imag ... -0520.jpeg




Weapon of mass hilarity. Like something out of Pink Panther... A Beum!!
idschmyd
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: October 19th, 2009, 10:33 pm

Postby simonshack on December 11th, 2009, 10:57 pm

OMG ....


British Bomb test propaganda :

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsH9t4TG1TY


US Bomb test propaganda :

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA8z94MXo9M


Russian Bomb test propaganda :

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmQIkDkZ7sk


No words, folks... :rolleyes:


Well...I'll say a word or two - or maybe just one general statement :
IT IS HIGH TIME TO STOP THIS WORLD'S DEMENTED WARMONGERING PROFITEERS BY DENOUNCING THEIR LONGSTANDING, INSANE FEAR PROPAGANDA - AND INTRODUCE PROPAGANDA-AWARENESS CLASSES INTO EVERY SCHOOL OF THE PLANET.
http://www.septemberclues.info
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6428
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

Postby brianv on December 12th, 2009, 12:01 am

simonshack 4 Dec 11 2009, 10:57 PM wrote: British Bomb test....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLFRIiflSgU
[UPDATE Sept. 28 2013: this quoted text contained a broken link -hp]


US Bomb test...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wA8z94MXo9M


No words, folks... :rolleyes:


Well...I'll say a word or two - or maybe just one general statement :
IT IS HIGH TIME TO STOP THIS WORLD'S DEMENTED WARMONGERING PROFITEERS BY DENOUNCING THEIR LONGSTANDING, INSANE FEAR PROPAGANDA - AND INTRODUCE PROPAGANDA-AWARENESS CLASSES INTO EVERY SCHOOL OF THE PLANET.


Image

We were talking about this on another thread. Nice find Si. Wacky footage!
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3922
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

Postby McCob on December 19th, 2009, 10:26 pm

Piper @ Nov 29 2009, 07:51 AM wrote:


- Do you understand the science behind a nuclear explosion? Do you understand the mechanism that triggers the explosion? Do you understand E=mc^2? What does it mean to square a speed? Do you believe in Einstein's relativity? Do you believe in the current model of the atom? Do you believe that only nuclear bombs can create mushroom clouds?

-


piper---Einstein had 2 theories of relativity: special and general. The special theory states that the speed of light doesn't change no matter your orientation. In other words 2 bodies traveling at different speeds will still measure the speed of light as being the same. In fact, 2 light beams traveling towards each other will regester the velocity of the opposite light beam as still being the speed of light often denoted by c (186,000 miles per second). Immutable speed of light came as a result of late 19th century interferometry experiments.

Anyway since the speed of light didn't change for either body it must be that the dimensions of space must change or be different for the 2 bodies. Hence one of the bodies will lose mass with respect to the other body because space is smaller (or larger depending on what body you are talking about)...The c squared comes about due to mathematical formula for the relative displacements of the 2 bodies.
( Isasc Newton said that a bodies energy due to it's motion compared to a mass at rest is 1/2 m(velocity squared))

When Einstein, or whoever, came up with this nobody believed there was such a thing as an atomic nucleii.

What makes Einsteins theory interesting: After the discovery of the nucleus much study was done on radioactive isotopes. For instance Madam Curie's experiments. It was shown by trial and error that as Isotopic nucleii broke down they gave off energy and lost mass. And this energy was shown to be equal the mass lost times the speed of light squared. An identical equation to what Einstein derived from a totally different direction. A coincidence of sorts? Perhaps.

I think the bomb works. But, I hope I am wrong.
McCob
Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: December 1st, 2009, 7:21 pm

Postby McCob on December 19th, 2009, 10:37 pm

When uranium 235 (or plutonium 240 something) is bombarded by Neutrons it will break apart into smaller atoms. These atoms will not weigh as much as the original U235 or Plutonium. The mass will convert to energy. The nuetrons have to be going within a certain range of speed when they hit the nuclear fuel. If there is enough nuclear explosive packed into a tight enough area (critical mass) there will be enough neutrons at the right speed, then it is a virtual certainty that massive amounts of energy will be liberated as the nuclear fuel turns into other elements and energy. All one needs to do is split the first atom with a neutron collision. Then as that atom splits it will liberate more neutrons to collide with other nucleii. A chain reaction as it is refered to.

