What?! Nuclear Hoax

a reply to: turbonium1

They also said a nuclear blast might ignite the atmosphere and destroy the planet. In Trinity and tests in the desert, most of the detonations occurred at 150 feet, on a tower. The fireball touched the ground, and turned the sand to glass under where the tower had been.

Little Boy detonated over Hiroshima at 1900 feet. Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki at 1650 feet. Neither fireball touched the ground, so neither bomb left any effects similar to Trinity at ground zero.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

They also said a nuclear blast might ignite the atmosphere and destroy the planet. In Trinity and tests in the desert, most of the detonations occurred at 150 feet, on a tower. The fireball touched the ground, and turned the sand to glass under where the tower had been.

Little Boy detonated over Hiroshima at 1900 feet. Fat Man detonated over Nagasaki at 1650 feet. Neither fireball touched the ground, so neither bomb left any effects similar to Trinity at ground zero.

Now let's review your argument - you claim they dropped two 'nukes' on these cities, but there is nothing to prove that is true, from any of the images. It's the bomb that can replicate a firebombed city, and never prove it ever existed, unless they said so!

It's obviously magical coincidence that they invented a 'bomb', which perfectly replicates the appearance of a firebombing, at the same time they were firebombing all sorts of other cities in Japan!

a reply to: turbonium1

Of course they're going to look similar. The firebombing was completed using incendiary devices, which are designed to burn near 4,000 degrees farenheit. An atomic bomb temperature spikes to near 7200 degrees farenheit. Especially in Japan, where large areas were built of wood, both were going to cause major fires and massive destruction.

So far, as usual, your argument boils down to "I don't believe in them". You haven't provided a shred of evidence as to why nuclear bombs can't be real. On the other hand, there are Japanese records of the air raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, showing less than 5 aircraft on each. Records of thousands of nuclear tests around the world, backed up by radiological and seismic data, confirmed by non- governmental groups, the layer of cesium in the soil that only begins after Trinity, the Trinity site itself, that you can visit....

You are trying to change their entire story, of a bomb that vaporizes everything within a half-mile radius.

That's what we were led to believe, and it's believed today, that they invented a bomb which destroys an entire city within a few seconds, and we all saw the photos of those two cities, which shocked the whole world, after we saw two entire cities, which were 'wiped off the map'. Nobody had seen such overwhelming destruction, ever before. Not even close to it, in fact.

They never showed us Tokyo after the firebombing. None of you can possibly explain why they didn't show us any images of Tokyo, so you change the subject, again and again, ignoring it at all costs.

It's a key piece of the whole issue, which you ignore, because it's very relevant to the issue. That's why you cannot address it.


We never heard your version of the story. Where did you hear this version, anyway? Any source(s) on it? So we know it's not made up, or something...


You want me to prove that 'nukes' don't work, when you can't prove they DO work.

There are two examples you hold up as proof of 'nukes' that you excuse as 'special cases', where it can magically appear like a firebombing!

Yikes.

a reply to: turbonium1

I'm not changing anything except the bald spot you claim has to be there. An air burst destroys all but hardened structures within the first mile, and soft structures, such as houses, as far as five miles.

Pictures of Tokyo were shown, but again as usual, you ignore that when it doesn't suit you. There were also newsreel videos shown in theaters.

Yeah, you're right, if you start a fire with lighter fluid it's going to look nothing like the fire started with a blow torch. I mean all fires look totally different unless they're started with the same source on the same materials.

That still doesn't explain shadows burned into walls, thousands of deaths and burns from radiation, higher radiation levels in bones excavated years later, the higher radiation levels measured immediately after the war that have since dropped, as you'd expect from introduced radiation....

But go ahead, wave your hands and just ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrative while providing zero evidence beyond your opinion.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Of course they're going to look similar. The firebombing was completed using incendiary devices, which are designed to burn near 4,000 degrees farenheit. An atomic bomb temperature spikes to near 7200 degrees farenheit. Especially in Japan, where large areas were built of wood, both were going to cause major fires and massive destruction.

So far, as usual, your argument boils down to "I don't believe in them". You haven't provided a shred of evidence as to why nuclear bombs can't be real. On the other hand, there are Japanese records of the air raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, showing less than 5 aircraft on each. Records of thousands of nuclear tests around the world, backed up by radiological and seismic data, confirmed by non- governmental groups, the layer of cesium in the soil that only begins after Trinity, the Trinity site itself, that you can visit....

