Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

page: 25
6
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Here's some entertainment.

First, the Hand of Christ as Hiroshima...Talk about drama Hey Tomas? Then again, our government serves the "Queen"....get it Drama Queen?...lol I knew you would.


Next up is a poor little girl that was skipping rope innocently till the horror of that day unfolded precisely at 11:02. Note here that shadows that should be white with charred surroundings were burned in negatively, but with nukes, even the impossible is possible. Also note the fire hydrant. How many blasts and from which directions did they occur. I thought only one went off, but according to this picture, two had to have gone off over and to the side of Nagasaki.


Next we have the plant that cast a shadow, the right color this time, only the plant wasn't even burned. Only with Nukes is this possible. Hot enough to vaporize flesh, but not plant material.


This next one is two of my favorites. You see, the wooden ladder as well as the man standing next to it, "couldn't take the heat", but the wooden building they were standing in front of as the 4000c degree heat came down....well not a problem. Seeing as how an image, again, burned in negatively, happens at once...I'm a little confused on how two different images occurred......Tom any rational non drama queen responses as to how this could be?
TAKE 1

TAKE 2


Peace




posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   
atom bombs are real



















[edit on 18-9-2009 by punkinworks]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by punkinworks]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by punkinworks]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by punkinworks]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by punkinworks]

[edit on 18-9-2009 by punkinworks]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 


thank you punkinworks. All of what you have said makes sense. Nice presentation clearly stated. I appreciate that very much.

Thank you for your hospitality.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


the building is not wood, its poured concrete, that used a slat form to pour it with, very common way of making large concrete forms in the days before plywood.
And the picture of the leaves is obvious it was taken quite some time after the explosian and the tree has grown back.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Wow it is people who think like this that started the 911 conspiracys.... think about it


now for the OP are you saying then there is no such thing as nuclear fission or nuclear fusion reactions? wow if thats true what are all those nuclear reactors around the worl???

it is very easy to see how nuclear weapons evolved you can easily follow the science from the first fission weapon (atomic bomb 1943 ) to The first nuclear-tipped rockets, such as the MGR-1 Honest John, first deployed by the U.S. in 1953.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by punkinworks
 


I'll comment on the 2nd one you have posted there first.

Watch between time :19 and :21. Before the blast and immediatly after. The cannon jumps forward about 10 feet after it has recoiled from the initial firing.

I'll have to watch the other two, but the second one is a no go. I know it's famous, but the pictures are just pictures.

Roy Disney is who worked on these films, just like he did filming WW2 Model airplane scenes for the Civil Defense.

If you really scrutinize it, you will see the flubs.

I will watch the other two.

Thanks again Punkinworks



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


the building is not wood, its poured concrete, that used a slat form to pour it with, very common way of making large concrete forms in the days before plywood.
And the picture of the leaves is obvious it was taken quite some time after the explosian and the tree has grown back.




Like Hardi board or something?

Grown back?...In exactly the same shape after being incinerated? You don't believe that do you for real? Really?



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Gixxer
 


You know how many times that question has been asked in this thread?

If this was a thread about nuclear power plants I could see asking it again, but a power plant and a bomb, while both producing energy, are not even close to the same thing.

Peace



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


or the leaves are completely carbonized there were examples of that.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


the building is not wood, its poured concrete, that used a slat form to pour it with, very common way of making large concrete forms in the days before plywood.
And the picture of the leaves is obvious it was taken quite some time after the explosian and the tree has grown back.




What about the negative shadows. When ever i've seen concrete be burned, it makes the concrete black with soot, not turn concrete white. What about the two different outlines.

Did you know that the reporter who one a pulitzer prize for his coverage on hiroshima was the first to introduce "New Journalism", where by a method of story telling was introduced to make the story more "captivating".

Remember this...same style....same farce.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


If there was no little bo or fat man, what did this:


[edit on 18-9-2009 by Karilla]



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
reply to post by Gixxer
 


You know how many times that question has been asked in this thread?

