[chadman160]

Hello i wanted to talk about nukes. i have a fear a nuclear warfare and i wanted to know why you guys think nukes are fake. the only reason i would is because they said nobody could live in Hiroshima for 1000 years and how there would be no plants in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki so why do you guys think there fake

[momonga]

nuclear reaction is not necessary to create that kind of explosion. Big explosion were already acheived using 'fuel and air bomb'. Germans used them on the russian front, with 4 mile blast radius. No nuke necessary. We have been lied to by governments who want to embezzle public money. Also, fear of radiation is perfect thng to scare people. If u wanna evacuate area, tell people that its contaminated and they will run away, not necessary to force them. But Hiroshima & Nagasaki were repopulated immediately so, yes, we have been lied to. Cold fusion, and free energy from magnetosphere possible 100 yrs ago, so nuclear fission totally unnessessary for electricity production.

[NUKELIES]

Welcome chadman160! momonga is spot on. The nuke myth is a melding of free energy suppression, money laundering, large scale conventional explosions, and social control. It serves such "great" purposes that one can almost admire its phenomenally imaginative creators - almost except that it is a colossal lie.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Hello i wanted to talk about nukes. i have a fear a nuclear warfare and i wanted to know why you guys think nukes are fake.

Near the end of 2008, just a few days before New Years Day, I was walking along the road with the dogs, and got to thinking about atomic bombs. After thinking about how I was told they worked, I realized that the fission material would blow itself apart before it would destroy Hiroshima, or Nagasaki.

Since then, I have looked into several other things.

The CEP, circular error probable, in World War II was about 3300 feet radius at 20,000 feet. Or, in other words, about a fifty percent chance of dropping Little Boy bomb on Hiroshima, much less hitting just 800 feet away from the aimed target. Plus jet stream over Japan.

The aerodynamic characteristics of Little Boy were not determined and adjusted into the Norden bomb sight.

The APS-13 radar used for the 'altimeter' of the Little Boy is not an altimeter, and responded only to signal level, not distance.

Antennas are wrong. Installed wrong. Maybe not installed at all.

Comparing pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with pictures of Tokyo show the characteristics of destruction to be about the same.

No evidence of one big explosion at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Fire resistant buildings survived.

Hiroshima covered with vegetation a month after the bombing.

Criticallity accidents never result in an explosion.

No accidental explosions over the sixty years since Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

Videos of atomic blasts always have a fake quality, or obvious fakery.

Yellow color of nuclear blasts show they're really napalm explosions. Yellow is low temperature combustion, like a candle. Higher temperature is blue, like a gas stove flame.

Classical experiments in fission showed no remarkable release of energy.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Moderator added: this line of thought leads on to Inventing the A-Bomb: Flash, Blast, Heat, Radiation, Mushroom Cloud - a consideration of what properties might be attributed to a non-existent nuclear bomb:--
A-bomb-myth-flash-blast-heat-radiation-cloud-1-of-4.html

And, further, why the H bomb had to be invented, and what properties would be needed to fulfil its imaginary role, of preventing the embarrassment of revealing atom bombs didn't exist, by making nuclear war 'unthinkable' :--
H-bomb-myth-and-its-purpose.html

[enjneer]

I'm new to the forum, but an old hand at revisionist thinking and research. So happy to have a place to research this intriguing and important idea further!

With all due respect, though, do we have to refer to Jewish conspirators as "The Jews!" I know that there is obviously, at the highest levels, a conspiratorial cabal of ostensibly Jewish people visibly running much of the world. But why the hell would people immediately marginalise your otherwise excellent forum by constantly referring to "The Jews" without qualification? You're damning this forum before it has a chance. I am used to calling out Jewish leadership in conspiracies but most are not. People who might otherwise join the discussion, will turn away in disgust at the unmoderated, unqualified railing against "The Jews."

If you want this forum to be about "The Jews," then keep it up. But I think you want it to be about nuclear hoaxing. How about we keep ethnicity out of it unless it actually pertains somehow to the discussion?

I propose "Zionists" (or such terms) as a replacement.

Thanks. Brave work you're doing here. Watch out for COINTEL types!

[enjneer]

Hey all, I've been lurking around the forum for days, trying to soak it all up. I can totally see why questions are being raised about the existence of nukes.