You're changing their whole story, and twist around their actual claims.... nice try!


What was told to the world after these two events happened?

They claimed a powerful new bomb was dropped on those two cities, which had virtually wiped those cities off the map, or words to that effect, anyway.

Why not show me where they ever claimed it had the same effect as a major firebombing? I'd like to see where you ever got that idea from....if you really did, that is.


Your claim about 'nukes' is nonsense, since it is/was never part of their actual claim(s), in any way.

a reply to: turbonium1

It's well documented that Fat Man and Little Boy were air bursts. It's well documented how air bursts work, which is exactly like a ground burst, with less fallout. The only thing that has changed is the fact that air bursts don't leave a mark on the ground contrary to what you insist, without any proof again, has to be there for it to be a nuclear blast.

I'd like to see evidence from you for a change that nuclear weapons don't work or don't exist. We don't always get what we want. But what exactly do you think is going to happen if you take two cities, both with large amounts of construction with wood and paper, drop something that is burning at 4000 degrees in one, and drop something that heats the air to over 7000 degrees, and creates a blast wave of over 5psi that travels several miles. Exactly how different do you think that's going to look? Put some legwork into it for a change and show evidence for once.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

I'm not changing anything except the bald spot you claim has to be there. An air burst destroys all but hardened structures within the first mile, and soft structures, such as houses, as far as five miles.

Pictures of Tokyo were shown, but again as usual, you ignore that when it doesn't suit you. There were also newsreel videos shown in theaters.

Prove that they showed photos of Tokyo to us, then...

And this 'air burst' you refer to has never been their main claim(s), don't be absurd.


The claim(s) they have always made, is that a 'nuke' destroys everything within a half-mile radius, no exceptions.

They've never said anything about steel or concrete structures being exceptions, within the half-mile radius, at all.


If they had pointed out that steel and concrete buildings are left intact after a 'nuke' hits the cities, we'd all be living in steel or concrete houses by now, and that didn't happen, did it?

Because we never heard about steel or concrete buildings being safe, or far safer, than any other structures, we have, like wood, etc.


So when you try claiming that 'hardened structures' are/have always been known to be safe, or something, within a 'nuke' blast zone, you're either making it up, or someone else made it up, and you're just parroting them.

a reply to: turbonium1

Once again, it's all your claims with no evidence to back them up.

The targeting committee was attempting to maximize the damage done by both bombs. If an air burst wasn't known to them, why did they actually calculate that a 15 kt bomb, to maximize the 5 psi blast wave, would have to detonate at approximately 2400 feet? It's also been calculated that to destroy a concrete and steel building, you need a blast wave of at least 20 psi. A 1 megaton device, which is several orders of magnitude bigger than either Fat Man or Little Boy, have a peak wave of 50 psi. So concrete and steel, against a large yield bomb, wouldn't make a bit of difference.

All of this was either known, or figured out during testing as time went on. There have been over 2,000 tests performed using nuclear weapons worldwide, under just about every condition they could test under. When Fat Man and Little Boy were detonated, they were still learning about the effects. They had only detonated one bomb prior to those two being used in real conditions. You don't go from "We might possibly set the atmosphere on fire setting this off" to experts in their effects with one test. You can learn a lot from one test, but it's going to take years of testing to learn as much as we know now.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
But what exactly do you think is going to happen if you take two cities, both with large amounts of construction with wood and paper, drop something that is burning at 4000 degrees in one, and drop something that heats the air to over 7000 degrees, and creates a blast wave of over 5psi that travels several miles. Exactly how different do you think that's going to look? Put some legwork into it for a change and show evidence for once.

What did they actually, specifically CLAIM that a 'nuke' would do?

We all read newspapers back then for information, and radio broadcasts, that was all we had. Nothing else.

If it wasn't in the papers, or on the radio, it wasn't known about. And we didn't consider it important, if it wasn't in our newspapers, or not heard on our radios.


The firebombing of Tokyo was obviously an important, significant event at the time, without a doubt. No other single event had greater importance, at the time.

