Nuclear weapons are a hoax
0 2015-03-10 by AndersLindman
Here is an example of supposedly an atom bomb explosion: 1946 Atomic Bomb Test at Bikini Atoll -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RID9_msrmU
Notice that the clouds near the explosion remain intact after the event. Pretty sturdy clouds.
Here is another example with better video quality: Original Colour Film of Baker Atom Bomb at Bikini Atoll 1946 in HD -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4njDofokYs&t=25s
There is a large condensation cloud appearing. This is also known as a Wilson cloud:
"In humid air, the drop in temperature in the most rarefied portion of the shock wave can bring the air temperature below its dew point, at which moisture condenses to form a visible cloud of microscopic water droplets." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensation_cloud
The dew point at the location and time of the explosions could hardly have been more than around 30 degrees Celsius: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dew_point#mediaviewer/File:Dewpoint.jpg
The heat radiation from an atom bomb is supposed to reach millions of degrees Celsius.
So we have ordinary clouds being unaffected by the alleged atom bomb explosions and large condensation clouds forming. That indicates that conventional explosives have been used to fake atom bomb explosions.
In the case of the Bikini Atoll tests, huge amounts of TNT can have been loaded into ships and detonated. Here is a smaller version with "only" 100 ton TNT, May 1945, Alamogordo, New Mexico: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VANyY87-_Q
There is also the possibility that smaller explosions have been made to look larger by double exposure of film. Another trick is to film at night to make the light from conventional explosions appear brighter. And model buildings blown up in slow motion. Here is a sequence where a building is destroyed without the camera shaking: Atomic Bomb Test; Operation Cue from 1955 (Original version) -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr76hNngqts&t=10s
The stable camera shows that the building may have been a model and not a real house nor a real nuclear explosion.
The Trinity crater has radial lines that should align in a center point but are in reality far from aligning: http://s27.postimg.org/m4gkml5w3/trinity_crater.jpg
The radial lines are therefore not from an explosion and have been added manually.
32 comments
10 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
While I love thoughts like this, weren't the two WWII bombs really well documented as nuclear bombs? The radiation etc. I realize I'm being obtuse and know nothing, but what about those?
2 AndersLindman 2015-03-10
When Philip Morrison, went in to Japan very shortly after the war, he flew over Tokyo and all he could see was gray ash and broken gray roof tiles, and then they flew down to Hiroshima and all he could see was the same kind of damage.
I suspect Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have been allowed to be firebombed or even set on fire by the Japanese government, with the people evacuated from the cities first.
See: Doctor Atomic: The History, Science and Scientists of the Bomb -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP8GWUe5hZQ&t=54m20s
4 tacticaltacks 2015-03-10
And what is your explanation for those people dying of radiation poisoning in both cities?
Really bad sunburns?
4 urban__sombrero 2015-03-10
Crisis actors.
4 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
Philip Morrison was a chief scientist on the manhattan project. If you're suggesting his survey of the damage lead him to the conclusion that they didn't use the bombs he helped create, I'm afraid you'd be mistaken. He campaigned for the rest of his life for nuclear nonproliferation after assessing the damage.
2 AndersLindman 2015-03-10
Most people working on the Manhattan Project had likely no clue about the bigger picture. If Morrison was a chief scientist he may have been in on it. Or maybe not. The project was probably heavily compartmentalized.
3 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
http://onthisspot.ca/images/japan/hiroshima2.jpg
^ That's the aftermath of fatman in hiroshima. I'm calling you out.
3 Strmageddon 2015-03-10
Rekt OP in butt.
2 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
Its just not making any sense to me. I'd like to give him his say, but there was an enormous, well-documented loss of life that didn't benefit the Japanese government in any manner I can comprehend.
-2 Strmageddon 2015-03-10
Bro, this is how 95% of conspiracy theories work. People make a ridiculous claim and back it up with minor evidence(that i think is shit) and then they fail to do a good job at covering up any disproof
1 cavallomorto 2015-03-10
still cant see a blast crater in that rubble, must be hiding away under that fatman gunk
0 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
1) Hiroshima was 'little boy,' not 'fat man'
2) Both were 'air burst' nuclear bombs.
1 cavallomorto 2015-03-10
Do you honestly believe that ONE BOMB that destroyed a whole city would show NO SIGNS of a blast crater or shockwave? The blast would be coming from ONE SOURCE in all directions. It does not matter how high it was dropped. If ONE BOMB destroyed a whole city then the aftermath would show, but it doesn't. In fact, Hiroshima and Nagasaki look identical to the Tokyo firebombings that happened just prior in 1945, there are several people who have testified to this fact. One of the prominent voices debunking the nuclear strike is Alexander P. de Seversky.
1 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
I'm sort of playing devil's advocate. I don't 'believe' anything that happened that long ago, but that is the explanation given. They were air bursts.
0 AndersLindman 2015-03-10
Photographic proof that Hiroshima was not destroyed with an atomic bomb -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DayLh_QnNLk
-2 itsfineitsgreat 2015-03-10
lmao do you? What do you think that means about you?
3 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
Here, have a downvote. It means I'm open enough to give consideration to concepts I disagree heavily with, even when I suspect OP is disingenuous.
6 raka_defocus 2015-03-10
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2008/jul/04/nuclear-fallout-used-to-spot-fake-art how do you explain this?
0 whatgold 2015-03-10
I assume it's quite easy to lace TNT with radioactive material.
3 one23four5six78nine 2015-03-10
At 1:22 Original Colour Film of Baker Atom Bomb at Bikini Atoll 1946 in HD: http://youtu.be/a4njDofokYs
What's happening in the upper right hand corner? Moisture condescending and forming clouds?
2 a9sdd8nas90 2015-03-10
I should watch that Spielberg movie again it has been a very long while, i liked the song in it.
2 spawnmower 2015-03-10
Op troll hard
2 realneil 2015-03-10
How do nuclear power stations work then?
-4 AndersLindman 2015-03-10
The fission in a nuclear power plant is held at a slow rate. In a nuclear explosion, the fission is supposedly going super fast because of a critical mass, but how can the mass be kept together to achieve supercriticality to explode? Exploded fission material becomes separated and will be unable to uphold the same level of supercriticality as in the supposed start of the explosion.
Another even more outrageous conspiracy theory is that even nuclear power plants are a hoax. That's potentially tinfoil hat territory, ha ha, but who knows. Maybe some nuclear power plants (boiling water reactors) are just water boilers to stabilize the electric grids, and others (pressurized water reactors) are in reality water fuel cell plants, using secret water-splitting technology.
Original Meyer Water Fuel Cell c.1990 -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGAkRkCWfA
1 LOLHOLOHOAX 2015-03-10
When I read the title, I downvoted you.
When I read your post, I upvoted you.
I would be willing to entertain the idea, if not for one thing. . .
Too many extraterrestrials have mentioned our nuclear capability and even interfered with it, for it all to be a hoax.
That being said, the moon landings were also a hoax, but we do have the technology to travel there. Just not the technology as described to the public.
Perhaps that is why all the nuclear stuff is fake, because they don't want to reveal the actual technology, or where it really came from.
2 AndersLindman 2015-03-10
Yes, for example some have said, and I believe it can be possible, that cold fusion is actually a zero point energy effect. And that kind of technology probably needs to be suppressed and kept secret not only to keep the real knowledge in the classified world, but also because such technology could be dangerous in the hands of the public, such as easily being used for making very powerful weapons.
1 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
Yeah, OP. 'air burst' nukes. I totally forgot about this. The reason the cities don't look like a conventional bomb landed in them is because the bombs never made landfall.
0 ChurchBrimmer 2015-03-10
How old are you? Seriously like twelve?
Trust me nuclear weapons are real.
3 oldguynewname 2015-03-10
What makes you so sure? Op has posed interesting evidence why not try and disprove them rather then insult?
-2 ChurchBrimmer 2015-03-10
Because I can't talk about details without giving away classified information, and I don't feel like spending the rest of my life in Guantanimo Bay.
3 oldguynewname 2015-03-10
Ok so insulting them is better? Yeah makes sense.
-1 ChurchBrimmer 2015-03-10
Insulting a random person over the internet is always preferable to prison. If you disagree feel free to go to federal prison and let me know how it goes.
3 Strmageddon 2015-03-10
He may not be 12... But he definitely is not a scientist.
-2 Strmageddon 2015-03-10
Bro, this is how 95% of conspiracy theories work. People make a ridiculous claim and back it up with minor evidence(that i think is shit) and then they fail to do a good job at covering up any disproof
3 ShillOutDude 2015-03-10
Here, have a downvote. It means I'm open enough to give consideration to concepts I disagree heavily with, even when I suspect OP is disingenuous.