What?! Nuclear Hoax

a reply to: turbonium1

Are you being wilfully obtuse?

137-Cs is a product of atomic bombs plural, not any specific one.

Tokyo and Hirosima/nNagasaki were destroyed by bombings and the resultant firestorms. The differencecis how many bombs.

You present nothing that disproves anything I've posted. Not one single thing. Anyone coming to this thread will see pointless trolling from someone demanding evidence they don't really want from peopke you refuse to believe on a subject you don't understand.

There is evidence opposing your claims. You gave nothing to support them.

Prove us all wrong or admit your just trolling.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
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

Why is it so hard to act like an adult for you? I don't call you ape troll, out of the blue, because it's juvenile. So why do you feel the need to act like a child? Anyway, to the point..

I'm asking for images of Tokyo published in newspapers at the time, so the excuses don't work, sorry. I'm not sure what other images you are referring to, but if they're space/moon landing related, they are most likely faked, and to reject them as fake is not the same as asking for images of Tokyo, no matter how much you want to connect the two issues.


However, it is truly amusing that none of you even wonder, or question, why they never published images of Tokyo in newspapers at the time.

You don't even have a legitimate reason why they wouldn't have shown those images, because there are no valid reasons, which fit your main argument.

I've explained the exact reason why they didn't show those images, because that's the only reason to hide them from us.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Are you being wilfully obtuse?

137-Cs is a product of atomic bombs plural, not any specific one.

Tokyo and Hirosima/nNagasaki were destroyed by bombings and the resultant firestorms. The differencecis how many bombs.

You present nothing that disproves anything I've posted. Not one single thing. Anyone coming to this thread will see pointless trolling from someone demanding evidence they don't really want from peopke you refuse to believe on a subject you don't understand.

There is evidence opposing your claims. You gave nothing to support them.

Prove us all wrong or admit your just trolling.

I'm providing evidence that supports my arguments, nobody is trolling but your side, who often say nothing but insults, and avoid the issue entirely.


Compare Tokyo to Hiroshima, and tell me how they are any different in the specific type damage they each caused, and how they both left the same type (steel/concrete) structures still intact ....




Put it another way - if you saw both of these images, and didn't know what caused their damage, what would you think?

If you answer this honestly, you would think both were caused by the exact same method, correct?

For sure, there is nothing in these images which would indicate anything different caused the damage of either city.

If they had told us Tokyo was 'nuked', and showed the images of Tokyo afterwards, we would all have believed Tokyo was 'nuked', right? Simply add in footage of a 'mushroom cloud', pasted over aerial footage of Tokyo, and it's virtually identical to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You must realize that, don't you?

These images ARE evidence of what really happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was exactly the same as what happened in Tokyo only months earlier. All three cities were firebombed, as the images prove, without a doubt. The horrific burn injuries, and so forth, were the same in all three cities. The reports from many survivors in all three cities were the same, which mention the intense heat, and fires, causing them to gasp for air. They cannot match any better, in fact.

It is the intact structures of steel and concrete in all three cities that proves conclusively all three were firebombed. 'Nukes' are supposed to destroy virtually everything in its path, without exceptions. They claim steel was twisted and ripped apart, but the intact buildings and bridges prove this is a lie.

Images of Hiroshima, the first shows where ground zero, or 'hypocenter,' supposedly was...



Bridges were intact, of course..



Buildings were still intact, only 260 m from the 'hypocenter'...



Of course, powerful nukes were no problem for Hiroshima's banks, only some 530 m away from the blast point!....





They claim A-bombs, or any 'nukes', reach about 100 million degrees Fahrenheit at their core, which is said to be the same as our Sun's temperature!

Simply look at the images above, where buildings were still intact, 260 m from ground zero, because it proves, without a doubt, that your 'nuke' claim is pure nonsense.

No building could withstand such temperatures, or even 1 percent of it, which is 1 million degrees!