This theory reminds me of the Moon landing hoax theory—and my personal evolution through it. I'll outline that evolution to illustrate where I sit right now on nuke hoaxing:

At first, I thought it was ridiculous. After seeing the photo evidence, I was 100% committed to believing that men didn't walk on the Moon. Then I read some excellent rebuttals, and was significantly swayed back the other way. Now, after mellowing, I believe that there's something wrong with the pictures. There's something wrong with the concept of sending people to the Moon in 1970. But people probably have been to the Moon—just secretly.

I want from the nuke hoax data some of the concrete evidence that keeps me skeptical of the main line. With the moon landings, consider such evidence as the Van Allen belts and some of the most glaring photo anomalies— these (among other evidence) force me to remain convinced that there was a hoax. At least some of the photos were faked and human inter-planetary space travel will require much better-reinforced spacecraft than the Apollos. These, I consider to be a couple nails in the coffin of the official story.

I'm having trouble finding such "nails" in the nuclear hoax theory. I agree that the photos are fishy—some obviously edited. The process of nuclear fission and fusion both seem very sketchy and, most importantly, don't seem to act in "real life" the way they should according to theory.
But, these are all either quite subjective (photos looking fishy) or complicated and out of my league (nuclear physics).

Could everybody reply with, say, your 2-3 best "nails"—the things that force you to refuse to accept that nukes are real?

Help me focus my research on this new theory.

Thanks

[rerevisionist]

@ enjneer - I don't think there's ever a single knock-down argument with any well-developed fraud. And I'll tell you why.

As these things develop, by new invention, and by new discoveries and new ways of looking at the thing, whole layers develop - stories, supposed eye-witnesses, slogans, simplified views, philosophies.

As an example, assume Christianity was simply made up, by a group of people, using old stories from Egypt, Babylon etc. Over time it's developed 4 different accounts of the 'Jesus' story, including two different crucifixion accounts, a new organisation - the Church; a whole set of philosophies about God, The Son, virgins, Trinity etc; the use of Greek and Latin; various stories - moneylenders, Caesar, curing the sick, Pharisees, reincarnation, catacombs etc etc; predictions about the future - some lurid, some heavenly; poetry and songs. So criticism of the Church involves all sorts of detail, from history, philosophy, language, ethics, censorship etc etc. It's like piecing together a jigsaw where some bits are hidden, some change shape, some are forbidden to be touched, some have mysterious symbolism.

Imagine you were making up the nuclear myth - and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki stories are definitely of this type. It would be essential to sow confusion by controlling information, because without this, the myth could never have been started. Looking back, we can see whole sets of lies and distortions about science, nationalist support against Japan, money-making, new weapons and tests, were introduced, plus whole philosophies of nuclear war and deterrence etc, discussions of ethics of mass killing, new organisations etc etc. All this material goes to make up the myths of nukes. So I don't think there's any one knockout argument at this stage. It needs overview work, to survey the whole field and point out all the impossibilities and inconsistencies. But it also needs detailed burrowing into each part of the general myth to dispose of errors.

The same sort of process applies to endless other myths, including Shakespeare authorship, mistakes in cell biology, 9/11, NASA, the 'Holocaust' fraud, the 'Global warming' fraud, the Kennedy murder - and the myth of Jews as innocent victims.

The problem is that logically there may be watertight disproofs of some absolutely fundamental part of an intellectual structure, but the remainder appears to stand alone.

[enjneer]

I can find this forum frustrating in that I cannot get direct responses to questions.

@ enjneer - I don't think there's ever a single knock-down argument with any well-developed fraud.

I agree with all you have said. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with my question. I keep posting here, asking for detailed responses, and a couple members, you, rerevisionist, in particular, keep replying to my posts like I am some totally naive waif, just waiting to have my mind blown by the Big Picture—which you seem to think you are in a position to dispense.

Yet again, I have to wade through a diatribe about several other mega-conspiracies, or Jewish religious sexuality... Which is fine in general—believe me, I've spent countless hours researching the very things you bring up—but I'm trying to distill the facts on nuclear revisionism. Yours is the only forum about this right now, and the title of this thread is "Why do you guys think nukes are fake?" so I think I'm on-topic and I'd really like to get down to the nitty-gritty and stop talking about ALL secrets ever, and perhaps focus on some details.

