What?! Nuclear Hoax

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: turbonium1

people that discount eye witness testimony are what exactly??


Brilliant on your part, personally I don't think you exist, you are just a bot spouting nonsense.

Prove you are really human and not a computer program, cause that the only think this obtuse.


(you can google the big words if you need too )

or like a bot, ignore me.

If I claimed to see flying pink elephants, and several other people claimed the same thing, would that be 'evidence' of flying pink elephants to you?

We all swear we saw them, and you weren't there. So we must be 'witnesses' to it....and that's 'proof' of flying pink elephants, then??


You're making the very same argument, so what's the problem here?

a reply to: turbonium1

I don't know is that legal in court? yes in court that is legal. So legal you can be put to death on eyewitness testimony.

so you and your friends see pink elephants, does that mean gray elephants do not exist?

maybe you are color blind ( I am) so seeing a specific color does not mean much.

You talk in circles and yet you think you are so "right"

youth is wasted on the young.

No worries, if you are lucky you will grow old, if you are even luckier, you may grow wise.

if you are super lucky you may get to see the world.

Honestly the world knows a lot more than any single person.

(you still didn't prove you are not a computer program either)

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: turbonium1

I don't know is that legal in court? yes in court that is legal. So legal you can be put to death on eyewitness testimony.

so you and your friends see pink elephants, does that mean gray elephants do not exist?

maybe you are color blind ( I am) so seeing a specific color does not mean much.

You talk in circles and yet you think you are so "right"

youth is wasted on the young.

No worries, if you are lucky you will grow old, if you are even luckier, you may grow wise.

if you are super lucky you may get to see the world.

Honestly the world knows a lot more than any single person.

(you still didn't prove you are not a computer program either)

Congratulations on making one of the worst posts ever spewed forth, it's quite an achievement!

Nobody here was under oath, in court, first of all. And even when people make claims under oath, they've often been lying, as we all know.

Eyewitness accounts may be true, but may be false, as well.

That's why valid evidence is not eyewitness accounts, solely, as they cannot be validated, in any way.

It's like getting a group of friends to say they saw something, and we believe them...based on their claim alone, as the 'evidence'!

Get it?


The real evidence is from the images, which show - without a doubt - that firebombing was used to flatten all three Japanese cities.

All three cities were nearly flattened, except for their steel and concrete structures, which were completely intact, or almost so.

We know firebombing caused this, in Tokyo. The intense, widespread fires turned Tokyo into ashes, except for steel and concrete structures, which stood virtually intact, because steel and concrete can withstand such high temperature fires as these. And that's why they were left intact, when acres of ashes surrounded them.

They have claimed 'nuke' will virtually vaporize everything within its range. Nothing is left standing, or intact, from their powerful, fearsome 'nukes'!

They told us, and 'showed' us, all of their 'nuke tests', which vaporized everything in it's path, the ultimate weapon of total destruction.

Let's all look at the images of cities in Japan, which were vaporized by one, single, incredibly powerful bomb!

Nobody wondered why some of the buildings were still intact, because all of the damage was so unprecedented - in their eyes, at least. Nobody saw what Tokyo looked like, before that.

a reply to: turbonium1

that's now how an air burst works, even truer for a small yield device

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: turbonium1

that's now how an air burst works, even truer for a small yield device

They claimed the A-bombs twisted and ripped apart steel structures. In fact, the steel bridges remained perfectly intact.

These bridges were at 'ground zero', or near it, yet they were still completely intact, afterwards. We can see it in photos, too.

It's normal from firebombing, of course. 'Nukes' are supposed to twist, and rip apart steel, not leave it intact!


If they'd dropped conventional bombs on those buildings and bridges, they'd be destroyed. But not with a powerful 'A-bomb', though. It cannot leave a scratch on these structures, for some strange reason!!


Sure, why not!

a reply to: turbonium1

No.

Wrong.

You said you wold address those points and all you've done is handwave them away. That is not how this works.

Please explain the process by which firebombing would produce a layer of radiocative fission by-products detectable ni soil world wide. All the articles I quoted clearly identified the 137-Cs as a by product of atoic weapons testing. Testing that was witnessed but thousands and for which abundant exists. Nothing in your reply allows your fairy story of fireboming to work as an explanation.

So, along with your example of a lacustrine HEP system not involving a dam you can acrually do what you sad you would do and address the issue properly.

a reply to: turbonium1

You've been given evidence. You have provided none. Where is your evidence to support your fairy tale?

a reply to: turbonium1

Photos provided by those legions of US press correspondents hanging around Tokyo months before the end of the war?

Sure, that makes sense. It was reported in the press. Video footage was provided. Again, you are setting some arbitrary standard of evidentiary acceptability that you don't hae the right to set.

Evidence exists, you don't get to dismiss it just because you don't like it or because it falls short of some standard you have set wthout asking anyone else if it's OK for you to set it.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

No.

Wrong.

You said you wold address those points and all you've done is handwave them away. That is not how this works.

Please explain the process by which firebombing would produce a layer of radiocative fission by-products detectable ni soil world wide. All the articles I quoted clearly identified the 137-Cs as a by product of atoic weapons testing. Testing that was witnessed but thousands and for which abundant exists. Nothing in your reply allows your fairy story of fireboming to work as an explanation.

So, along with your example of a lacustrine HEP system not involving a dam you can acrually do what you sad you would do and address the issue properly.

It's not proof of anything. Some people claim the soil is effected by nuclear tests, and you believe it's true, without a shred of valid proof. It's not. Of course they'd support 'nukes' existing with 'studies of soil at test sites', what do you expect?

Hundreds of studies support the Apollo moon landings too, and that's hardly proof of s$^^ either.


Images of Tokyo prove 'nukes' were not dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because 'nukes' are faked.

They hid all images of Tokyo's firebombing from us, and that's a fact. Nobody saw such damage until Hiroshima images were shown to us a few months later, so when they claimed a 'nuke' did it, everyone bought their bs lie. If we'd seen images of Tokyo, it wouldn't sell the 'A-bomb' fantasy so wonderfully. We'd have seen the same thing happen in Tokyo, with firebombs. Nothing is 'unprecedented' with Hiroshima or Nagasaki, we'd seen it all before.

But, of course, only a very powerful new weapon could ever have caused such unprecedented damage, seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki images! 'Nukes', they must be real, nothing else can cause such damage to a city! Like Tokyo, perhaps? Nobody saw that, of course......it's just another of their many dirty little secrets.

And when you see the images of Tokyo, you already believe 'nukes' are real, so they must have destroyed those cities!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Photos provided by those legions of US press correspondents hanging around Tokyo months before the end of the war?

Sure, that makes sense. It was reported in the press. Video footage was provided. Again, you are setting some arbitrary standard of evidentiary acceptability that you don't hae the right to set.

Evidence exists, you don't get to dismiss it just because you don't like it or because it falls short of some standard you have set wthout asking anyone else if it's OK for you to set it.

Show me images were published in newspapers at the time, then. I'd sure like to see them, so go ahead...

I'm sure they must have shown images of Tokyo's damage, right?

They always showed damage in major cities, even smaller cities too. Dresden, London, Honolulu, Stalingrad, Berlin, and so on. We saw images of all those cities at the time, on front pages of newspapers, and in newsreels.

So the capital city of Japan is certainly shown as well, no?


No reason they wouldn't have shown images of Japan's heart in ruins, to help boost up American morale, during wartime...surely?

a reply to: turbonium1

Again, you demand evidence from people but provide not a single shred of it yourself. Again you said you would address the subject of the 137-Cs marker layer but all you've done is say "I don't believe it therefore it is false".

It is not a fact that images were hidden. Prove they were. Provide sources that show images were hidden. Provide evidence that there were hundreds of planes and bombs involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that all the photographs video evidence, eyewitness testimony and scientific reports of those bombs and the testing of them are fake. Provide evidence or even a logical argument that the radioactive marker layer was not produced by atomic bomb testing. The scientists using that layer, some of whom I have met and worked with, are more than happy about its source. What makes you think your CSE in home economics outclasses them?

Prove them wrong. Provide sources. Provide evidence. Otherwise your posts are just vacuous word salad trolling and empty rhetoric shoring up your shoddy education. "I don't understand it therefore it didn't happen" is pretty much all you have.

You'd think there'd have been all sorts of newspapers showing Tokyo's destruction, so it should be a cinch for you to find a few examples, at very least...


Tokyo destroyed would be a major event of the war, images of it would've been splashed on our newspapers, and everywhere else too.... right?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Again, you demand evidence from people but provude not a single shred of it yourself. Again you said you would address the subject of hte 137-Cs marker layer but all you've done is say "I don't believe it therefore it is false".

It is not a fact that images were hidden. Prove they were. Provide sources that show images were hidden. Provide evidence that there were hundreds of planes and bombs involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that all the photographs video evidence, eyewitness testimony and scientific reports of those bombs and the testing of them are fake. Provide evidence or even a logical argument that the radioactive marker layer was not produced by atomic bomb testing. The scientists using that layer, some of whom I have met and worked with, are more than happy about its source. What makes you think your CSE in home economics outclasses them?

Prove them wrong. Provide sources. Provide evidence. Otherwise your posts are just vacuous word salad trolling and empty rhetoric shoring up your shoddy education. "I don't understand it therefore it didn't happen" is pretty much all you have.

You have no images showing Tokyo, after the firebombing, right?

So you think I'm supposed to prove why they didn't show images of Japan's capital city in ruins, because they might have forgotten to show them, or had no images on hand, even though they directly stated 'images show' the destruction?