Steel melts at less than 3000 degrees F.
Concrete crumbles apart at 1500 degrees F.


These buildings would be vaporized if there had been anything CLOSE to such temperatures reached at ground zero.


This proves there was no such bomb, which supposedly created 100 million degree temperatures, because these structures were intact, and that would be completely impossible if such temps were reached, or a fraction of it.

Physical laws, and the well-know effects of high temperatures, on steel and concrete.....prove you wrong.

Let's look at one of the images again...



These buildings withstood 100 million degree temperatures, just like flying pink elephants really exist, too!!

originally posted by: turbonium1
Let's look at one of the images again...

These buildings withstood 100 million degree temperatures, just like flying pink elephants really exist, too!!

The nuclear bomb in Hiroshima raised the temperatures to 4,000 degrees Celsius, not 100 million

If you are like on the ASD that's cool guy, but if you are trying to troll people and purposely getting figures out of behind then i think a mod should come and deal with you

You are like someone spitting on pretty girl's faces on a coffee shop, then claiming the coffee was too hot

Still nothing.

originally posted by: Malisa

originally posted by: turbonium1
Let's look at one of the images again...

These buildings withstood 100 million degree temperatures, just like flying pink elephants really exist, too!!

The nuclear bomb in Hiroshima raised the temperatures to 4,000 degrees Celsius, not 100 million

If you are like on the ASD that's cool guy, but if you are trying to troll people and purposely getting figures out of behind then i think a mod should come and deal with you

You are like someone spitting on pretty girl's faces on a coffee shop, then claiming the coffee was too hot

Initially, most of this energy goes into heating the bomb materials and the air in the vicinity of the blast. Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.

You should look at the evidence before you spew childish insults, but I'm sure you won't.


What would make 6000 degree C temperatures a better argument? Nothing, of course, but I probably need to explain this to you, as usual....

At 6000 degrees, steel still melts, and concrete still crumbles apart, in case you don't know that. So it would still have to be the same result, and we know that is not the case, right?

Get it?

a reply to: turbonium1

What would make 6000 degree C temperatures a better argument? Nothing, of course, but I probably need to explain this to you, as usual....

Just make of you a nasty lier of course

What else? A fake argument against something you can't prove i guess

But let's focus on my first point

Why did you lie about the temperature at the time? Were you trying to troll, or are you ignorant?

That would be the next question to figure out, Mister Turbonium1

Assuming C 135 exists, it does not prove 'nukes' exist, in any way at all.


We've created all sorts of different materials that didn't exist before, like composites, and so on. If they said they created a composite in 1995, which is being used in a new bomb developed in 1997, and they find the remnants of this composite in soil where the new bomb was tested, how does that prove the bomb itself exists? It doesn't prove anything.


This does not prove the bomb exists. Any material they claim to be in the bomb, or a result of the bomb, which they claim to find in soil where the bomb was tested, is nothing but more unfounded claims that support the first claim, which is also unproven - that their new bomb exists!

Unproven claims on other unproven claims don't prove anything, in other words.


If I claimed to invent a time machine, and my time machine creates unique elements in the soil beneath it when I use my time machine, which didn't exist before my time machine.....would I have proven my time machine really works, because of this 'evidence', which I showed you? No, it would not prove it, right?

All you know is that some type of new, unknown of before material exists, perhaps. It may have existed already, as well. It may be a fake material, claimed to be real.

But you certainly know it does not prove my time machine works, in any way, right?



That's the same as you claiming C 135 is a byproduct of 'nukes', and it's been found in the soil where 'nukes' were tested, which 'proves' that 'nukes' exist! No, it doesn't prove a thing. It's all claims, supporting claims, which have never been proven to begin with!


Understand the problem now?

Shouldn't you be quoting someone with that answer?

Are you running away with blanket statements you provided before Mr Turbonium, instead of answering specific questions?

Isn't that a bit cowardish?

originally posted by: Malisa
a reply to: turbonium1

What would make 6000 degree C temperatures a better argument? Nothing, of course, but I probably need to explain this to you, as usual....

Just make of you a nasty lier of course

What else? A fake argument against something you can't prove i guess

But let's focus on my first point

Why did you lie about the temperature at the time? Were you trying to troll, or are you ignorant?

That would be the next question to figure out, Mister Turbonium1

Stop being a fool, and look at this...

Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.


Why are you falsely accusing me of lying, then?



www.atomicarchive.com...


If you like acting like a childish brat so much, this isn't the place for it, so either act like a mature adult, or waste other people's time, on kiddie forums.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Malisa
a reply to: turbonium1

What would make 6000 degree C temperatures a better argument? Nothing, of course, but I probably need to explain this to you, as usual....

Just make of you a nasty lier of course

What else? A fake argument against something you can't prove i guess

But let's focus on my first point

Why did you lie about the temperature at the time? Were you trying to troll, or are you ignorant?

That would be the next question to figure out, Mister Turbonium1

Stop being a fool, and look at this...

Temperatures of a nuclear explosion reach those in the interior of the sun, about 100,000,000° Celsius, and produce a brilliant fireball.


Why are you falsely accusing me of lying, then?



www.atomicarchive.com...


If you like acting like a childish brat so much, this isn't the place for it, so either act like a mature adult, or waste other people's time, on kiddie forums.

Yeah, we are talking specifically about Hiroshima,

Was the temperature at the atomic bomb time a 100 million degrees, or was it 4000?

1. Yes, it was a 100 million degrees, i'm ignorant
2. No, it was 4000 degrees. And I purposely lied to troll

Answer is expected

Is there a distinction being made here between atomic and thermonuclear explosions?

The temperatures of fusion nuclear explosions can go up into the millions of kelvin. Controlled fusion experiments can reach these temperatures. The "Little Boy"that exploded in Hiroshima had a huge damaging effect. The temperature of this fission reaction was about 300,000 kelvin at the center and about 6000 kelvin on the ground below.

Temperatures

ETA: Saw comment re: Hiroshima. So that was a fission reaction.

Cheers

a reply to: turbonium1

Nope. Still nothing.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Nope. Still nothing.

Because it proves nothing, of course.


You have no other argument, so you'll keep saying it's 'evidence', over and over again. Sad.

a reply to: turbonium1

Nope. Empty post. Nothing there. Nothing to support your claim, nothing to refute the pages of evidence you've been given, just lalalalalalalalala not listening trolling. You demand proof, you get given it, you dismiss it because it's proof. Bizarre.

You can't even find me a lake generating HEP without a dam, just another example of empty claims you make that you can't back up.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Nope. Empty post. Nothing there. Nothing to support your claim, nothing to refute the pages of evidence you've been given, just lalalalalalalalala not listening trolling. You demand proof, you get given it, you dismiss it because it's proof. Bizarre.

You can't even find me a lake generating HEP without a dam, just another example of empty claims you make that you can't back up.

I've shown you images of Tokyo and Nagasaki with identical damage, identical intact buildings, which prove 'nukes' were all faked, since 'nukes' are supposed to wipe out anything near 'ground zero'. Buildings were still intact, and there's the proof you can't deal with.

You can't explain how these structures could possibly remain intact at the 'blast point', so you'll keep ignoring it as if it doesn't exist. I don't understand people who can't honestly address the facts, it makes no sense at all.

Why can't you comment on these images? What are you so afraid of? Admitting they are lies is nothing for you to fear.

a reply to: turbonium1


Well i did and you ran away


What are you so afraid of? Admitting you are lying is nothing for you to fear.

a reply to: turbonium1

No. It doesn't prove that at all. As has been pointe out to you repeadly all it proves they were both bombed and burnt. It does not prove what caused that.

Which part of that do you need help with?