Let me be more clear: I'm not expecting, nor asking for, one solid, all-encompassing proof that nukes are fake! What I mean by "nails in the coffin" is "some unassailable truths/facts (no matter how small) that keep one believing one's on the right path." I'll show you what I mean with examples below:

As an example, assume Christianity was simply made up, by a group of people, using old stories from Egypt, Babylon etc.

NAIL: There's no historical proof Jesus ever existed.

The same sort of process applies to endless other myths...9/11,

NAIL: The fires inside the towers could not have melted through the steel girders evenly to cause implosion. The melting point of the steel used is a fact. One that keeps me on the trail.

…the 'Holocaust' fraud,

NAIL: Diesel engines from captured soviet tanks could not have killed anyone, let alone tens of thousands of people, as claimed. A scientific fact.

… the 'Global warming' fraud,

NAIL: The lack of hard, scientific evidence that humans can cause global warming.

…the Kennedy murder

NAIL: Almost too many to mention here! But I'll go with the most popular: The Magic Bullet—a physical impossibility.

The problem is that logically there may be watertight disproofs of some absolutely fundamental part of an intellectual structure, but the remainder appears to stand alone.

Yes, that's what I meant! Just wanted everyone to drop a couple "watertight disproofs"—however small, that keep them clinging to the idea that nukes might be fake.
For me, I can't let it go because:

a) the story is just fishy as hell
b) there was so much to gain from having "nukes" develop so quickly and the way that they did
c) (the closest I have to a "nail):" nuclear theory itself is a sketchy platform, and there are very good reasons to doubt it in total. If the atomic nuclear theory is wrong, then nuclear bombs can hardly exist (or, at the very least, not be caused by the mechanism claimed).

So hit me up with your best "nails," everyone!

[rerevisionist]

OK - I take your point though I'm not impressed by your examples. For example, there may be evidence of the existence of Jesus which has been kept secret; or maybe the Bible really is the word of God. The 'Holocaust' fraud doesn't pivot round alleged diesel engine killings. Global warming might be caused by human activity, but just be very difficult to prove. You don't seem to understand how beliefs have many components, and the longer a belief system has been runniing, the more strange ramifications it may pick up.

However,

[1] Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely not nuked.
[2] The films and stills record are clearly faked.
[3] There have been no recent demonstrations anywhere of nuclear weapons suggesting, but not proving, some form of nuclear explosion hasn't been found.

That's all completely sound. The traditional material on nukes is rubbish.

My personal scepticism comes from developments in explosives: traditionally these were
(1) oxidiser-based (gunpowder, later ammonium nitrate plus combustible material); then
(2) based on instabilities which were discovered empricially (mercury fulminate is mercury based; guncotton, nitroglycerin, dynamite, TNT are nitrogen based).

But there have been improvements, or 'improvements': for example
(1) Preparation in atmospheres without oxygen allows powdered highly reactive materials to be made (aluminium powder as in thermite or thermate) which are new forms of oxidiser-based explosive, or simply heating, since there isn't a gas phase.
(2) More control over physical properties allows new forms of oxidiser, based on the idea that fine powders such as flour can explode - fuel-air explosives illustrate the type
(3) There *may be* new forms of instability that may have been discovered - there was a scare over 'red mercury' which seems to have been of this type
(4) There *may be* properties of some atomic nuceli which operate in the way U235 is supposed to, which could produce an explosion, especially if a gas phase is produced.

What's needed is (1) proof that old style explosions cannot cause huge explosions as attributed to nukes; and (2) some knock-down evidence, probably on thermodynamic grounds, that nuclear reactions can't produce significant explosions. I'm assuming things like alpha, beta, and gamma 'rays', and neutrons, are firmly established - maybe wrongly. But as far as I know there's no such evidence, and in fact if it existed, it would be kept secret by the nuclear establishment.

(1) Is probably provable on thermodynamic grounds - explosives have to be shaped or localised and I don't see any sources energetic enough to mimic the made-up idea of 'nukes'. But (2) seems uncertain to me.

[FirstClassSkeptic]

Nails in coffin; let me try.

A bomb set off 1900 feet above the ground won't make a mushroom cloud.

There's no central point of destruction.

Glass in buildings left unbroken.

Fire resistant buildings survived, some with minor damage.

Very few Japanese left blinded by this supposed brighter than a thousand suns flash.

No increase of cancer above the normal for Japan.

Lush plant growth within one month of bombing. No mutations.

The near impossibility of dropping an unguided bomb within 600 feet of the target with 1945 technology, and through a jet stream.