If this was a thread about nuclear power plants I could see asking it again, but a power plant and a bomb, while both producing energy, are not even close to the same thing.

Peace


while i did not relise this thread was 25 pages before posting hence missed the energy conversation your argument is flawed because the OP is disputing the reality of nuclear fision wich without you would not have nuclear energy or nuclear bombs.



posted on Sep, 18 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
Was at the NTS when they set one off underground.

We were all aware of when and where it was going to be detonated.

It was a weird feeling unlike a quake.

Took about an hour before my sphincter muscle relaxed.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:30 AM
link   
That is not poured concrete in Ltru's ladder photo - you can see the post on the right - concrete wouldn't need a post. This is an excellent, irrefutable picture.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


its not a post but something called a pilaster.
Its a intermediate column that is poured before the slat forming is done.]
since boards only come in certain lengths, 8, 12, 16' and such, you have to have intermediate columns, pre poured or built, which will anchor the forming planks.
If you look closely at the right side of the image you can see the globs of concrete that seeped out of the forming. They are on the interface between the the horizontal slats and the vertical columns.
It is a very common way of pouring concrete.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by violent torrent
Yes Orangetown, let us think about this on an unemotional, rational level. Your proposal is that uncontained radiation has the potential for "nuclear explosion," but this is unfounded pseudo-science. Isotopes exist naturally, and are not subject to spontaneous explosivity. If they were, there would be no existence, because isotopes are merely atoms, and if given atoms were to randomly and spontaneously explode, then the entire universe could not exist. Your proposal is founded in irrational, sadly ill-informed, I dare say indoctrinated, erroneous thinking.


Ok..violent torrent. Commercial or other types of nuclear plants are not designed to implode and then explode. They do however have containment on them. A nuclear weapon of the type we are discussing do not have containment after they have gone critical. They just don't go critical in the manner done in a nuclear steam generating power plant. They do however produce the by products..particularly radiation and contamination.
I do not know where you got the idea that I was speaking of a nuclear weapon design being the same as a commercial or steam power plant design and capable of causing the same result. I was referring in my post to the energy being real and useful...in existence.

However ..an uncontained criticality is bad news whether from a weapon type device or a nuclear power plant as evidenced by the now famous Chernobyl disaster.
There is also the nuclear accident in Japan some ten years or so ago. Surprisingly ..even within the trade ...this accident has been kept very quiet and not spoken about within the community. There had to be the very quick and heavy hand of politics to cover this one up so completely and rapidly. I thought this very unusual.

letthereaderunderstand,


How do you "decontaminate" something at the atomic level?

Doesn't a meltdown occur when the rods become unstable due to lack of cooling?


They do indeed. When rods are removed from a reactor they are put into a special container and moved to a pit or pool of water. The water is a type of containment. Also the rods have built into them a control feature which stops the reaction. Hence the term control rod. While the fuel is no longer going critical it is emitting radiation from the criticality process. It is also contaminated from the same process. The water acts as shielding and containment. The water also acts as coolant and the rods will remain there while the decay heat is brought under control and to a suitable level. This process of managing the decay heat can take some time.

The decontamination I have done is to tools and equipments used in handling the fuel. It is not in the fuel itself. In this type of decontamination...alcohol is used or sometimes DI or demineralized water
is used in wiping in a specific manner to reduce the measured contamination levels. Surveys are done after decontamination to see if the contaminants are brought down to required levels. Some items are released and others are bagged up.."contained" and specially stored in controlled areas.

Some contamination is fixed within the material and cannot be removed by wiping. These items are stored or sometimes disposed of. Stored items are once again specially bagged...contained.
All these materials and processes are carefully recorded..documented.

All of this type of decontamination is done according to special procedures and specific equipment is required..Anti contamination clothing and even under certain conditions special ventilation's are required to keep contamination levels from going airborne if the levels are high enough.


If that is correct, then why don't nuclear weapons melt, being cooled by nothing?


Nuclear weapons do not melt down or explode until they reach critical mass. After such a weapon goes critical or explodes ..you are not worried about cooling per se. Thus meaning you don't need to cool them as is done in a nuclear power plant after initial criticality. They are surprisingly stable...compared to say...dynamite..particularly leaking dynamite...or let us say...black powder.

Nuclear fuel rods are the same until after initial criticality. Pretty stable until you begin the process of going critical. I've stood within inches of fuel rods which have not gone critical. It is not a problem.


What would happen if you shot a pistol at one of the rods you work with? Would you blow up the plant with half of the state as well or would it just ricochet doing nothing?


No ..nothing would happen. First off...I would not recommend firing a pistol at a fuel rod..not because I was worried about blowing up but because a ricochet is a very dangerous thing. Also what you don't want to do to a fuel rod is mix certain kinds of unauthorized metals with the fuel rod or its support structure. Copper is not one of them...nor lead.

and this question..


Another question. How do you have an "uncontained" nuclear reaction?


This is what happened at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine,
If I recall the lecture we got on it ...they went from some low power setting in testing to some more than 1500% power in about 4 seconds.
This caused the explosion which opened the power plant and spilled its radioactive/contaminated guts all over the site....uncontained.
They have pieced together a containment over the site but the material is still emitting radiation and contamination inside this containment. The containment is also deteriorating last I heard unless new measures have been taken.
I don't know what are the survey levels around the plant but it must be considerable. Now that would be an interesting read. The survey data.

Three Mile Island did not breech the containment but there was a partial meltdown in the reactor as a bore scope was lowered into certain areas and photos taken.

By the way..I don't believe the Chernobyl reactor has a containment structure built around it as does Three Mile Island and other plants. As I recall Chernobyl is an early design nuclear power plant.
Chernobyl is to my knowledge still this way today..no containment structure around it. I believe there have been plans to shut down the other reactors there but not sure where these plans stand today.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


Orangetom,
you are correct the chernobyl reactor had no containment building, as do many other russian reactors.
And the emergency structure built around the reactor is failing and will collapse soon.

The story of how the reactor exploded is very interesting.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by orangetom 1999
 


Orangetom,
you are correct the chernobyl reactor had no containment building, as do many other Russian reactors.
And the emergency structure built around the reactor is failing and will collapse soon.

The story of how the reactor exploded is very interesting.


Indeed Pumpkinworks Indeed. I was astonished when the sequence of events leading up to the disaster at Chernobyl was narrated to us in a special nuclear instruction class. Same with Three Mile island.
It appeared to be one mess and miscommunication after another mess and miscommunication until the problems compounded by this series of events...proved disastrous.

You know I hadn't thought of the other Russian Reactors not having containment buildings but considering the state of their operations and design philosophies ..you are most likely correct in this.

As to the emergency containment building around Chernobyl #4 reactor failing or deteriorating...that is also what we were briefed on in this same nuclear class some time ago.

Thanks for your post,
Orangetom

[edit on 19-9-2009 by orangetom1999]



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by orangetom1999
 


since were on the subject of chernobyl,
Id like to ackowledge the selfless sacrifice of those who voluteered for the immediate clean up.
It was one of the most epic displays of bravery ever.
those men recieved lethal doses of radiation in just a couple of minutes, and many died horrible agonizing deaths.

They picked up pieces of radioactive debris with their bare hands and used wheel barrows to remove it.



posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
That is not poured cement in the above ladder photo, it is slatted wood. The "gobs" you refer to are photographic anomalies, and the proof that it is wood is the zigzagging of the burnt ladder image itself, whereas poured concrete would be flat except for seams where the molding boards met, slatted wood would allow for the obvious zigzagging.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 22  23  24    26  27 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum