THE NUKE HOAX
Re: Nuke Hoax
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXxIhWIdhW8
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8D1r1Dz-5o
oh wait; guess ALL nuke vids & pics were shot from
cameras in Faraday cages, in lead-lined bunkers...
-
- Banned
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm
Re: Nuke Hoax
Well I must admit that there is no way of telling scale on this video and it has a weird small model feel to it for me. On the high-speed camera bit. The camera evidently had its back to the blast and there is no way to tell how hardened the camera container had hypothetically been made to resist the blast and heat. Presumably it would theoretically have to be very well shielded against blast, heat and initial nuclear radiation (if any) as well. Since this would have been emulsion film, it could be easily fogged by radiation unless it was shielded.reel.deal wrote:yr right... when the actual blastwave arrived for real; the camera & camera film rollAndrew1484 wrote:
Theoretically (if nuclear weapons existed) the initial nuclear radiation, the seriously intense heat and the visible light would arrive at the speed of light. The blast overpressure air-slap would arrive later as a supersonic wave, then the sound, much slower than the speed of light. I suspect that your video loop is probably stopping before the blast overpressure air-slap had arrived, to impact the bus.
shooting the melting bus also got destroyed, along with this bus photo sequence.
We are told that a nuclear explosion releases energy over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including X-rays and gamma-rays, that could fog or cause flashes on film, so it might be interesting to try to find out how these film cameras were shielded from the alleged high intensity pulse of initial nuclear radiation that we are told goes with nuclear and thermonuclear detonations.
Re: Nuke Hoax
Red and green statements contradict.Andrew1484 wrote:
I was not "invalidating" the original post and I have no way of proving or disproving the existence or alleged invention of nuclear or thermo-nuclear weapons, that reportedly go bang in a very big way. I just thought there was a little bit of a concept error going on in the mind of the original poster, that probably ought to be very politely pointed out.
As a new member you are not in a position to set standards for this forum.By pointing that out, very politely I hope, perhaps we will get to see some other arguments that are not so obviously flawed.
I also don't think you are in a position to "refine our thinking" or to "have our concept errors pointed out."On the other hand if people here are not trying to refine their thinking, do not like having their concept errors pointed out to them in a polite way, are not interested in trying to find out what is a hoax and what is not, then I have clearly misinterpreted the purpose of this thread.
If you believe that we are "gatekeepers" then I suggest you simply go elsewhere.Are you "gatekeepers" actually trying to clarify human thinking here, or are you trying to muddle it up?
Please provide a link to where I defended war criminals.So then why did you appear to be defending the worst, the most evil, the most despicable war criminal regime currently on the face of this planet by going in a bemused way?
-
- Banned
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm
Re: Nuke Hoax
Not really. I was dealing with one small part of a post and I was pointing out a single flaw in a single argument, not that the overall premise of the post was wrong.lux wrote:Red and green statements contradict.Andrew1484 wrote:
I was not "invalidating" the original post and I have no way of proving or disproving the existence or alleged invention of nuclear or thermo-nuclear weapons, that reportedly go bang in a very big way. I just thought there was a little bit of a concept error going on in the mind of the original poster, that probably ought to be very politely pointed out.
I was not "setting standards" I was just gently pointing something out that undermined their post. Are you saying that "new members" are not permitted to write anything, or to have any personal opinions, or to point anything out? How can "new members" ever become "members" if that is your draconian rule.lux wrote:As a new member you are not in a position to set standards for this forum.By pointing that out, very politely I hope, perhaps we will get to see some other arguments that are not so obviously flawed.
Wow, this forum really is like a quasi-religious cult then! Heresy not permitted! What you "guardians of the forum" think is obviously always infallibly correct, because you think it!lux wrote:I also don't think you are in a position to "refine our thinking" or to "have our concept errors pointed out."On the other hand if people here are not trying to refine their thinking, do not like having their concept errors pointed out to them in a polite way, are not interested in trying to find out what is a hoax and what is not, then I have clearly misinterpreted the purpose of this thread.
"Don't you dare confuse the cult by pointing out any facts and obvious concept errors!"
So in other words: "We guard the gates of what is true or false on this forum! Resistance is futile! Join the hive mind, as a mind-programmed unquestioning drone, or leave, you filthy heretic!"lux wrote:If you believe that we are "gatekeepers" then I suggest you simply go elsewhere.Are you "gatekeepers" actually trying to clarify human thinking here, or are you trying to muddle it up?
I really hope that people like you, with such obviously narrow-minded, dogmatic, tyrannical tendencies, never get any real political power, to lord it over your fellow humans.
"When dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases." -- Robert Anton Wilson
Re: Nuke Hoax
Uh, huh.Andrew1484 wrote:
Wow, this forum really is like a quasi-religious cult then! Heresy not permitted! What you "guardians of the forum" think is obviously always infallibly correct, because you think it!
"Don't you dare confuse the cult by pointing out any facts and obvious concept errors!"
...
So in other words: "We guard the gates of what is true or false on this forum! Resistance is futile! Join the hive mind, as a mind-programmed unquestioning drone, or leave, you filthy heretic!"
I really hope that people like you, with such obviously narrow-minded, dogmatic, tyrannical tendencies, never get any real political power, to lord it over your fellow humans.
"When dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases." -- Robert Anton Wilson
Re: Nuke Hoax
""When dogmas enter the brain, all intellectual activity ceases.
Sounds like more dogma to to me! -- "brianv"
Sounds like more dogma to to me! -- "brianv"
Last edited by brianv on Tue Sep 25, 2012 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Nuke Hoax
if i'm mistaken in a line of thought and 'miss something', i'm more than happy to revise, retract or ammend accordingly any fault or flaw in logic pointed out. i agree with your theoretical assessment of the bus taking 2 blasts of heat, before the main shockwave... so yes, in theory perhapsAndrew1484 wrote:Well I must admit that there is no way of telling scale on this video and it has a weird small model feel to it for me. On the high-speed camera bit. The camera evidently had its back to the blast and there is no way to tell how hardened the camera container had hypothetically been made to resist the blast and heat. Presumably it would theoretically have to be very well shielded against blast, heat and initial nuclear radiation (if any) as well. Since this would have been emulsion film, it could be easily fogged by radiation unless it was shielded.reel.deal wrote:yr right... when the actual blastwave arrived for real; the camera & camera film rollAndrew1484 wrote:http://i.imgur.com/SV0D9.gif
Theoretically (if nuclear weapons existed) the initial nuclear radiation, the seriously intense heat and the visible light would arrive at the speed of light. The blast overpressure air-slap would arrive later as a supersonic wave, then the sound, much slower than the speed of light. I suspect that your video loop is probably stopping before the blast overpressure air-slap had arrived, to impact the bus.
shooting the melting bus also got destroyed, along with this bus photo sequence.
We are told that a nuclear explosion releases energy over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including X-rays and gamma-rays, that could fog or cause flashes on film, so it might be interesting to try to find out how these film cameras were shielded from the alleged high intensity pulse of initial nuclear radiation that we are told goes with nuclear and thermonuclear detonations.
we shouldnt expect the bus to lift off, despite the 2 seperate flammable ignitions it received. See? no 'group think'.
but equally; your theoretical possible rationale doesnt entirely negate or 'disprove' the logic in the original flippant comment i made, maybe the bus should have flipped, maybe not, either way - far more telling is that this is yet another example of 'nuke proof' film-rolls...
Re: Nuke Hoax
slo-mo shockwave (gunpowder set-up)
A-Bomb Blast Effects (1959)
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_vDro76t58
Before & After shockwave
nope, nukes still dont dent tracers...
atomise cities yup, dent tracers, no.
A-Bomb Blast Effects (1959)
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_vDro76t58
Before & After shockwave
nope, nukes still dont dent tracers...
atomise cities yup, dent tracers, no.
Re: Nuke Hoax
Sorry guys but i've the proof that Nuke is real :
Edit : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/ ... 67343.html
Today's lesson by Netanyahu : Make a nuke in 3 stages !
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZW83VH6tA
Edit : http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/ ... 67343.html
Today's lesson by Netanyahu : Make a nuke in 3 stages !
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwZW83VH6tA
Last edited by Haze on Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 7345
- Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
- Location: italy
- Contact:
Re: Nuke Hoax
Haze wrote:Sorry guys but i've the proof that Nuke is real :
(Please provide a source link to the article carrying that picture - thanks!)
Never mind - found it: http://www.20minutes.fr/monde/iran/1012 ... uge-claire
But please provide source links to all future pictures you post on the forum - for easy verification by all forum members.
This Netanyahu clown must be the funniest of them all !
-
- Member
- Posts: 5060
- Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm
Re: Nuke Hoax
This guy rivals Steve Martin for stonefaced comedy. Scratch that - he's funnier than Steve Martin!
How could you keep a straight face with such a diagram?
How could you keep a straight face with such a diagram?
-
- Member
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:21 am
Re: Nuke Hoax
That green tiled wall at the UN reminds me of where urinals would be mounted in the mens room of some snazzy restaurant.
Re: Nuke Hoax
And the guy in front looks like a dick!Farcevalue wrote:That green tiled wall at the UN reminds me of where urinals would be mounted in the mens room of some snazzy restaurant.
Re: Nuke Hoax
Because you're paid to keep a straight face while showing it?hoi.polloi wrote:How could you keep a straight face with such a diagram?
Because a gun has been held to your head immediately beforehand?
Because a gunman is behind the curtain with you in his gun-sight?