Is there more to nuclear bombs than we know?

Gazeebo said:
But you're doing the exact same thing?

From a bomb standpoint there is not enough proof for me to say I believe in nuclear bombs.

I have said nothing absurd sir. I just want facts and I know my government or any other never gives the 100% facts so why believe it's true.
Click to expand...
The point was that I was doing the exact same thing to illustrate how absurd the reasoning "I haven't seen it myself personally so therefore it's fake" is. If you can see how it's silly when I'm doing it regards to power plants then surely you can see how it looks when you do it for nukes?
 
paternos said:
Just repeating your words:

Unverifiable state narrative > Personal experience & Logic is good
(Personal experience & Logic > Unverifiable state narrative) = absurd conclusion

That's weird... very weird

For the largest power plants, there is a little version. We can reproduce the big version of a coal plants or a hydroplant in a small version. All in sight.


Because of this reason so many are deceived nowadays.

2 +2 = 5 isn't it brother?

Well if the state says so, it must be right...

❤️ Big brother loves you. ❤️
Click to expand...
I can't verify that you are an actual person since I haven't seen you in real life typing your posts and not some Fed that has been sent to this forum to sow discord and to poison the well. Since there are other incidents where the state has sent agents to fedpost or stir up up people, therefore you must be a Fed. And also if you don't believe what I said is true, you must of logically necessity also think that lock downs were justified, Israel is our closest ally, etc.

If you can see how absurd that line of reasoning is, you should be able to see how absurd the arguments you are giving for your position is right now.
 
Wutang said:
The point was that I was doing the exact same thing to illustrate how absurd the reasoning "I haven't seen it myself personally so therefore it's fake" is. If you can see how it's silly when I'm doing it regards to power plants then surely you can see how it looks when you do it for nukes?
Click to expand...
No I cannot because I can prove nuclear power plants work and cannot prove nuclear bombs work.
 
I find it interesting we are now going after individuals now asking if we are real. Good stuff gents. I guess we are all feds now by this cumulative logic.
 
holgerdanske said:
I'm not the boss here but this thread is bordering the absolutely ridiculous. I'm also getting a strong vibe we may be dealing with a troll or a glow drone. Don't we have bigger things to worry about?
Click to expand...
Is this not the deep forum where we can discuss deep things or is it just a name holder for only stuff we agree with?

Of course we are all not going to agree with what is said i dont agree with practially anything that has been said in here but i dont call them feds or anything of that nature. You are making that claim.

What stuff would you consider more important to worry about in a deep forum that is specific to and about nuclear power and its uses?
 
Gazeebo said:
Is this not the deep forum where we can discuss deep things or is it just a name holder for only stuff we agree with?

Of course we are all not going to agree with what is said i dont agree with practially anything that has been said in here but i dont call them feds or anything of that nature. You are making that claim.

What stuff would you consider more important to worry about in a deep forum that is specific to and about nuclear power and its uses?
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more.

Think we need to decide where we want to take the forum.

At least some of you here with a lot of energy, seem not to like we have "Deep forum" discussions on nuclear bombs:

@holgerdanske
@Wutang
@Johnnyvee
@Thomas More
@eradicator
@Get2choppaaa
@Caduceus
@Ember
@RedLagoon

Don't know what that says, and why you're so passionate it, if you think all I say is complete nonsense I would personally ignore it, but hey.

A decision would be good. And it either means I stop posting here if we can't discuss essential topics in deep forum as the fakeness of nukes, or we put a ban / warning on personal attacks.
 
Paternos you are ignoring evidence or unable to properly draw logical conclusions. You are violating rule #1, which is insisting your are right in the face of overwhelming evidence. Saying eyewitnesses are fake without any evidence is not an argument. You could deny 99% of history in this manner, you aren't being serious you are posting with pride.

Either make meaningful contributions to the thread or I'm going to lock this thread and add this topic to the list of banned topics. It's obviously some kind of IQ test people are failing here.

For example, your reply to me was a non-sequitur:

Elites always cooperated and looked for alliances.

Some famous marriages:
Marie Antoinette of Austria and Louis XVI of France (1770) - Marie Antoinette was an Archduchess of Austria, and her marriage to Louis XVI, the Dauphin of France (later King), was an attempt to solidify the alliance between the Bourbon monarchy of France and the Habsburgs of Austria.
Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine (1152) - Eleanor was one of the most wealthy and powerful women in Europe, and her marriage to Henry II brought the Aquitaine territory to the English Crown. Their marriage also consolidated lands and power in France, making the English monarchy stronger.
Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon (1469) - Their marriage is one of the most famous in history because it led to the unification of Spain. Both were heirs to their respective thrones, and their union eventually brought together the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon.

Nothing different today.
Click to expand...