Why didn't they show us photos of this historic event? It's rather obvious for anyone here to figure out why they didn't show any photos of Tokyo, is it not?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Facts?

Facts?

Anyone?

Turbo has never needed any facts. He simply makes claims based on the way the Universe works in his head, rubbishes mercilessly any and all facts that prove that his talking rubbish and then repeats things in the hope that people will forget that he said the same thing a few pages back.

At least he somehow hasn't slipped his Flat Earth silliness into this thread.

It is a fact that no 'bald spot', or 'vaporization zone', was found at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

It is a fact that the 'A-bomb' is supposed to create such a 'bald spot', which would distinguish a nuclear attack from any other type of attack, such as conventional bombs, or firebombs.

Do you claim these are NOT facts? If so, then you need to explain why they are not facts, with actual evidence to back your claim.

I've had enough of you avoiding the specific points I've raised, with your nonsensical posts that say ' Facts?', and ignore the facts I've actually presented here.

Why don't you simply address the facts I've presented, such as those above?

You're not afraid to address only two, very basic points....are you?

Just two examples of vaporized people in Japan from the nukes.


I googled "shadow of person vaporized in Hiroshima or Nagasaki"
Nukes are real, the Earth is round.

Steel and concrete buildings won't be left intact after a conventional bomb attack, which we all know.

It may be safer than other structures of wood, perhaps, but they are not immune from destruction, with conventional bombs.

Steel and concrete structures are, however, much safer in a firebombing attack, than wood, or any other flammable structures. We know that, too.


What about 'nukes'? I've never heard them claim steel or concrete structures are left intact, after a 'nuke' blast....

Because they've never said it, so nobody knows about it, nobody builds steel or concrete houses to live in, which we would have definitely built all over the world, if we'd ever heard about it.

But we haven't heard that, right?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
But what exactly do you think is going to happen if you take two cities, both with large amounts of construction with wood and paper, drop something that is burning at 4000 degrees in one, and drop something that heats the air to over 7000 degrees, and creates a blast wave of over 5psi that travels several miles. Exactly how different do you think that's going to look? Put some legwork into it for a change and show evidence for once.

What did they actually, specifically CLAIM that a 'nuke' would do?

indeed. What specifically did they claim a nuclear weapon would do. Specifically.

We all read newspapers back then for information, and radio broadcasts, that was all we had. Nothing else.

We? I very much doubt that includes you. There was also TV news and newsreels in the cinema.

If it wasn't in the papers, or on the radio, it wasn't known about. And we didn't consider it important, if it wasn't in our newspapers, or not heard on our radios.

Just because the general public don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Tokyo firebombings were all known about. The science was known and discussed in public. You not knowing about it is not the same as other people not knowing about it.

nsarchive2.gwu.edu...

www.nytimes.com...

The firebombing of Tokyo was obviously an important, significant event at the time, without a doubt. No other single event had greater importance, at the time.

Debatable. Tokyo's firebombing was one event in a long campaign that also included other events.

Why didn't they show us photos of this historic event? It's rather obvious for anyone here to figure out why they didn't show any photos of Tokyo, is it not?

How many allied journalists were in Tokyo?

Facts.

Any time you like.

originally posted by: Violater1

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Facts?

Facts?

Anyone?

Turbo has never needed any facts. He simply makes claims based on the way the Universe works in his head, rubbishes mercilessly any and all facts that prove that his talking rubbish and then repeats things in the hope that people will forget that he said the same thing a few pages back.

At least he somehow hasn't slipped his Flat Earth silliness into this thread.

It is a fact that no 'bald spot', or 'vaporization zone', was found at either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

It is a fact that the 'A-bomb' is supposed to create such a 'bald spot', which would distinguish a nuclear attack from any other type of attack, such as conventional bombs, or firebombs.

Do you claim these are NOT facts? If so, then you need to explain why they are not facts, with actual evidence to back your claim.

I've had enough of you avoiding the specific points I've raised, with your nonsensical posts that say ' Facts?', and ignore the facts I've actually presented here.

Why don't you simply address the facts I've presented, such as those above?

You're not afraid to address only two, very basic points....are you?

Just two examples of vaporized people in Japan from the nukes.

I googled "shadow of person vaporized in Hiroshima or Nagasaki"
Nukes are real, the Earth is round.