When they said 'Tokyo in rubble, images show', and don't show any images, that's up to me to prove they hid them from us??


Any excuse that avoids the facts, as usual.


They didn't show images of Tokyo, that's a fact.

They said 'images show' Tokyo's destruction, that's a fact.


If they never had images of Tokyo, how could they know exactly what the images show? Are they psychic? Lucky at guessing what it looks like? Heard about it from someone 'in the know'?

I suppose they drew a detailed map showing Tokyo's destruction, without a clue if it's accurate, too?

And then, they found out it WAS accurate, when having no clue, which was even MORE amazing!


Nobody hid images, though. The map was pure lucky guesswork, of course. They forgot to get images of Tokyo, no big deal. Everyone forgot to get images of it, for some reason, but who cares anyway?



The whole point I'm making is that images were not shown to us, at the time, of a major, unprecedented event of the war. You act like it's no big deal, or a little mistake, where every newspaper forgot to show images of Tokyo's destruction, the capital city of America's enemy, for no reason at all!!

They clearly DID hide the images from us, and the motive to hide them is blatantly obvious to see. It allowed them to show 'unprecedented' damage caused by 'nukes' in two, FAR less important cities than Tokyo!


I'd like you to tell me any reason NOT to show these images, ANYWHERE in the world, because I need a good laugh...

a reply to: turbonium1

I've shown you contemporary videos of it. Prove them wrong.

Provide sources for your claims.

Provide sources that disprove my claims.

137-Cs from atomic weapons testing proves atomic weapons were tested. Eyewitness testimony, scientifc reports, video and photo evidence prove they exist.

Your evidence is...?

Let's see - maybe every newspaper on Earth had no images of Tokyo.

Maybe they had images, but forgot to publish any of them, and it was all an honest mistake, repeated everywhere else too.

Maybe they thought it wasn't a big deal to show images of Tokyo, but liked the idea of drawing a map of it, instead.


Nobody hid images for a reason, though there was a good reason to hide them, which worked perfectly, if it was meant to work, which it wasn't, of course. Now I've heard everything!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

I've shown you contemporary videos of it. Prove them wrong.

Provide sources for your claims.

Provide sources that disprove my claims.

137-Cs from atomic weapons testing proves atomic weapons were tested. Eyewitness testimony, scientifc reports, video and photo evidence prove they exist.

Your evidence is...?

All the images of Tokyo showing the exact same damage seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki images.

You claim something in the soil proves it, because they say so.


Images are evidence, unfounded claims of people who support the 'nuke' lie is not worth squat.


They had very good reason to hide the images, which they did. Not showing any images is hiding them, with no other possible reason for doing it.

You'd claim they had images of everything else, except of Tokyo, or they plumb forgot to show them, no biggie!

How could a newspaper know what Tokyo looks like in images, back then, unless they had those images on hand? There was no internet to see images back then. So how did they manage to SEE them, unless they HAD them? The only way that is possible is if someone came to them, showed them images, and left with the images. Otherwise, they had them, right?

In either case, they hid them from us, without a doubt, Either the military hid them, or the media hid them. Because the images existed, and were seen, and not shown to us, for one reason, and nothing else. And you know the reason for hiding them, too.

Forget nukes these days we are developing nano-nukes. People already know of nuclear suicide vests. We're going further microwise.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

elementgenerators.blogspot.com...

element generating machine?

or terraforming machine.

its quite simple

someone must have already done it

aliens must have already done it for sure

Transformer AC/DC kinda pattern


Building up> Building down
chain chain


Fusion Fission
---


they must have done it back in the 40s as far as i can surmise

because this is a logical outcome

chain fission chain fusion

fusion merges atoms to form heavier elements

fission breaks down elements into half 'weight' elements

create any element u desire

create new elements

but but but

who cares abt buts they can be fixed

'u need so and so energy' 'wht abt radioactivity'

ull find solutions #s sooner or later



Chain fusion then chain fission
repeat

1 Hydrogen > Uranium
2 Uranium > Hydrogen
3 repeat

simplest formula of cyclical chain nuclear fusion/fission reaction


This is the element modifying formula

This will change the world

Theoretical will become practical

with radioactive protection that will be developed sooner, or later, or never, and this will make humans create, modify or destroy elements (material)

as they feel like.




Element creating/modifying vending machines or for homes use to create periodic table elements (discovered and undiscovered)

there are possibly 1000s of undiscovered periodic elements that is human made so incomplete aliens have bigger periodic tables with 1000s of elements

These will also be terraforming, atmosphere forming machines (xxxl industrial)

add to them lab made extremely fast evolving single cell organisms that evolve billion times quicker than normal evolution

u create and destroy planets with life on them at will

u create universes or destroy them

a reply to: turbonium1

it is truely ammusing that turbo troll wants " photographic evidence " - when he has rejected [ for specious reasons ] all photographic evidence provided to him in all previous threads