I deliberately QUOTED the Russian test footage, and then asked you why you claimed it's fake when it looks completely real. Instead of that, you bring up some completely unrelated examples of Europeans which prove absolutely nothing and have nothing to do with the Russian test footage. The fact that alliances have existed means that the entire world is in some kind of alliance? That does no logically follow and either you are poor with logic, or you are trolling to distract from the issue of the Russian footage, or you are too proud to admit when you are wrong. In any of these cases this thread gets locked, and discussion of nukes being fake gets added to the banned topic list.

So your next post needs to count, make it serious and actually reply to the objections people are raising in a serious logically thorough manner.
 
Last edited:
Good post Samseau, paternos I believe you are using a lot of rhetoric and little actual argumentation. For example:
paternos said:
  • In the weeks and months after the 1986 chernobyl disaster, Mikael Gorbachev tried to cover it up
    Really? Were you there? Is this the man from the pizza hut commercial?
  • After the test ban in 1992, the USA declassified all of the information we had on nuclear testing
    Do you really believe the state opened up?
  • They even made a documentary movie (narrated by William Shatner from Star Trek!)
    😂 They are mocking us.. USS Enterprise is real too right?
  • They used pigs a lot, I mean they would have a batch of pigs 100 yards away from the epicenter then 500 yards away then 1000 yards away etc
    😂 Sounds like a 2nd pig holocaust
  • Countries like China and India kept testing after 1992 even after agreeing to a test ban
    😂 Evil China, good we have good US saving the world.
  • We denoated a nuke above 5 Air Force officers during operation plumbomb.
    😂 Really?
  • Please by all means tell these people in New Mexico and Japan that nuclear weapons are fake .
    😂 I wen't to Hiroshima and the "radiation levels", if that is any relevant at all, are as low as in any other city in Japan, it's modern normal city.
Click to expand...

These statements are all, bar none, totally irrelevant and fallacious. Ridicule is not an argument.

If you are trying to persuade people of an unusual or 'extreme' premise, you could do so by making an argument starting from square one, where most users here seem to be on the question of nuclear weapons, rather than accusing them of being dupes, bluepilled or some kind of pseudo-religious zealots because they are skeptical of your sweeping statements about what is lies and what is truth. If you do that then you can't be surprised when people insinuate in return that you are a well-poisoner.

(To be fair you did link a 2hr documentary and 200 page book in your opening post, however it would be very constructive for you to perhaps summarize key points from the material in a logical order if you are really so passionate about evangelizing on this topic.)
 
paternos said:
At least some of you here with a lot of energy, seem not to like we have "Deep forum" discussions on nuclear bombs:

@holgerdanske
@Wutang
@Johnnyvee
@Thomas More
@eradicator
@Get2choppaaa
@Caduceus
@Ember
@RedLagoon
Click to expand...

In the many years I was posting on the Roosh Forum, I don't think I ever remember a poster actually writing out a list of every single other member who (mostly politely or humorously) disagree with him in a single thread.

For a grown man to be making public "lists of my adversaries" is very concerning behaviour, reminiscent of lonely individuals who write rambling manifestos before doing something very foolish or drastic.
 
Last edited:
Caduceus said:
In the many years I was posting on the Roosh Forum, I don't think I ever remember a poster actually writing out a list of every single other member who (mostly politely or humorously) disagree with him in a single thread.

For a grown man to be making public "lists of my adversaries" is very concerning behaviour, reminiscent of lonely individuals who write rambling manifestos before doing something very foolish or drastic.
Click to expand...
Hey we made the list!

All be it the weirdest list I've been on... But a list none the less...looking forward to the manifesto.

Flat earth and nukes not being real are in a different category of denial compared to the moon landing in my book... My criticism is that the evidence against is so disjointed and like a ping pong ball in a blender bouncing off the corners compared to the life testimony, known radiation in Nagasaki/Hiroshima, and the nuclear artillery knowledge I have.
 
Nuclear reactors are by the way also used not just for domestic electricity production but to power some submarines and ships in particular the icebreaker ones that travel across frozen sea ice
Most other things which are used to generate electricity or propel a vehicle, especially when it is to do with heat and thermodynamics can also be used to blow something up.

For example, if you made a fire with coal and heated up a very strong closed steel container half filled with water, you would also get a powerful explosion. Ordinarily in a coal power station that steam would be used to drive a turbine but you could also use it to create a destructive shockwave or at the very least, fast flying metal shrapnel.

Similarly if you took the petrol that goes in a car, say a cup of it, poured it out in the boot on a hot summers day, gave it time in there to evaporate then sparked the fuel air mixture in the boot you could also generate a destructive explosion.
Johnnyvee said:
Not sure Paternos believes nuclear power is real though?
Click to expand...
In all purely chemical reactions, mass is conserved. The weight of the ashes and smoke is the same as the weight of the fuel and air. In a nuclear reaction some mass 'disappears' and is converted directly to energy.