The same thing happened in Tokyo, and other firebombed cities in Japan.

It's all propaganda. Please try to study this issue, beyond the surface, and all the mass media crap.

a reply to: turbonium1

The same mass media crap you insist everyone posts as proof? Ass media crap is OK for you to post but not everyone else? You demand newspaper reports but then dismiss them when it proves you to be ignorant of the truth?

Proper research into the subject involves in depth study of it, not just regurgitating crap from other science deniers. You have barely dented the meniscus of this subject with your 'in depth' study.

Facts.

Any time you like.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
But what exactly do you think is going to happen if you take two cities, both with large amounts of construction with wood and paper, drop something that is burning at 4000 degrees in one, and drop something that heats the air to over 7000 degrees, and creates a blast wave of over 5psi that travels several miles. Exactly how different do you think that's going to look? Put some legwork into it for a change and show evidence for once.

What did they actually, specifically CLAIM that a 'nuke' would do?

indeed. What specifically did they claim a nuclear weapon would do. Specifically.

We all read newspapers back then for information, and radio broadcasts, that was all we had. Nothing else.

We? I very much doubt that includes you. There was also TV news and newsreels in the cinema.

If it wasn't in the papers, or on the radio, it wasn't known about. And we didn't consider it important, if it wasn't in our newspapers, or not heard on our radios.

Just because the general public don't know about something, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Tokyo firebombings were all known about. The science was known and discussed in public. You not knowing about it is not the same as other people not knowing about it.

nsarchive2.gwu.edu...

www.nytimes.com...

The firebombing of Tokyo was obviously an important, significant event at the time, without a doubt. No other single event had greater importance, at the time.

Debatable. Tokyo's firebombing was one event in a long campaign that also included other events.

Why didn't they show us photos of this historic event? It's rather obvious for anyone here to figure out why they didn't show any photos of Tokyo, is it not?

How many allied journalists were in Tokyo?

Facts.

Any time you like.

Who cares how many there were, the fact is that they HAD photos of Tokyo, because the newspaper even SAID 'photos show' Tokyo after the firebombing!

When you say what photos of Tokyo show, that's probably because you've SEEN photos of Tokyo, right? Get a clue, for once!


If you don't even know what they claim 'nukes' are supposed to do, or not do, what are you supporting here? You don't even know what 'nukes' are actually claimed to do, but who cares what it does, or doesn't do, because you 'know' it's all true!

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

The same mass media crap you insist everyone posts as proof? Ass media crap is OK for you to post but not everyone else? You demand newspaper reports but then dismiss them when it proves you to be ignorant of the truth?

Proper research into the subject involves in depth study of it, not just regurgitating crap from other science deniers. You have barely dented the meniscus of this subject with your 'in depth' study.

Facts.

Any time you like.

Intact buildings are a fact, your deliberate ignorance of that fact is your problem, nobody else's.


You have no clue about what your supporting, so if you ever do, tell us about it, so then we'll know where you stand on the issue. Because it's rather important for a debate on issues, if you know what you're actually supporting, in the first place!

a reply to: turbonium1

Where did I ever claim that everything would be flattened? What makes you think, other than the mass media crap you so apparently despise, that this would ever be the case?

Stuff happens, and that includes not every building being flattened.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

The center of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings as well as lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses; a few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs. Many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage. Some of the reinforced concrete buildings were of a far stronger construction than is required by normal standards in America, because of the earthquake danger in Japan. This exceptionally strong construction undoubtedly accounted for the fact that the framework of some of the buildings which were fairly close to the center of damage in the city did not collapse.

www.japantimes.co.jp...

Only about 50 buildings of particularly strong construction, such as the Bank of Hiroshima, remained intact. Much of the rest of the city was swept up in the vast mushroom cloud.

You know nothing about this subject, something that is self evident because you keep posting hysterical garbage based on absolutely nothing but your own opinion. Take the Seversky report earlier and the strawman you built from it. You decide that if he reported that nuclear weapons were not responsible he'd be murdered, yet 'they' are quite happy for him to report that they aren't as bad as all that and we can all have nuclear wars without issue.

You are obviously ignorant of the difference between air burst and ground detonations and how they behave (where even a low grade moron could fathom out that there would be a difference),

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com...

archive.org...

blog.nuclearsecrecy.com...

and completely clueless to the fact that there are nuclear fallout shelters all over the world built out of concrete and steel.

