What?! Nuclear Hoax

Nukes have never been proven to exist, since 1945 - that's totally ridiculous.


Nukes are supposed to vaporize cities into dust, which they claim happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when they were 'nuked'.

How come their powerful 'nukes', which vaporize everything into dust, left all the bridges intact, and left a few of the buildings, completely intact, as well?

What would happen if they had placed TNT on all those intact bridges, and on all those still-intact buildings, instead of 'nuking' it?

They'd destroy them all, right?


But somehow, these 'nukes' can't smash them, or even damage them??


This impossible discrepancy is explained by the Tokyo firebombings, prior to these events, supposedly caused by their powerful 'nukes'.

It was the very same destruction, as we saw in the two other cities.


Why fake it, if it was real? No way.

a reply to: turbonium1

Stating that something doesn't exist does not mean that it doesn't exist when there is clear scientific, physical and anecdotal evidence for it.

Still waiting for your explanation for the global existence in soil of a clear marker layer of 137-Cs that can only have come from weapons testing on the 1950s.

In your own time.

originally posted by: BoneSay

originally posted by: turbonium1
Nukes have never been proven to exist, since 1945 - that's totally ridiculous.


Nukes are supposed to vaporize cities into dust, which they claim happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when they were 'nuked'.

How come their powerful 'nukes', which vaporize everything into dust, left all the bridges intact, and left a few of the buildings, completely intact, as well?

What would happen if they had placed TNT on all those intact bridges, and on all those still-intact buildings, instead of 'nuking' it?

They'd destroy them all, right?


But somehow, these 'nukes' can't smash them, or even damage them??


This impossible discrepancy is explained by the Tokyo firebombings, prior to these events, supposedly caused by their powerful 'nukes'.

It was the very same destruction, as we saw in the two other cities.


Why fake it, if it was real? No way.

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

You've never seen a nuke work, but no problem here, folks! We know they exist, so they exist, who needs proof, that's just silly!

"The Emperor's New Clothes"

it means You all believe scientists and government!
they tell you some thing happened or some thing is good/bad for you,
you totally believe them.
shame you can not think for your self.

they said nothing escapes a black hole.
now we now it does!
they said nothing travel faster than light,
now we now it does!

but you dont see this.
and forget what they said before.

a reply to: turbonium1

You've seen one though right? You've witnessed one of them go off so you can say for sure that it was just a conventional explosive? No? Well that's your line of argument completely ruined then.

Still waiting for your 137-Cs explanation.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org...

www.stratadata.co.uk...

www.gns.cri.nz... 37Cs

www.radioactivity.eu.com...

web.whoi.edu...

and so on and so on...

originally posted by: buddha
"The Emperor's New Clothes"

it means You all believe scientists and government!
they tell you some thing happened or some thing is good/bad for you,
you totally believe them.
shame you can not think for your self.

they said nothing escapes a black hole.
now we now it does!
they said nothing travel faster than light,
now we now it does!

but you dont see this.
and forget what they said before.

because science is based on theories, and theories are theories.. did you heard that theories are theories and that theories are not facts and than when you understand things better you usually fix the wrongs on the theory?

that's why people move on and use the new stuff, i read of the obsolete theory is confirmed wrong they use a new one and try to disprove and if they do then there's another new theory!

and i also read that it's better to accept that something was wrong and to look for better options than to keep repeating the dumb stuff over and over and over because you don't want to say 'i was wrong'

or something like that i read on the cereal box this morning : ))

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

You've seen one though right? You've witnessed one of them go off so you can say for sure that it was just a conventional explosive? No? Well that's your line of argument completely ruined then.

Still waiting for your 137-Cs explanation.

pdfs.semanticscholar.org...

www.stratadata.co.uk...

www.gns.cri.nz... 37Cs

www.radioactivity.eu.com...

web.whoi.edu...

and so on and so on...

I'm not the one claiming nukes exist, you are. It's your burden of proving the claim, not mine to disprove something you haven't proven to exist!!

If they exist, I want to see proof. Nothing else matters.

Nobody has seen nukes work, in person. It's so easy for them to prove they exist, if they really existed. Set off a nuke in a remote area, where we can all go and see it from a safe distance. Invite South Korean diplomats, scare the crap out of them. Why not show the world American muscle, in person?

They've been riding the nuke story since 1945, with two firebombed cities in Japan, and fake films since then. Nothing but utter bs.

The creation of a fake weapon in 1945 had a problem to deal with, afterwards. That being, it cannot be proven to exist, through replicating the weapon, because the weapon doesn't exist. They cannot say how to make this weapon, of course, because it is so powerful a weapon, it can destroy the entire planet. So it must be kept secret from others, who desire destruction of the planet, or America, or American cities.