There is some analysis here of the rate of consumption of uranium in a nuclear reactor :
MWe means megawatts of electrical power, MWt means megawatts of thermal energy

It says that a 3000MWt nuclear reactor uses about 3 kg of fuel per day whereas a 1000MWe coal power station uses 10 000 000 kg of coal per day. Yes there might be some small differences here with thermal energy vs electrical energy but essentially the nuclear one has fuel that would fit on a table top whereas the coal one sound more like a train with several carriages.

Is it then no wonder that a nuclear bomb only takes a relatively tiny amount of uranium or plutonium to do its work.

Similar statistics are listed on that page for the power station, the actual amount of matter that disappears each year after being transformed into energy is tiny, like about 1kg.

Many things in physics or the technical world are quite hard to accept. There have been experiments already a century ago or more to measure the speed of light or measure gravitation between celestial bodies, it proves the point but is very abstracted away from what we perceive. Then even modern technology like the density of circuitry in chips is hard to imagine.
holgerdanske said:
I'm not the boss here but this thread is bordering the absolutely ridiculous. I'm also getting a strong vibe we may be dealing with a troll or a glow drone. Don't we have bigger things to worry about?
Click to expand...
It is a bit of a waste of time. Hope @paternos is not losing touch with reality, I've seen him post about wars we see on television in the middle east all being staged. Be careful, once a person loses their sanity and grip on reality it may not come back, is not something to play around with.
Samseau said:
discussion of nukes being fake gets added to the banned topic list.
Click to expand...
Would be happy to see no atomic bomb denial, satellite denial or moon landing denial. No flat Earth discussion. On the one hand, radical free speech but on the other hand like moths to a lightbulb it will attract all kinds of strange characters and more normal posters may get drowned out or withdraw.
 
How about this:

Nukes are real, but with a plot twist. It wasn't Oppenheimer who succeeded in detonating the first one in the world. It was Germany.



Timeline from that last link:

January 1933 Nazis come to power in Germany
December 1938 Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner and Fritz Strassmann discover nuclear fission in uranium
2 August 1939 Einstein warns President Roosevelt of dangers of an atomic bomb
1 September 1939 Germany invades Poland and launches "uranium project"
3 September 1939 Britain and France declare war on Germany
1941 Von Weizsäcker files a draft patent application that refers to a plutonium bomb
March 1941 Von Weizsäcker visits Bohr in Copenhagen
June 1941 Germany invades Soviet Union
September 1941 Von Weizsäcker visits Bohr again, this time with Heisenberg
6 December 1941 Manhattan Project begins in Los Alamos
7 December 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbour
8 December 1941 US enters Second World War
February/June 1942 Heisenberg gives popular lectures on nuclear weapons
December 1943 Bohr visits Los Alamos
March 1945 Germany tests a nuclear device in Thüringia, eastern Germany
7 May 1945 Germany surrenders
16 July 1945 Trinity test - world's first atomic blast
6 August 1945 US bombs Hiroshima
9 August 1945 US bombs Nagasaki
14 August 1945 Japan surrenders
Click to expand...

I haven't really researched this and have no desire to defend it. It just popped up in my mind when I saw the thread again. :)

Our German and French speakers can actually pick up Karlsch's book in their language.
 
I'd imagine a more productive conversation would be on nuclear physics, reactors, and then extrapolate to if bombs could exist from that perspective. Comparing coal to uranium isn't exactly apples to apples as most the energy is lost to heat with coal, much like a gasoline vehicle. I think most coal plants operate off of turbines much like a nuclear plant but that's where the similarities end. A solid understanding of thermodynamics is also helpful to have these discussions.
As mentioned several maritime vehicles utilize reactor technology. Google Earth Hanford to see the actual reactor graveyard. Not far from there is the nuclear reactor on the Columbia. I know several people that worked at the plant and on naval ship reactors so see no reason to doubt those experiences. But I don't see reactors being contested.
A good understanding of explosives is also handy to understand how a bomb would operate. Such as implosion style weapons. I guess I don't see why it's hard to imagine that when compressing something with explosives that is already known to make a lot of energy when in close proximity to itself it makes a rather big boom. Add tritium (hydrogen 3) to boost the reaction and the boom gets even bigger. Throw in multiple layers of plutonium and uranium and you get very deliverable sized weapon system.
I do think most things are fake till proven gay to steal from another poster but that's a heck of a long con job if it's all fake. Ive worked on weapon systems and been in the reactor biz but I don't really have time to dissect long books and videos on why it's fake. I'd be willing to entertain arguments saying their fake because of x reason and here's my evidence rather than because the movie told me so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top