FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Nukelies: nuclear weapons hoax, nuclear power probable hoax
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Rerevisionist



Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Apologies - my message seemed to be too long and would not load. There's no 'delete' option - PLEASE READ ON & IGNORE THIS

Last edited by Rerevisionist on Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rerevisionist



Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hawkwind,

[1] You ask for the 'best evidence to support my conjecture'. There are many issues; you don't make it clear which 'conjecture' you mean. Your best bet may be to click this link which is a guide to the site - it explains the material in logical sequence, and you can pick which bits of the forum to look at.
http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=118


[1A] Another part of the forum looks at the Manhattan Project, the supposed atom bombings of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, subsequent claims about 'H bombs', material on Cuba, the atom spies, and so on. I've supplied evidence for how and why the myths seem to have been made up--
http://nukelies.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4


[2] As it turns out, the Manhattan project and funding was largely Jewish run - Oppenheimer, Sachs, &c. The atom spies were Jewish - in our view false flag stuff, so Jews in the USSR could pretend to have atomic secrets. The point of this was probably to deter Americans from attacking the USSR. It's just that the evidence points that way.

[3] Nuclear power is a bit more difficult - it might be possible to generate enormous heat, but not use it as a bomb. The intense secrecy and lack of checks and balances make the material rather circumstantial. However, this thread discusses nuclear power, and you might pay attention to the 'dumpload' idea--
http://nukelies.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=9
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 4:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interesting… Seems like Rerevisionist is running typical “Poison the Well” COINTELPRO operation. I suggest we (actual humans that is who frequent this board) just ignore any post coming from “it”. Let it wither on the wine.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rom



Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, this becomes more like making "truth" be something that can be marketed like any other product. Write enought about something and that becomes "research" = "scientific source". Then make links to something people have no time to read. Most written on the net is wrong, created in the head of the writer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rerevisionist



Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's quite amusing to see obvious trolls doing their usual stuff. They might at least try to address the issues.
__________
Apologies for the previous unremovable postings - the delete option doesn't work & it took me time to work out why my post wasn't showing. In case anyone's in doubt, the 'nuke' material is entirely serious. Nukes are a fraud.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Rom



Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 417

PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a problem about promoting something that will be easy ridicule in media, undermining the credibility of alternative media. The "truth" here is of minor importance compared to the election. Those who would like any kind of diversion now is mainstream. My impression of forums is that they produce a lot of cheap words. Just my 2-cents thoughts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rerevisionist



Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It won't be ridiculed. Because that would draw attention to it.
www.nukelies.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
IronClad



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 435
Location: Kent

PostPosted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It would seem a strange thing to test nuclear weapons as would be the case with conventional non-nuclear weapons if you were going to contaminate the earth or the air or whatever they do for years to come.

If a weapon is more lethal than is required why test the damn thing?

A confined and miniture laboratory test would test the concept. Why upgrade to a larger test when the concept is known.

May be Nagasaki and Hiroshima are in the same class as the mooning landing. Why before its time - before the technology and before the fall out could ever be dreamed of.

May be there are folk who test out these things just for the bang and not without knowing the consequences.

Let's see what happens to Nagasaki and when that was not definite on the findings they chose another test on Hiroshima. If these were kosher than surely why have the later nuclear tests?

The more tests there were the less likely they were nuclear weapons because the more tests the more contamination.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iron, have you heard the concept of "critical mass"? You just can't have a "miniature" U-238 or Plutonium bomb. What the hell do they teach you in school in physics class?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Russian superlaser to be as good as H-bomb
http://rt.com/news/russia-superlaser-thermonuclear-weapon-123/


Russia has launched a $1.5 billion project to create a high-energy superlaser site which designers pledge will be the best in the world. Capable of igniting nuclear fusion, the facility will be used both for thermonuclear weapon and civil purposes.

Here is where the real Alternative Energy is going to come from - Nuclear Fusion - not the Ethanol from Corn or Solar panels or other diversionary ideas.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama Proposes to Shut Down the U.S. Fusion Program
http://larouchepac.com/node/21586
February 15, 2012 • 9:11AM
The White House has proposed, through the release yesterday of the Department of Energy FY13 budget request, that our magnetic fusion energy R&D program start to be dismantled. The request is for $398.3 million for magnetic fusion, down from the current $401 million level. (The budget was about that amount in the early 1980s, so in un-inflated, real dollars, the program is about 1/3 the size now that it was then). Now that ITER, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, is under construction in France, all of the partners must gear up and start to manufacture components for that machine.

To meet the U.S ITER requirements, the proposed funding for ITER goes from $105 million this year, to $150 million in FY13. But this increase is not added to the total fusion allocation, but has been is taken out of the budgets for the experiments currently underway in the U.S., which are mainly based at universities. In the proposed budget, the MIT Alcator C-Mod, a compact, high magnetic field tokamak, will be shut down. Its budget had been $18 million.

In this proposed budget, the operation of existing U.S. fusion experimental facilities receives just 10% of the funding, while 50% is considered optimal by the fusion community, to be able to hire scientists and run experiments. "To have a 10% operating budget is kind of insane," says Ray Fonk, at the University of Wisconsin, since the facilities are already being underutilized, due to lack of funds. Everyone knew this was coming — that the ITER funding would have to be increased to meet the U.S. commitment, and that, in a declining budget, this would be taken out of the U.S. fusion experiments. But this "insane" fusion budget is just part of an overall insane Administration.

Note that the British asset Obama is not shy on wasting People's money on failed solar swindles. Here is one example how British works against the US by containing and restricting its scientific progress.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
duaneh



Joined: 26 Feb 2011
Posts: 196
Location: west, pa, usa

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

here is a good primer on nukes, from the man who miniaturized them


http://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980

The Curve of Binding Energy
by John McPhee
1973

note date
now imagine what 30 years and an unlimited budget might produce
here are a few excepts:

page 15

"Depending upon the capabilities of the designer, a given mass of U-235-say, twenty kilograms, an amount slightly smaller than a grapefruit- can yield an explosion equilivalent to anything from a few tons of TNT up to hundred thousands of tons of TNT (hundred of kilotons).................... Musing once over
a little sliver of metallic U-235 about the size of a stick of chewing gum, Ted Taylor remarked, " If ten percent of this were fissioned, it would be enough to knock down the World Trade Center."

page 158

"A nuclear explosion is not completely symmetric. Its asymmetrics can be enhanced by arranging the way the thing is put together. Various kinds of energy come out of an explosion. You can, if you want to , concentrate energy of a particular sort in a particular direction. You can in effect, fire it like a bullet.

page 159

"A great variery of things, many forms of energy, come out of a nuclear explosion-gamma rays, alpha particles, neutrons, X rays, visible light, radio frequencies, radar frequencies. To some extent-and in all cases, to an important extent-you can select what to enhance and what to suppress. The relative amounts and directions can be controlled over very wide ranges. There are so many things you can do -through conceptual design. If you want a bomb that spews out nothing but green paint, you can do that."


page 221

"A low-yield bomb exploded inside one of the World Trade Center towers could bring it down. The same bomb, if exploded outside, would perform erratically. The Pentagon is a hard target, because it is so spread out. A low-yield bomb exploded in the building's central courtyard would not be particularity effective. To crater the place and leave nothing but a hole in the ground, a full megaton-set off in the concourse, several levels under the courtyard-would be needed. Weapons effects"

page 223

'The rule of thumb for a nuclear explosion is that it can vaporize its yield in mass,' he said, "This building (World Trade Center) is about thirteen hundred feet high by two hundred by two hundred. That's about fifty million cubic feet. its average density is probably two pounds per cubic foot. that's about a hundred million pounds, or fifty kilotons- give or take a factor of two. Any explosion inside with a yield o, let's say, a kiloton would vaporize everything for tens of feet. Everything would be destroyed out to and including the wall..............It would fall, i guess in the direction in which the bomb was off-centered. it's a little bit like cutting a big tree."

page 225

' An explosion in this building would not be completely effective unless it were placed in the core"

_________________
formerly known as duane in a previous registration
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It is rather amazing how Neo Liberals managed to set us back in nuclear research and development and instead channel all energy development into carbohydrates, oil mostly.

Now they are trying to saddle us with totally suicidal Solar and Wind power, which actually does spell an end to industrialized society.
I guess thanks God for Russians and Chinese who are actively researching advanced nuclear energy and not letting up.
We definitely need balance of World powers, enough already of single and fucked in the head Superpower.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rerevisionist



Joined: 04 Feb 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for allowing this thread.

For insight into Obama's apparently odd policies (e.g. '80% reduction') look up the 'Exit Strategy' section of www.nukelies.com - all people operating frauds have to think how to slide out of them. An amusing example is Ward Wilson of the 'Monterrey Institute'.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
leon



Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1046
Location: 3d-rate nation

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

New Parliamentary Group Formed to Consider Thorium

http://2012indyinfo.com/2012/03/02/new-parliamentary-group-formed-to-consider-thorium/

Safer, cleaner nuclear alternative tops the agenda for new All-Party Parliamentary Group on Thorium Energy
World’s first coalition of cross-party legislators formed to examine thorium-fuelled nuclear power

Westminster, London – 01 March 2012 – The Weinberg Foundation, a not-for-profit advocacy group for thorium energy, announces the formation of a new All-Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Thorium Energy, which held a lively inaugural meeting in parliament yesterday.


So Brits are not that suicidal themselves, they just want the rest of the world to yank their pants off, grow some tales and climb back on the trees.
But in any case, nice to see some specks of sanity even if it’s coming from insane isles.


Just think about that for a moment. With high trmperatures of Thorium reactor we could convert any source of carbon into liquid hydrocarbons (yes, your precious gasoline), that does include atmospheric CO2 that these idiots are so concerned about. Germans figured it out 70 years ago and the process was perfected since.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.