So who knows how to build the weapon after a few years? America's greatest enemy, of course!!

Secret weapon excuse is toast, in no time.

Another excuse had to come along, obviously. Evil enemies have it, but only a very scientifically advanced evil enemy can make nukes!!Why?

Because nukes have a special, very very difficult to create ingredient in them - 'refined plutonium'!!

So how can this special ingredient be created? Only with advanced machinery, and specialists in nuclear physics, can one create this special ingredient!And acquiring plutonium is very difficult, as it is a very rare element in our planet. Nobody else knows where to find it but the people who can build nukes, like America, and its evil enemy, and a few others, too!!

That's why nobody else has ever been able to build a nuke, since 1945, but a few 'scientifically advanced' nations!!


Great story, but you still need to prove nukes exist, and you haven't proved a thing since you faked it in 1945.

A story that still works as it did in 1945, is sad to see.

a reply to: turbonium1

The existence of a global marker layer from the fission products of nuclear weapons testing proves their existence.

Your proof to the contrary is...erm...apparently not going to happen.

a reply to: turbonium1

So the reason nuclear weapons don't exist is because people built them.

Riiiiiight....

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

So the reason nuclear weapons don't exist is because people built them.

Riiiiiight....

I see that Turbo's cheese has finally slid off his cracker. That or he is, once again, underneath a river crossing place.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

The existence of a global marker layer from the fission products of nuclear weapons testing proves their existence.

Your proof to the contrary is...erm...apparently not going to happen.

You've never proven a thing yet, you just keep on making worthless claims, like they're already facts, over and over again.

You live in a fantasy-land, where everything is true, if they tell you it's true.

a reply to: turbonium1

Still waiting for you to provide that explanation for the global 137-Cs fission product marker layer.

Any time you're ready.

The longer you leave it, the more people will be forced to conclude that you're a gutless ignoramus running away from the debate because you have no response to logical argument and solid scientific evidence. I'm sure no-one wants that.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

The existence of a global marker layer from the fission products of nuclear weapons testing proves their existence.

Your proof to the contrary is...erm...apparently not going to happen.

You've never proven a thing yet, you just keep on making worthless claims, like they're already facts, over and over again.

You live in a fantasy-land, where everything is true, if they tell you it's true.

Says the person with zero proof about anything but his cries for help when people make fun of him

Also neither do you have an argument, you just cry because no one agrees with you ',]

Prove me wrong please. with facts, not crying, act like the adult you are supposed to be, show me how you got to go this thing stuff. how did you got to think nuclear power is false? facts?

a reply to: turbonium1

Great story, but you still need to prove nukes exist, and you haven't proved a thing since you faked it in 1945.

No, it wasn't me as I was not around in 1945.

There is plenty of proof that nukes are a thing. Are nuclear power stations "faked"? Do tell. You need to prove that the well understood physics of nuclear fission are in some way wrong. Of course, you can't do that because your claims are simply nonsense and you have zero understanding of virtually any kind of science as you have so amply demonstrated on here, again and again.

Would you also care to explain why you lied about Hiroshima not being filmed?

a reply to: turbonium1

You live in a fantasy-land, where everything is true, if they tell you it's true.

Whereas your good self lives in a land where the Earth is flat and covered by a glass dome, rockets and satellites are faked, the moon landings were faked, gravity is fake and nuclear weapons are faked. And you think that we are all living in a fantasy land?

You did of course claim that no plane could reach your Ice Wall and a few posts later you posted what you claimed was a video of said Ice Wall taken from a plane.

Priceless comedy gold. Please keep posting, your'e hilarious!

Go on - are nuclear power stations faked?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1

Great story, but you still need to prove nukes exist, and you haven't proved a thing since you faked it in 1945.

No, it wasn't me as I was not around in 1945.

There is plenty of proof that nukes are a thing. Are nuclear power stations "faked"? Do tell. You need to prove that the well understood physics of nuclear fission are in some way wrong. Of course, you can't do that because your claims are simply nonsense and you have zero understanding of virtually any kind of science as you have so amply demonstrated on here, again and again.

Would you also care to explain why you lied about Hiroshima not being filmed?

I didn't say Hiroshima wasn't filmed, I said they faked footage of it to look like it was hit by a fake A-bomb. No lie, buddy, don't bs me.

There is simply no valid proof that nukes work, and never will have proof, either.

Spewing about the 'well understood physics' is certainly not proof of anything.

Saying 'here is our paper that shows nukes work', is nonsense. If that's all you have, you have nothing at all.

a reply to: turbonium1

137-Cs marker layer.

Discuss.