This stuff began in the 20's with the invention of the cloud chamber and these particles and reactions can be observed 1st hand.
McCob
Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: December 1st, 2009, 7:21 pm

Postby Tufa on December 20th, 2009, 11:34 am

McCob 4 Dec 19 2009, 10:37 PM wrote:When uranium 235 (or plutonium 240 something) is bombarded by Neutrons it will break apart into smaller atoms


The odd-numbered atom weight is what you are looking for. Natural Uranium U238 or the Plutonium Pu240 ain't any good, U239 and Pu239 shall be used.

When the atom split, some 2-3 new neutrons are emitted as well, and much energy is released. The deficiency in mass is a peculiar thing not much relevant to the industrial application; when you have burned-out fuel cell packages from a nuclear reactor submerged 15m below the surface the mass deficiency 0.5% of the fuel calls; I guarantee the smallest of your concerns!

McCob wrote:The nuetrons have to be going within a certain range of speed when they hit the nuclear fuel.


Precisely. In fact, the new produced neutrons that have a high energy will go vary fast, and unfortunately the cross-section of your target is low for fast neutorons. In a reactor you usually put a lot of water around the fuel to slow the neutrons, and they can then find an acceptable cross section in Pu240.

So, dear friend, if you pour out the water from your reactor (!!!!!!!!!!) the reaction will actually stop rather quickly. There is a residue energy production, that unfortunately prevent this being used as a security measure.

This is why you need the (U239/Pu239) fuel for you bomb. The odd-numbered atoms have a small cross-section for fast neutrons, so neutrons from one split atom can go and split the atom next to it (if it hit the cross-section). This is the basis for the chain-reaction.

In industrial terms, the tricky part is producing a first neutron to start from. There are natural neutrons, but you don't gamble on having one when you need them, right? So you need some device to produce neutrons by technical means.
A typical solution would be an electrical energy source -> X-ray flash ->beam hit a target in the centre of your bomb -> neutrons produced, most likely in a two-step process.

The "Critical mass concept" is important, if you could imagine a bomb sitting on a rack to be loaded on a plane .... and it start raining .. and then the bomb starts heating up with some modest amount, like 1 degree each second --- I promise, it will spoil your coffee break! Especially if some deck-nerd try to extinguish the "fire" and pull out a hose!

Compressing the metal sphere by explosives. You often find pictures on this, the "fast" and "slow" explosives are often replaced, as well as the initiator at the wrong place. I'll thought this to be a "security" feature, before :huh:. It could, possibly, set back the so-called "Terrorists" several minutes, to figure this out, but I much doubt that. If I can upload some pictures, I'll show you.

The usual U238 metal is reported to have a small cross-section for fast neutrons. You cannot build a bomb using it, but if your nuclear device sits close to some tons of U238, you should get a bigger blast.

I seen some report, that physical consequences of Bombs is much exaggerated such as the "atomic Winter" scenario. Since the air density is a bit low, it is difficult to transfer the energy long distances. So a bigger bomb is not that much more effective.

If public "Atomic tests" was made to scare an enemy, there would be much incentive to "improve" on the test results. Most likely the "pictures" would be backed up with "adjusted" pressure sensors, that send "secret" signals protected by some moderate encryption that the enemy could work on, and also "spies" that leak some "reports" that tell the real "truth".

If the bomb is a complete LIE, it should be easy to check it by beeing careful with the basic facts.
Tufa
Member
 
Posts: 224
Joined: November 24th, 2009, 11:13 pm

Postby McCob on December 20th, 2009, 5:16 pm

Tufa @ Dec 20 2009, 11:34 AM wrote:
McCob 4 Dec 19 2009, 10:37 PM wrote:When uranium 235 (or plutonium 240 something) is bombarded by Neutrons it will break apart into smaller atoms


The odd-numbered atom weight is what you are looking for. Natural Uranium U238 or the Plutonium Pu240 ain't any good, U239 and Pu239 shall be used.