You then have the absolute gall to tell someone to go research the subject. Seriously, I may need to get to casualty soon to repair my split sides.

originally posted by: turbonium1
Steel and concrete buildings won't be left intact after a conventional bomb attack, which we all know.

It may be safer than other structures of wood, perhaps, but they are not immune from destruction, with conventional bombs.

Steel and concrete structures are, however, much safer in a firebombing attack, than wood, or any other flammable structures. We know that, too.


What about 'nukes'? I've never heard them claim steel or concrete structures are left intact, after a 'nuke' blast....

Because they've never said it, so nobody knows about it, nobody builds steel or concrete houses to live in, which we would have definitely built all over the world, if we'd ever heard about it.

But we haven't heard that, right?

You clearly live in cloud cuckoo land.
You should be thoroughly embarrassed by the utter nonsense you have posted.
You do not even understand what an airburst detonation is and you simply ignore evidence that is presented to you whilst offering absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous claims.
Are you for real?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

Where did I ever claim that everything would be flattened? What makes you think, other than the mass media crap you so apparently despise, that this would ever be the case?

Stuff happens, and that includes not every building being flattened.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

The center of the city contained a number of reinforced concrete buildings as well as lighter structures. Outside the center, the area was congested by a dense collection of small wooden workshops set among Japanese houses; a few larger industrial plants lay near the outskirts of the city. The houses were of wooden construction with tile roofs. Many of the industrial buildings also were of wood frame construction. The city as a whole was highly susceptible to fire damage. Some of the reinforced concrete buildings were of a far stronger construction than is required by normal standards in America, because of the earthquake danger in Japan. This exceptionally strong construction undoubtedly accounted for the fact that the framework of some of the buildings which were fairly close to the center of damage in the city did not collapse.

www.japantimes.co.jp...

I guess normal temperature fires can warp, twist, (and supposedly melt) steel, in the two strongest structures we had ever built, but some magical fires, which supposedly can vaporize everything, have absolutely no effect on "exceptionally strong" buildings in Japanese cities!

Saying the buildings were left intact because of their "exceptionally strong construction", is completely ridiculous. Such fires would blacken the exterior of these buildings, no matter how"exceptionally strong" they (supposedly) were.

Your excuse doesn't work, in any way, no matter how you wish it did.


Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed, like Tokyo was, and every single piece of evidence proves it, beyond a doubt.
Firebombing causes the exact same damage, and leaves the exact same buildings intact, and burns off skin of people in the exact same way, and NOTHING is different within all three cities, which is absolute proof they were all firebombed.

You're making up all sorts of excuses that 'nukes' will do the same damage, leave the same buildings intact, as a firebomb attack did in Tokyo, and dozens of other cities in Japan, and that it happened a few months later, except they did it with a powerful new weapon!!

Why don't you tell me what would be considered valid evidence that a city was firebombed? Are there any distinct features of a firebombing, which would only be the result of a firebombing, or do you believe a firebombing is not at all distinct from other methods of destruction, which look identical to a firebombing?

If you want to keep going with a claim about how a firebombing looks identical to a 'nuke' attack, in every single way possible, you have nothing to support it, except if they were claiming a 'nuke' would cause identical damage to a firebombing, like in Tokyo. Or at least if they'd claimed a 'nuke' blast at such heights would leave buildings near it completely intact, which was the case in both cities.

You have to make a claim that can be supported by evidence, and you don't even have a claim, that's about as absurd as it can get, is it not? Add that you say I have no evidence of a firebombing, which is only two entire cities, then it's beyond ridiculous.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
You know nothing about this subject, something that is self evident because you keep posting hysterical garbage based on absolutely nothing but your own opinion. Take the Seversky report earlier and the strawman you built from it. You decide that if he reported that nuclear weapons were not responsible he'd be murdered, yet 'they' are quite happy for him to report that they aren't as bad as all that and we can all have nuclear wars without issue.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
You are obviously ignorant of the difference between air burst and ground detonations and how they behave (where even a low grade moron could fathom out that there would be a difference),

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
and completely clueless to the fact that there are nuclear fallout shelters all over the world built out of concrete and steel.