THE NUKE HOAX

Global War deceptions & mass manipulation, fear-mongering terror schemes and propaganda in the Age of the Bomb
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by lux »

The thing about the WWII A-bombs that I could never understand was why would this ...
Image
... be considered such a difficult device to design and build such that the greatest scientific minds of the Allies had to expend so much effort and resources to come up with it?

It's a gun barrel that shoots a piece of uranium into another piece of uranium. This is supposedly the "Hiroshima Bomb."

I mean a frigging can opener is more complex than this thing yet the Germans or Japanese couldn't build one at all? WTF? :blink:
whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by whatsgoingon »

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on Fri May 24, 2013 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

lux wrote:The thing about the WWII A-bombs that I could never understand was why would this ...
Image
... be considered such a difficult device to design and build such that the greatest scientific minds of the Allies had to expend so much effort and resources to come up with it?

It's a gun barrel that shoots a piece of uranium into another piece of uranium. This is supposedly the "Hiroshima Bomb."

I mean a frigging can opener is more complex than this thing yet the Germans or Japanese couldn't build one at all? WTF? :blink:
Well, you have to drill a hole in the metall uranium bullet and also shape the metall uranium target as a cylinder in a lathe to fit the bullet, but never test in workshop that hole fits cylinder, so certain skills and precaution were required. :rolleyes:
Rerevisionist
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:36 pm

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by Rerevisionist »

@ Whatsgoingon - maybe we're wasting time over the meaning of 'standalone'. I'm talking about a number of electicity-using devices; and one of more electricity-supplying devices, but with the whole thing not fed from, or feeding into, some other electrical circuit. There may or may not be a need for dumploads; you're thinking presumably of towns and factories; but some place in Antarctica might have constant heating and lighting loads just to keep it comfortable. A huge ship or large submarine might need electrical supplies which are constant under some sort of load, but which could be damped down if not needed - perhaps by wasting neutrons, if you believe in nuclear power. BUT we're talking of a system where they don't sneak off to be electrically recharged by diesel or in a port. I'm just saying there seem to be no standalone systems, not even in space.
BNSF9647
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 5:18 am

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by BNSF9647 »

Heiwa wrote:The number of free neutrons allowed to split uranium atoms in an atomic power plant is, after a slow exponential start, evidently kept constant so that the plant will not overheat or cool down.
The atomic part of the plant just produces heat like a boiler which in a heat exchanger produces steam that runs a steam turbine that can run a generator producing electricity. All components, boiler, heat exchanger, turbine, generator and condensor are simple and require little maintenance. Do you suggest that the USSR ice breaker LENIN was driven by an oil fired boiler?
This is what has boggled me about nuclear powered vehicles, plants etc...If nuclear energy produces so much output as claimed, why the use of steam equipment? Why not a direct conversion of nuclear energy to electrical energy? This setup of a reactor to boil water into steam to drive steam turbine seems very inefficient (granted steam produces a lot of power). Could these so called nuclear reactors be nothing more than glorified boilers themselves, perhaps gas driven. Or possibly they could also be a giant fuel cell. Same for nuclear power plants there is plenty of natural gas to tap! Or maybe Heiwa's question at the end of his post I quoted is the answer after all. Just a thought.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

BNSF9647 wrote:
Heiwa wrote:The number of free neutrons allowed to split uranium atoms in an atomic power plant is, after a slow exponential start, evidently kept constant so that the plant will not overheat or cool down.
The atomic part of the plant just produces heat like a boiler which in a heat exchanger produces steam that runs a steam turbine that can run a generator producing electricity. All components, boiler, heat exchanger, turbine, generator and condensor are simple and require little maintenance. Do you suggest that the USSR ice breaker LENIN was driven by an oil fired boiler?
This is what has boggled me about nuclear powered vehicles, plants etc...If nuclear energy produces so much output as claimed, why the use of steam equipment? Why not a direct conversion of nuclear energy to electrical energy? This setup of a reactor to boil water into steam to drive steam turbine seems very inefficient (granted steam produces a lot of power). Could these so called nuclear reactors be nothing more than glorified boilers themselves, perhaps gas driven. Or possibly they could also be a giant fuel cell. Same for nuclear power plants there is plenty of natural gas to tap! Or maybe Heiwa's question at the end of his post I quoted is the answer after all. Just a thought.
When coal was the prime fuel, steam was the only alternative to power vehicles, plants etc. Then came oil and the diesel, otto and jet engines to power vehicles but steam was still quite good for power plants. Steam turbines are very reliable! They just rotate and rotate, little wear and tear anywhere (just lubricate the bearings!) and they will run for ever. Nuclear atomic power plants are just glorified hot water boilers producing steam for the steam turbine power plants at the side. Like the Icelanders do it with their steam turbine plants getting the steam straight from the ground ... no nuclear atomic boilers there.
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

The nuclear bomb was, we are told, developed 1943-1945 at the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (of the University of California) a little north of Santa Fe in New Mexico and actually ground tested on early morning July 16, 1945, at 0400 Bang hrs at the Trinity test site (south of Albuquerque, NM) under the direction of a Mr. K.T.Bainbridge. The latter describes the test in a report at http://www.scribd.com/doc/17428130/Trin ... Bainbridge . The report and the 16 referenced reports are evidently a joke compiled to cover up the hoax. You wonder if the authors of the reports existed? The bomb apparently produced a crater about 5 ft deep and 30 ft in diameter … but there is no photo of said crater at photos of what remained of the steel tower carrying the bomb.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by lux »

"And, the Oscar goes to ... "


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8H7Jibx-c0
Maat
Member
Posts: 1425
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by Maat »

Oppenheimer, what a creepy liar — so typical of that kind of pseudo-intellectual hubris: take an ancient allegorical scripture out of context and mistranslate to twist for their own purposes :rolleyes:

Bhagavad Gita [the Song of God]; Chapter 11, verse 32:
"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain."

Alternate translation: "Lord Kṛṣṇa said: I am terrible time the destroyer of all beings in all worlds, engaged to destroy all beings in this world; of those heroic soldiers presently situated in the opposing army, even without you none will be spared."

Yeah, time destroys all things! :P

And...
Image
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

Here is a drawing of the Hiroshima bomb:
Image
It is very simple:
9 projectile rings of U-235 metal (items S in drawing) are quickly pushed (accelerated by exploding cordite - item W) over 6 target rings of U-235 metal (items H in drawing) and BANG the U-235 metal rings (total mass about 61 kg of uranium) fission into various fragments (total mass still about 61 kg) that are heated and displacing outwards at high velocity ... and causes a lot of damage, we are told. :rolleyes: Yes, corresponding to 20 000 tons of exploding TNT! :o
If you are a civilian and try to build your own device to test it in your kitchen - to see if it really works - you will be arrested prior to test as only military people are assumed to handle it. :P
Pls, do not forget to tighten front nose locknut (item A) attached to 1" dia main steel rod holding target rings (items H) so that projectile rings (item S) will actually slide over target rings (items H)!! :)
Have a nice 2012!
Heiwa
Banned
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by Heiwa »

New Year 2012 photo competition :
Look carefully at below photo:
Image
It is the Trinity (first atomic bomb) explosion, 0.016 seconds after detonation at 4 am on July 16, 1945 about 30 meters above ground . The fireball is about 600 feet (200 m) wide. The black specks silhouetted along the horizon are trees. The fireball was thus expandning at a speed of 6 520 m/s from a point 30 m above ground.
Questions:
1. At what distance and height is the photo taken!
2. What type of camera, lens, film are used?
3. Sand or something is pushed ahead of the fireball on the ground! What can be the explanation for that?
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by lux »

Reportedly it was shot on 16mm B&W movie film from a distance of 10,000 yards by Berlyn Brixner who, it is said, used multiple movie cameras. Googling his name will give references.

It seems odd to me that they would use 16mm cameras as 35mm and larger format cameras were in use by Hollywood at the time and would certainly have produced better quality images. 16mm was usually reserved for hand-held work which would not be the case for a test like this.
Last edited by lux on Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
fbenario
Member
Posts: 2256
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 1:49 am
Location: Atlanta, GA
Contact:

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by fbenario »

Heiwa wrote:0.016 seconds after detonation at 4 am on July 16, 1945 about 30 meters above ground .
No human reaction is possible that quickly after an event begins. Further, I don't believe any equipment - even now - can be programmed/timed to a precise 1/100th of a second. Ludicrous.
lux
Member
Posts: 1913
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by lux »

fbenario wrote:
Heiwa wrote:0.016 seconds after detonation at 4 am on July 16, 1945 about 30 meters above ground .
No human reaction is possible that quickly after an event begins. Further, I don't believe any equipment - even now - can be programmed/timed to a precise 1/100th of a second. Ludicrous.
It was shot with movie cameras, not still cameras.

A frame rate of 64 fps is equivalent to each frame being shot every 0.016 seconds. This was within the capability of better 16mm movie cameras of the 1940s era. Normal speed for movie film cameras is 24 fps or one frame every 0.042 seconds.

See:
http://www.bolexcollector.com/cameras/h16leader.html
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Nuke Hoax

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

Where is the video of the explosion as taken by this camera?

Why does the explosion look like a misshapen head with flat textures on it?
Post Reply