When the atom split, some 2-3 new neutrons are emitted as well, and much energy is released. The deficiency in mass is a peculiar thing not much relevant to the industrial application; when you have burned-out fuel cell packages from a nuclear reactor submerged 15m below the surface the mass deficiency 0.5% of the fuel calls; I guarantee the smallest of your concerns!

McCob wrote:The nuetrons have to be going within a certain range of speed when they hit the nuclear fuel.


Precisely. In fact, the new produced neutrons that have a high energy will go vary fast, and unfortunately the cross-section of your target is low for fast neutorons. In a reactor you usually put a lot of water around the fuel to slow the neutrons, and they can then find an acceptable cross section in Pu240.

So, dear friend, if you pour out the water from your reactor (!!!!!!!!!!) the reaction will actually stop rather quickly. There is a residue energy production, that unfortunately prevent this being used as a security measure.

This is why you need the (U239/Pu239) fuel for you bomb. The odd-numbered atoms have a small cross-section for fast neutrons, so neutrons from one split atom can go and split the atom next to it (if it hit the cross-section). This is the basis for the chain-reaction.

In industrial terms, the tricky part is producing a first neutron to start from. There are natural neutrons, but you don't gamble on having one when you need them, right? So you need some device to produce neutrons by technical means.
A typical solution would be an electrical energy source -> X-ray flash ->beam hit a target in the centre of your bomb -> neutrons produced, most likely in a two-step process.

The "Critical mass concept" is important, if you could imagine a bomb sitting on a rack to be loaded on a plane .... and it start raining .. and then the bomb starts heating up with some modest amount, like 1 degree each second --- I promise, it will spoil your coffee break! Especially if some deck-nerd try to extinguish the "fire" and pull out a hose!

Compressing the metal sphere by explosives. You often find pictures on this, the "fast" and "slow" explosives are often replaced, as well as the initiator at the wrong place. I'll thought this to be a "security" feature, before :huh:. It could, possibly, set back the so-called "Terrorists" several minutes, to figure this out, but I much doubt that. If I can upload some pictures, I'll show you.

The usual U238 metal is reported to have a small cross-section for fast neutrons. You cannot build a bomb using it, but if your nuclear device sits close to some tons of U238, you should get a bigger blast.

I seen some report, that physical consequences of Bombs is much exaggerated such as the "atomic Winter" scenario. Since the air density is a bit low, it is difficult to transfer the energy long distances. So a bigger bomb is not that much more effective.

If public "Atomic tests" was made to scare an enemy, there would be much incentive to "improve" on the test results. Most likely the "pictures" would be backed up with "adjusted" pressure sensors, that send "secret" signals protected by some moderate encryption that the enemy could work on, and also "spies" that leak some "reports" that tell the real "truth".

If the bomb is a complete LIE, it should be easy to check it by beeing careful with the basic facts.


Tufa-- Obviously, you are up on degeneration of radioactive isotopes more than I. I was pretty much regurgitating info I got in a physics class I took over 30 yrs ago. I do believe the bomb works. I believe the theory can be shown to be repeatable in cloud chambers.

I find fusion much more hard to undertand. I mean first they have to explode a fission bomb and then turn hydrogen (deuterium) into helium. I have no idea how they could countrol such a thing. I would be glad to hear your ideas on the subject. How do they know all those little atoms are going to collide in all of that cacophony???

For interested onlookers: Hydrogen collisions making helium liberates much more energy than uranium or plutonium turning into iron and cobalt. Which is why the hydrogen bomb is so much more powerful.
McCob
Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: December 1st, 2009, 7:21 pm

Postby McCob on December 21st, 2009, 5:25 pm

terence.drew @ Dec 21 2009, 06:37 AM wrote: McCob and Tufa ... your depth of knowledge about nuclear stuff is amazing .. did you come by this knowledge yourselves or did someone TELL you about all this??
I do not mean to be a smart ass or anything but surely the point of this thread is that the information regarding nuclear weapons/energy may be suspect, and may also be intended to induce a state of perpetual dread and a shitting of pants in the population?

Gravity. You would/may think that this would be a non issue in our now all encompassing and materialistic view of the world?
However gravity, according to the 'know-alls'(the Scientists), can only account for a tiny percentage (5-10%)of what is perceived in to be the active force of the COSMIC glue which is holding our COsmos together?
So what do they do?
they simply make up terms like 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' ? (BS BS BS BS?)
Pull the other one man.. A universe which is ELECTRICALLY charged, having the the properties of attraction and REPULSION, explains the the unexplainable phenomenon of the arms of spiral galaxies much better than GRAVITY.

Nuke stuff is the same. Certain materials are radioactive and it is clear that beams of energy can be directed...look to your old fashioned TV.

But look at nuke weapons and our wonderful(-ly expensive) CERN ( is this 'lord of the RINGS' also fake/ a money grab ?)Beams of particles are supposedly accelerated over 26000 meters to collide with other particles, and then, as it happens, huge machines detect hitherto fore unknowable god like elements(Do you not need a god like element particle detector to detect these God like elements????) But, is not the splitting of the atom,which is also very God-like and cosmic, similar in a fashion to these CERN experiments?? I mean the dimensions of an atom 'bomb are 2-4 meters to allow for acceleration while CERN's is 26000 meters ? ? and all of these beams and collisions are happening with perfect accuracy and first time-ed-ness while the 'bomb' is descending at a mad rate and being buffeted around by wind resistance on its descent? Jet engines were not jet in regular use, and amazingly, there was at this time a perfect micro mini universe system in operation??? - exactly copying the conditions in the sun .... here is a question ??did they get the idea for nuke bombs from the workings of TV sets and simply invent the rest with a bit of Flash Gordon and ming the merciless thrown in?

P.S Ireland is the latest country to join the nuke race .. our great leader cowman dropped his mushrooms in ALDI


No offense taken. I am not an expert on anything. As I mentioned before I took an undergraduate course in physics (actually, I took 3 courses in physics and they were rigorous) whilst on my way to a degree in math. I only venture my opinion and I don't believe people should believe anything I say just because I say so.

Your ideas may be right and I can't really prove the points you put forward to be false.

For the record: I LOVE any good hearted truther! But, I don't expect everyone to agree with me which is a good thing as I am often wrong.

I can tell you Tufa is much farther ahead in this field than I am.

CERN uses electromagnetism to accelerate particles whereas a nuclear weapon uses explosives.

A lot of what you say I agree with.
McCob
Member
 
Posts: 26
Joined: December 1st, 2009, 7:21 pm

Postby hoi.polloi on December 24th, 2009, 11:30 am

I personally know a nuclear physicist who works at CERN now.

I am disturbed that when I ask them questions about this science, they tend to buckle under any sort of questioning - "I don't know, I really don't know ... it's possible ..?"

Is it clear what's going on at CERN?

"Well, you see what's going on on the computer so we know it's happening."

That seems rather dubious. So I would actually have to talk to the person who built CERN's computers in order to see whether my lovely white-coated fellows are getting the right information to interpret? And each of them is not personally trained in the full operations of the machine?

You would assume if you are trying to make a black hole, you would pretty much want everyone on board with how the darned thing is going to work, more or less. No? Well, why should they? Delegation and pyramid schemes work well enough. No need for brainiacs to understand what the heck they are doing while watching the pretty lights.

To me, CERN so far resembles more ISO (aka hypocritical swiss fascism) delegation pyramid schemes again. Very disconcerting. The quest for public info continues!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to WWI - WWII, the Nuke Hoax, the Cold War and JFK

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest