It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hope this is fake

page: 6
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2020 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Or Port Chicago in 1944. It registered a 3.4, with a 3 mile diameter fireball, and threw debris over 12,000 feet into the air. Not a nuke.




posted on Aug, 13 2020 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



Must be a magic nuke,


I heard something once about advanced tech and magic.

Hard to tell the difference sometimes.




edit on 13-8-2020 by LookingAtMars because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2020 @ 07:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
The collision caused a fire on the munitions ship and then a massive explosion that killed nearly 2,000 people, injured 9,000 and destroyed much of the city, was that also a nuclear device that went off back then?


Duh, of course it was.



posted on Aug, 14 2020 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Un Security Council just voted to allow Iran to purchase all the weapons it wants to. Perhaps there should be a forced regime change before they can accumulate what they want.



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, I have heard the official narrative several times. You are very good at regurgitating it.

I don't buy the official narrative. It's just like so many other official narratives that are contradicted by facts.



posted on Aug, 15 2020 @ 08:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Which narrative through?

That conventional explosive cannot yield explosions in the kiloton range despite the evidence dating back to long before we developed atomics?

Or that nuclear bombs, with spurious undisclosed fissionable material cores, used to produce the explosion, where the radioactivity is undetectable, despite the dangerous radioactive ionizing rays and gamma particles such weapons produce?

I'm only regurgitating factual events and evidence.
edit on 15-8-2020 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake

You are regurgitating talking points regarding how they want me to think. Talking points as inaccurate as the talking points about 911.

Sorry, I'll pass.



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

How does nuclear fission function? What causes the actual fission process? Walk us through that.



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If you don't already know the answer to that, we have nothing to discuss.



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Salander

I know the answer but I'm pretty certain you don't know the physics.



posted on Aug, 18 2020 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Salander
a reply to: andy06shake

Yeah, I have heard the official narrative several times. You are very good at regurgitating it.

I don't buy the official narrative. It's just like so many other official narratives that are contradicted by facts.


So standard CT silliness...

"I don't buy the official narrative...but Random Joe and Karen with their ominous sounding YouTube Video they have the facts!"



posted on Aug, 19 2020 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: opethPA

VT and photos from the event are NOT Random Joe and Karen.

That you are not aware of that suggests you are quite credulous.


(post by ICycle2 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 02:33 PM
link   
I want to thank your argument for nudging me to re-research physics and nuclear physics in particular.
An atom is broken apart by a force which creates a chain reaction ending with energy dissipated in a far greater force than is input.
Generally nuclear weapons are fissile and not fusion reactions.
A strong force is needed to split the atom into two atoms of like form but a new element is generally created in an atomic transmutation.
One needs to shoot a neutron of a fissile material such as U235 into the atom of the target or same element.
I am still not clear on how you do that but I am still re reading


a reply to: AugustusMasonicus



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: chris_stibrany


I am still not clear on how you do that but I am still re reading


Very very carefully.



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 03:06 PM
link   
lol

I see now that its 'quite simple' in that in the basic method you shoot a pellet of the 'radioactive' material into the larger mass of the 'radioactive' material. Then fire it with explosives. I guess TNT?

hm




*starts building*


Only 17% effective.
Makes sense.

RE loss of energy.
Enter the fusion bomb.
So is it fusion and then fission?

Scientists overcome the first problem by using lithium-deuterate, a solid compound that doesn't undergo radioactive decay at normal temperature, as the principal thermonuclear material. To overcome the tritium problem, bomb designers rely on a fission reaction to produce tritium from lithium. The fission reaction also solves the final problem. The majority of radiation given off in a fission reaction is X-rays, and these X-rays provide the high temperatures and pressures necessary to initiate fusion. So, a fusion bomb has a two-stage design -- a primary fission or boosted-fission component and a secondary fusion component.

a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Ya made me laugh
a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: chris_stibrany

They usually use C4 or something similar for the conventional explosives. It has to be timed very carefully, and the explosion has to be consistent across the core or you get a fizzle.
edit on 8/28/2020 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanx



posted on Aug, 28 2020 @ 04:27 PM
link   
Thread Closed

The link in OP goes to something no longer available.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join