The dumbest Hoax-Conspiracy I’ve seen Yet! (Nuclear weapons not real?)
December 27th, 2009
|
| Share |
Okay, so we’ve seen a lot of really stupid and downright crazy conspiracy theories in the past. Many have claimed the moon landings were a big hoax and others claim that the entire Cold War was staged by a secret underground group that actually ran both the US and Soviet Union. Given the huge amount of evidence to prove those events independently, it seems a bit far fetched.
But it looks like they’ve been beaten. There are at least a couple wackos out there who claim that nuclear weapons are a hoax. Yes, they say nuclear weapons just plain don’t exist and beyond that, nuclear fission is not real. Yes, that’s right. There no nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki, the Manhattan project never created a viable weapon and all the thousands of tests conducted by the US, Soviet Union, China, France, the UK and others were just elaborate fakes – at least that’s what some actually believe.
Sure, nuclear weapons development involved thousands and people and their power has destroyed two Japanese cities and been witnessed by millions during testing. Indeed, some atmospheric tests have created a flash visible many miles away or sent mushroom clouds into the stratosphere, where they could be seen by anyone in Las Vegas. Tests in the Marshall islands, Nevada and the Soviet Union lit up Geiger counters all over the world, caused power failures in Hawaii, broken windows in Finland and could be felt as shaking miles from the event. Thousands of troops and technicians saw the events with their own eyes and hundreds of thousands more saw the distant clouds or a flash on the horizon.
The Nevada Test Site is full of craters, which you can even tour, if you want to. Bikini Atoll has massive holes where large weapons were tested and although most of the fallout has long since decayed away, you can still pick up a slight increase in radioactivity in the areas where weapons were tested, if you use the proper instruments.
Nuclear weapons work on very well understood physics. Their exstance sparked the development of ICBM’s and eventually lead to space flight. Their threat caused national governments to institute complex continuity of government plans, to hallow out mountains and to keep aircraft in flight and ready to assume command for decades on end. Facilities to produce plutonium, enrich uranium and fabricate components were constructed worldwide.
All of this a hoax? Well, some people actually think so. Since this provides a good opportunity to provide some information on the topic, lets see how their claims break down.
And another YouTube User with several videos claiming to be evidence of fakery of nuclear tests. (It’s like Deja Vu of the Apollo hoax theorists). Just search his account for “nuclear” to find the videos, which are too numerous to embed here.
And another uploader of similar videos.
And they even have some antisemitism thrown in!
Some Links:
Thread on the topic from (I kid you not) the Flat Earth Society Forums.
The topic on SciForums
Do Nuclear Weapon’s Exist? – Facebook Group
Do Nuclear Weapons Exist?” On AboveTopSeceret
Here are some of the questions from the Facebook group:
[1] Were Hiroshima and Nagasaki in fact bombed by Atom bombs; or were they simply fire- or carpet-bombed, perhaps by new explosives?
No. Other cities experienced similar levels of destruction due to fire bombing, but it could never be acomplished in one bombing mission with one aircraft. Tokyo experienced destruction comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but only after many nights of raids in which hundreds of B-29’s droped many thousands of tons of high explosive and incendiary bombs.
Much of the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred in less than a second. However, a signifficant amount of the damage to the cities was caused by fires that raged after the initial explosion. The nuclear explosion reduced wooden structures to piles of tinder, the heat dried and scourched material and touched off fires.
[2] How come there are so few films of tests? If you’d spent $1000000000 on a ‘device’, you’d be sure the film didn’t jam!
Actually, there are a HUGE number of films of the tests. Most atmospheric tests had hundreds of cameras trained on them. These included color and black and white cameras, cameras mounted close to the blast, in armored housing, located far away with telephoto lenses, cameras in aircraft flying about the blasts and everywhere else you can think of. There were time-lapse cameras, high speed cameras and standard speed cameras. The United States alone has a massive collection of nuclear test films.
The images showing close-ups of the damage from the blast wave and which recorded the iconic images of houses being blown apart and jeeps being knocked over were located within the blast area, or close to it. They were mounted in heavily armored housings. Some of these cameras were placed on reinforced metal towers. This gave them a clear view above the dust and debris at ground level.
Despite the extreme efforts made to anchor the cameras to sturdy mounts and to provide for extremely durable armored housing, it was not uncommon for some movement to occur due to the blast wave. On occasion cameras were lost during the tests and their film could not be recovered. Each test cost many millions of dollars and therefore hundreds of cameras were used to assure that at least a few would survive and produce good quality footage. Of course, there were also many other sensors and scientific instruments used besides cameras.
Many hours are not avaliable for viewing on the internet. The most commonly seen footage is from the final versions of information documentary films on the projects. These films generally contain the best shots of a given nuclear experiment, but many hours of film exist that are not commonly seen because the footage is not especially noteworthy. Most is now declassified and copies can be obtained from the Department of Energy.
[3] In view of the supposed flash given by such weapons, how come ordinary cine cameras seem to have been used? An intense flash would burn the film
A variety of cameras and film types were used to film the tests. Some were modified commercially avaliable film cameras and others were purpose-built for the task. The extreme intensity of the flash posed a unique problem for the movie film of the day. The film had to be able to record both the period of time before and after the detonation, as well as the extremely bright portion of the detonation. To this end, several specialized films were developed that had multiple emulsion layers of varying sensitivity.
Another method used was to use multiple cameras to film each test. In the published version of films, the actual footage may be edited between several cameras. Some had high speed film and relatively large diaphragms to capture the aftermath of the blast, but because of this, most of the actual blast frames are overexposed by the flash. Other cameras were setup to record the brightest portion of the blast.
Even using these methods, it’s not uncommon for many historical films to contain several frames at the time of the blast which are over-exposed and show the flash as nothing but a completely white frame.
[4] Many or all of the films of supposed nuclear weapons show effects typcial of large explosions – for example large amounts of smoke, and continual fires. A nuclear explosion should be one flash (or two if you accept H bombs) – there should not be a prolonged red fireball
Not exactly. A nuclear explosion produces what is known as a “fireball” which is actually a massive ball of plasma. Nuclear explosions produce such intense heat that the gases around the explosion incandescent. This results in a visible glow that dissipates as the cloud expands and cools. The mushroom cloud is formed due to a combination of debris, dust and (often) water vapor. The nature of the mushroom cloud depends on the place of detonation. A bomb set off at sea will vaporize enormous amounts of water, but if set off in the desert, there will be very little. Air bursts don’t produce the same kind of debris cloud as ground bursts and may only leave a faint ring of nitrous oxides, ozone and material from the bomb itself.
Nuclear bombs also do produce a lot of fire. Depending on the size of the weapon, the flash of heat that accompanies the blast may be capable of igniting material even miles away from ground zero. Some of the fires may be extinguished by the blast wave, but generally the area is left well scorched. The area nearest the bomb is vaporized completely, but the process is not as simple as materials being converted to a gas. A more accurate description of the effects on organic matter might be to say that they are flash incinerated, with the heat burning them up almost instantaneously.
[5] Some of the films show the sun or clear evidence of fakery – for example cloud montages, filming from increasing altitudes to give the impression a fireball is rising, semicircular montages to suggest a mushroom cloud
It can be very difficult to get a good film sequence of a nuclear explosion in a single shot. The explosion starts off as a bright flash and then rapidly expands into a fireball and then a rising mushroom cloud. As the cloud rises, the motion begins to slow, with the cloud continuing to spread out, sometimes for hours. At ground level, the area around the blast begins to burn and a pressure wave spreads out from the center, kicking up dust and debris as it propagates outward. It may blow out fires that had burned in the area around the explosion, but will often leave embers that reignite as the pressure equalizes.
Exactly how the blast plays out depends on the altitude of the explosion, the type and size of the weapon, the terrain and other conditions. Some explosions produce a precursor wave. High altitude blasts generally produce one powerful wave, while near-ground blasts may produce a more complex pattern of pressure. In some cases, an initial blast wave moves out from the explosion, but is followed by a drop in pressure, caused by the updrafts of the mushroom cloud.
Because of this, most films of a nuclear test are actually from several cameras, cut together to show the various phases. If you want to get the raw camera footage from US tests, you can do so from the Department of Energy. Depending on the circumstances, you may end up paying a nominal fee for the archival service. If the film is not well known, it is possible it has not been digitized. If that is the case, be prepared to pay a bit more to have the original film located and scanned for you. The DOE has done a very good job of keeping nearly all the film preserved in climate-controlled vaults, so almost none of it is lost, unlike some other agencies (cough cough.. NASA).
If you are looking for test footage from British, French, Chinese or Soviet Tests, I really have no idea where you would go for that.
[6] Granted that U235 or other elements generate heat, is it possible in fact for the heat to be harnessed more or less instantly, as required by a weapon? Wouldn’t it be impossible to enclose the superheated metal or other material?
No. Absolutely not. Radioactive materials do generate heat from decay, but U-235 heat is negligible. If you held uranium-235 in your hand, it would not even feel slightly warm. It does not produce even enough heat to make it signifficantly warmer than its surroundings.
Some materials, like plutonium-238 produce enough decay heat to be a viable source of power for radio-thermal generators. However, decay heat is nowhere near enough to produce any kind of explosive.
It’s impossible to cause the material to suddenly become super-hot without fissioning it. If it were insulated enough, it would eventually build up some heat, but this would not be an effective way of making a weapon.
7] During WW2, it was found that explosives could be ‘enhanced’ by adding powdered aluminum. Incendiary bombs were invented. No doubt other discoveries were made – but remember that even polythene wasn’t produced then. There’s no doubt that TNT, dynamite and so on may have been rather obsolete, but it’s hard to know the state of explosives technology at the time, because, obviously, it was unpublished.
There were some developments made in chemical explosives, but there’s really only so much energy that you can pack into a chemical explosive. Dynamite is largely obsolete, these days, but TNT remains an important explosive for both military and a few civilian applications.
The explosives of today are largely the same as those of the Second World War and even before. There have been refinements in the design of ordinance and their delivery methods, but the basic compounds used to make explosives are over one hundred years old. Most military ordnance do not contain a single explosive compound, but rather are a mixture of high explosives, stabilizing and binding agents. The type of explosive compounds and the ratio will determine the total power as well as the explosive velocity, heat and other aspects of the explosion.
Current military explosives include TNT (still a major explosive the benchmark to which other explosives are measured) as well as very high power explosives like RDX, PETN and HMX. Military-grade explosive compositions such as C4 and Comp-B use these materials and other minor components in various radios. Another explosive, which existed during World War II, but has since gained greater use is ANFO. ANFO, which is ammonium nitrate and fuel oil is widely used in mining and civil engineering because it is inexpensive and is safe to transport and store, as the two components are not explosive until mixed. It is used in some military applications, such as blowing up ammunition dumps or other demolition applications, but is not a major combat explosive.
Even the highest energy military-grade chemical explosives are orders of magnitude less powerful than a small nuclear weapon. A one kilot0n nuclear weapon produces an explosive force roughly equivalent to one thousand tons of TNT. Even the most powerful, energy dense compositions of chemical explosives are only 1.5 times as powerful as an equivalent amount of TNT and the most powerful chemical reactions known to exist (such as reacting lithium with fluoride) are only a few times as powerful as TNT.
The most powerful chemical explosive known to exist is octanitrocubane. It has thus far, only been synthesized in tiny amounts. It has an energy density slightly less than twice that of TNT.
Therefore, simulating the blast of a five kiloton bomb would require five thousand tons of TNT. If the highest energy explosives known were used, it would still require around three thousand tons.
[8] Because of wartime censorship, the effects of firestorms weren’t widely known. David Irving’s book on Dresden wasn’t published until about twenty years after then end of the war. (To this day many Americans dn’t seem to understand that bombing causes damage). Because of this, it would be relatively easy to pretend an atom bomb existed.
The damage from firestorms was well known. Both man made incendiary bombing and disastrous city-wide fires had been well documented. It was not difficult to realize that cities that were largely built of wood would be leveled by fire. The firebombing campaigns in Europe and Japan could not have been hidden from the thousands of airmen who participated in them or from the hundreds of thousand of foot soldiers who would later occupy these areas, nor could they be from the surviving residents.
Cities had been all but leveled by the Boston Fire of 1872, the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and the 1906 San Fransisco Earth Quake and Fire.
And you can mock the intellect of Americans all you want, but even the worst of us do know that bombing causes damage. We’re not * THAT* stupid.
[9] Underwater nuclear explosions should have a visible very short flash of light – seawater is murky, but still clear enough to allow intense light through.
They do. It’s certainly not as dramatic as an atmospheric test, but they do produce a flash.
[10] ‘Radiation damage’ could simply be the effect of burns caused by bombing – especially as these would have been almost nknown to medical science at that time.
Burns and other injuries were well known at the time. The thing that was unique about the burns from a nuclear explosion is that many were caused by intense thermal radiation, even leaving behind shadows of items which had blocked the flash of heat. Injuries due to ionizing radiation have generally been overstated. Most of the victims of the bombs were killed by heat, falling debris or overpressure. There were some deaths after the fact, most were due to infection or other problems relating to burns and injury. A few may be attributable to illness caused by ionizing radiation. This was not unknown to medical science at the time, as there had been deaths from radium poisoning or over-exposure to x-rays.
Regardless of the medical care and the situation for the victims, it was immediately clear that this bombing was not the same as previous raids. The weapon caused mass destruction instantaneously.
[11] The ‘experts’ themselves may not have been aware of what was happening. Imagine a technologist trying to tell Stalin he didn’t believe the ‘west’ had atom bombs. And try imagining a technologist trying to tell Oppenheimer an experiment had failed. In each case there must have been powerful motives for deception.
Nobody would have had to tell Oppenheimer that the test at Trinity had failed, because he was there to see it with his own eyes. In fact, there was a real concern that it would fail, and Oppenheimer and others were more worried of this than anything else. The physicists of the time were very confident in the theory behind a fission-based bomb, but the device itself relied on a complex system of multi-point detonators to create a symmetrical implosion. The system had failed before in testing and the researchers knew that the reaction might not occur if there was even a slight imperfection in the implosion system. The first nuclear bomb was developed in haste and was literally held together with masking tape. There was plenty of opportunity for a short or a broken circuit. So fairly was not beyond the realm of possibility.
As for Stalin, he would have been quite pleased to know that the weapon had failed. His network of spies had kept him informed of the progress of the program and that a test was eminent, but he did not receive confirmation of the test until Harry Truman personally informed Stalin that “a new weapon of unusual destructive force.” Stalin was not surprised by this revelation and he already knew far more than Truman could have imagined. For Stalin, the statement was simply a confirmation of the success of the US test, which he had already been expecting.
And more idiocy, apparently from the same person on another site:
Item 1) The historical seismograms of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have mysteriously vanished. If not only for the sake of war-era memorabilia, that information should have been everywhere in the museums and in the press. Hiroshima is located in a highly volcanic zone called the Honshu Arc and those active volcanoes were under constant seismographic surveillance during that period and log before that. The so-called atomic blast at hiroshima was estimated to be the equivalent of 6.2 on the Richter Scale but no seismological outpost in the world appears to have noted it. The Russians said they exploded the biggest atomic bomb ever made (50 megatons) at Novaya Zemlya in northern Russia. That is hundreds of thousands of times more powerful than what they say exploded over Hiroshima yet again, not one seismic needle moved at all. How is that possible I ask?
Except the data didn’t vanish! The blasts over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fairly small and were at an altitude where little of the energy was coupled to the ground, but they were still powerful enough to be detected by a few seismic stations (although remember, most of Japan was in shambles, so there wouldn’t have been a very good seismic network in Japan).
The seismic wave from the Tsar Bomba moved needles all over the world. It was even detected on it’s third pass around the world! Despite being an air burst, it was detected as one of the strongest single point events ever measured by the US Geological survey.
Item 12) Iraq, why did they not find so-called atom bombs there?
Because Iraq didn’t have any. Saddam’s nuclear program never got very far, as the only nuclear facility of any significance was destroyed by the Israelis in 1981. Iraq focused on the much cheaper production of chemical weapons, although by the time of the 2003 invasion few were left in the country.
tem13) Suicide bombers, since when can’t the underworld aquire atom bombs for suicide missions if they are not bogus?
They’re not exactly easy to come by. Only a handful of countries have them at all and they’re generally guarded and controlled very tightly. Most are pretty large and heavy and although it is possible to build small, man-portable nuclear weapons, those have long been phased out of stockpiles.
Even if a terrorist organization could get it’s hands on a long-forgotten warhead from a source in the former Soviet Union, it’s unlikely that the weapon would even be capable of detonation. Nuclear weapons require a lot of maintenance. Proprietary and specialized batteries need to be replaced, the explosive triggers degrade with time and tritium reservoirs and neutron sources need to be replaced at regular intervals due to radioactive decay.
Building a nuclear weapon requires highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium. Although producing these is not an impossibly difficult task for most nation states, it is something no terrorist group could come even close to doing.
Item 20) The so-called nuclear subs are either fully battery operated and recharged underwater secretly or run with Stirling Cycle engines or more likely both. That would explain the absence of deisel fumes and would explain the very long underwater periods. Stirling cycle engines are perfectly suited to hoax a nuclear navy. Who can deny that?
Sure, you can run a submarine on a stirling engine. It’s been done before. There’s just one problem with this idea: stirling engines, just like steam turbine engines, are thermal engines, meaning that they need a source of heat to operate. This could be done with thermal mass that is preheated before the submarine departs – except this would only last a short period of time before the energy is depleted. It could also be done by burning a conventional fuel, except this would only last as long as the fuel supply lasts, and if under water, as long as the oxygen supply could last. At best, this could last a few days.
There is one source of power that could keep a sterling engine going for months or years on end – a nuclear reactor. Just as nuclear submarines currently use steam turbines, they could also, at least in theory, use any thermal engine, powered by the reactor. In fact, a nuclear-sterling engine submarine design has been proposed but was canceled before ever going to sea.
Regardless of the engine used, the energy to power it needs to come from somewhere!
By the way: I have been asked before if I “like” nuclear weapons. My response to this is complex. I don’t like the idea of anything being used to destroy whole cities and kill their citizens. I don’t like the idea of any device which is primarily used to cause harm, death or destruction.
However, a nuclear explosive is, by far, the most energetic device that mankind can create. The power is nearly limitless and the fact that it is an explosion is simply an inherent effect of what happens when such vast energy is released. Nuclear weapons rival even the most powerful natural forces in impact and can be scaled to produce energy that is significant even on a cosmic level (the RD-220 “Tsar Bomba”) produced 2% of the energy of the sun for a period of a few microseconds.
The effects of a nuclear weapon are vast, and though generally viewed as destructive could potentially accelerate spacecraft to a significant fraction of the speed of light. They could alter the orbits of huge asteroids, create their own weather systems, move mountains or create massive caverns in a fraction of a second. Personally, I find them to be both scientifically and technically magnificent devices.
This entry was posted on Sunday, December 27th, 2009 at 3:46 am and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, History, Just LAME, Not Even Wrong, Obfuscation, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I have read testimonials of eyewitnesses to the so-called atomic bombing of Hiroshima and they swore they could see birds explode in mid-air when the bomb went off. I thought the blast of detonation was so bright as to cause permanent blindness in the eyes of those observing it. How can one see exploding birds with permanently damaged eyeballs?
When I examined the post-bombing photos one finds liberally exhibited in the museums and academia one easily notes the presence of the finely charred delicate extremities of the tops of the tree branches standing prominently everywhere after the so-called atom bomb of Hiroshima. The claim speaks of a massive shockwave yet the trees betray evidence of an shockless M-69 swarming attack. The streets free of debris, damage to underground pipes very light and mostly due to walls falling when their wooden support beams had burned through. A seismic portfolio of the historical moment would be very enlightening. Better still, both the tokyo firebombing seismic records side-by-side with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki seismic records. A recipe to set the hoaxsters diving for cover.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Chernobyl:
Dump loads are very much like kettles. Both convert energy to steam. Just like kettles they can explode too if the pressure exceeds the vessle’s capacity and a lot of physical damage can be inflicted on the building housing the kettle. Firmen can be severly burned by superhot steam. Electricity flows into the kettle (reactor) to be boiled off. The energy efficiency initiatives of the three previousd decades had really paid off so big that they created embarrassingly high amounts of excess that needed to be disposed of to keep the grids in balance. If the public demanded rate decreases because they saw these excesses boiling off in the horizon they might rebel. A solution was needed. The judaic mindset steps in and the dump load becomes a commercially viable nuclear energy plant at 5 billion dollars a pop. Not only are the human cattle oblivious to the fake reactors buy the disposal of the evidence is performed right under the noses of the mark. A judaic double-whammy might describe it best. Get the cow to pay billions to finance the con against him. Jews never pay when they dispose of their problems of evidence.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
Alexis1111 said:
Using LEO satellites (many many many) of them you could simulate a single geostationary satellite by switching it on at the moment it came in direct alignment between the observer and the location of the geostationary satellite. You would need so many because the beam of a dish antenna is pretty narrow, so as soon as one left a tiny portion of the sky you’d need another to enter it. It would take hundreds possibly thousands.
One problem though – this would only work for one location. You would need a dedicated fleet of satellites for every portion of the earth to simulate this effect. Worse still, they’d have to have such narrow beams that the satellite signal would never be picked up by someone a few miles away who would have their own dedicated constellation of LEO satellites.
Oh… and they have to be absolutely invisible to the naked eye or to telescopes or radar, and their control and telemetry signals are invisible too. yep..
I don’t know how many functional satellites are launched by all the spacefaring countries of the world, but it sure as hell ain’t *that* many
It is utterly impossible. The sheer process of coordinating such enormous bandwidth over billions of satellites precludes it. Yes, you would likely need billions of them.
Alexis1111 said:
That’s not entirely true. The flash from a weapon detonation does not necessarily cause lasting damage. It will likely cause temporary damage but it would depend on the circumstances how bad it would be.
What they saw in such circumstances is hardly reliable anyway. The human memory and perception are especially bad when there is a big shocking event like that. You can look at accounts from the Kennedy Assassination for example. There were people who swore Kennedy stood up in the car and was hit. Others claimed that they head a single shot or seven or eight shots. Some people said they thought there was an explosion in the car with fire, like a grenade went off.
What happened is people suddenly were startled by an event that was very traumatic and which they were not able to perceive completely. They saw a bird, a flash, a fire, felt heat etc and this all happened in less than a second. Then you ask them years later to describe it. Don’t expect a very good report back.
Alexis1111 said:
There was very little ground shock wave and seismic profiles would be very limited. It was an airburt or a comparably small weapon. The term is “Decoupling” which means little of the shockwave traveled through the ground.
There was considerable damage from fire, even in areas outside the area where damage was caused primarily by the shock wave. Even on the outskirts of the city, the heat from the blast touched off thousands of fires. These areas would have been spared most of the damage from overpressure alone.
Alexis1111 said:
Sure, they may look the same. A pebble and a boulder look the same if you have no sense at all of scale or distance.
Alexis1111 said:
The M69 is a napalm-based incendiary cluster bomblet. It would burn a city, but not create the kind of destruction seen in a split second by a nuclear weapon.
I am not aware of any seismic data from Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but this is no surprise because an airburst like that won’t generally register on seismographs that are not both very sensitive and very close, and even then, the nature of the event means there won’t be much data.
If you want to see good seismic data look at tests conducted on the ground or underground. There is excellent data for those.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Alexis1111 said:
I live in Southern Connecticut, not far at all from General Dynamics Electric Boat and the Groten Submarine base. I see guys from the Silent Service all the time around the place. I have known more than a few people in the Navy on both nuclear subs and carriers. I used to live near Schenectady New York and in high school a whole bunch of my friend’s fathers worked at a little place called the Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory.
Apparently a very very large number of people I personally know are part of the conspiracy and lying to me? I guess it must be what? About four billion in on it now?
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:14 pm
Alexis1111 said:
Not possible. What you’re talking about is a rudimentary form of air independent propulsion. High test peroxide was used in decades past in various experimental subs built by Germany, the UK and Russia. Due to the hazards and difficulties along with poor energy density, it was never used in an active combat sub. It provided a lot of power and speed, but limited range and energy. Today it is used only for a few Russian torpedoes. It works okay for that since long range is not an issue, they only cruise for a few minutes at high speed.
The energy stored in HTP is so poor it has been all but completely replaced from use in rocketry by better monopropellents like hydrazine.
Modern AIP does way better than peroxide by using fuel cells or sterling engines powered by burning diesel with liquid oxygen in a catalytic burner. This gives much much more energy per volume. For chemical propulsion under water, this is pretty much the way to go, but still it can’t compete with nuclear propulsion. Sweden and Germany have non-nuclear subs that can stay under for a good few days and travel hundreds of miles, but they’re nowhere near what a nuclear boat can do.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:45 pm
drbuzz0:
Maybe we should clear up a little misconception here. Your sattellite dish is not pointing at a pinpoint location in LEO. It is addressing a specific perimeter that can be very easily overlapped. Your dish is located at the widest point of this radiological funnel if I can use that expression.
You keep reminding me how a fleet of satellites would be required to impliment this sophisticated satellite switching network yet you still have not provided us with the number of satellites you believe are moving around up there. Isnt it a bit presumptious to arrive at some conclusion short of having considered this mortal absence of continuity in your claims?
The way the hoax story goes the bomb explodes and the visible spectrum from the visible to the x-rays preceeds the shockwave by a large margin. In other words the birds that would have been seen exploding could not have been seen exploding at the same time their eyes were being burned out. Simple logic that escapes you. Your loss not mine.
Re: your comments regarding the similarity between a so-called nuclear blast seismogram and a tnt seismic record, well, all I can say is, “keep working that script.”
You made a very bold statement when you said the M-69 cannot inflict the damage done at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Any bonehead can go to the archives and examine the photos of post-bombing Tokyo and post bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki and see as plainly as the noses on their faces that the damage signatures are pure M-69. The creator of the fuse mechanism of M-69 and coincidentally also the father of Html, Vannavar Bush, once wrote that the atom bomb did not make him lose sleep but the M-69 gave him nightmares. Something to that effect.
The blast at Hiroshima was estimated to be around a 6.3 on the Richter scale equivalency. What’s this about “too light to register on a seismogram.” Beware, you desperation is showing.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:56 pm
Alexis1111 said:
My view now reflects that of DV82XL. Ignore this pathetic, deluded neo-nazi wannabe. It can be amusing for a little while to play with a loony, but this nutbar’s racism and race hatred eliminates any amusement factor.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 7:57 pm
drbuzz0:
I am interested in hearing your best argument outining the reasons that compel you to believe billions need to be involved for it to work. From my point of view such massive scams run better on a “need to know” basis. Its plain logic. The industry is compartmentalized meaning Joe has no idea what Bill is doing and so on. They are bound by draconian national security protocols, the hoaxster’s paradise describes that hoax to -a-tee as they say. From my point of view heads of state dont even know the truth. They work better believing the hoax. Add bundles to the dramatics in arms limitations talks, lol.
I see you make another ludicrous claim that the energy in rocket-grade hydrogen peroxide is not enough to fuel the “hot” end of a Stirling engine. As the name implies: Rockets can lift off the ground with that fuel. So much for your “lame fuel” theorems. Next you must explain why you think the navy simulating nuclear with Stirlings feel any obligation to report this fact to you? You express yourself as if driven by this expectation in life.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:04 pm
Finrod:
Save your theatrics for those unfamiliar with the rabbinical interpretations of the torah. Try rebutting my claims intelligently instead of resorting to screaming “human cattle” as a form of distraction. I have nothing but pity for the jews so you can shove your insinuation of hatred where the sun dont shine, get-it? If the board admins here believe preserving the rights of the criminal jews over the rights of free speech than this conversation will soon be over.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:12 pm
Finrod:
You spoke of Nazis in your posts. Why do you think Hitler failed to invade and seize the treasures of Switzerand? Of course I would not insult your intelligence by asking this without believing we can both agree war is not some gentlemen’s sport with fancy rules it is in fact hell. That means formal diplomacy has failed and all niceties abandonned. Why do you think Hitler extended every political coutesy to Switzerland while savagely divesting every other country of her treasure?
I mean the Germans provided Switzerland with the coal that was essential to her survival. Hitler could have easily marched in after cutting off her lifeblood and seized the treasure. If Hitler hated jews so much my did he not attack that spiritual homeland of the jews, Switzerland. That is the reason I believe every leader of every nation honors her priviledged status. She is calm, well armed, peaceful, in the midst of some of Europes bloodiest episodes.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:16 pm
Alexis1111 said:
It is worth noting that the ‘human cattle’ remark was not mine, but in fact a quote from Crazy Al himself. I guess he must have forgotten that he’d just used it, and didn’t understand that I was quoting him. This guy is just too pathetic.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Given the general pattern of this paranoid idiot’s postings elsewhere he will continue to bombard this site with his nonsense continuously now that he thinks he has an audience, the only thing that can be done is to let him run out of steam until he goes away – arguing with him is pointless, as even when you do back him into a corner, he just changes stories and keeps on going as if nothing happened. He’s been barred on more webpages than penis extenders, and thrives on attention.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Alexis1111 said:
I do not know the exact number of satellites which are currently in operation. It would at least in part depend on how you define the question (some satellites are no longer in service but are still partially functional for example)
Best estimates are that there are about 8,000 independent manmade objects in earth orbit that are of a significant size. This, of course, does not count things like flecks of paint or other small debris and it does not count the pieces of a debris cluster individually.
Of these 8,000 objects somewhere between 550 and 600 are currently functional satellites.
Of course, this is approximate. It could be 630 or maybe even 680.
What you are describing would have to be ***Many orders of magnitude*** that means the real number is not twice or ten times this but more like ten thousand times. Not exactly likely.
Alexis1111 said:
Oh, the M-69 is very destructive, and Tokyo was destroyed to a level on par with Hiroshima. Nobody can deny that.
But… it took 14 independent air raids, each of them consisting of between 100 up to about 450 aircraft, each of the aircraft loaded to maximum capacity with incendiary weapons.
You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding this. A nuclear bomb does what it takes months of bombing in less than a second.
of course, while there are some similarities in the level of damage, they are not identical and there are many distinct aspects of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that are not seen in firebombing. these include obvious damage as a result of overpressure to some structures. The “standing trees” at ground zero effect, and the heat flash that caused objects to cast a sharp and distinct shadow of scorching on surfaces. This would not be seen from fire, which does not have as focused radiative heat. Of course, there is also the fallout that is easily detected and single plum that resulted from the primary blast.
Now if there were M-69’s used, why is it nobody reported seeing thousands of aircraft conducting the raids? And where is the debris of the M-69 bombs? for that matter, how come nobody ever digs one up in Hiroshima? In heavily bombed cities, there are always bombs that were duds and dfid not go off. It’s a huge problem. To this day unexploded bombs from the second world war found and need to be disposed of safely.
It’s amazing you could actually have no idea how many of these things it takes to burn a city. It’s not a few, it’s many thousands of tons of bombs and it takes some time.
And not a single aircraft shot down? Even by the end of the war, a raid with that many aircraft had little chance of 100% success without a single one getting hit by flack!
Alexis1111 said:
the richter scale has nothing to do with ground shaking. It’s a measure of total energy at the epicenter. Many (yourself inclued apparently) don’t understand the difference. You could have a massive release of energy with a high richter number and have it so decoupled from the ground it barely moves needles.
The richter scale is not a number you read off an instrument based on what it detects. You need multiple readings and work backward to determine the total energy.
Alexis1111 said:
Jesus. that is going in the book of stupid quotes. No, a rocket can’t reach orbit with HTP alone, not as a monofuel. it can use it as an oxidizer, but it needs so damn much it’s no longer used for that.
It’s a very lame fuel. it has enough piddly energy for a little attitude control on small satellites, but not enough to do much else.
The famous Bell “Rocket Belt” ran on the stuff. It was a simple and reasonably safe kind of rocket to use. It had enough kick to get the thing airborn, but its piddly energy density is why the thing only flew for 20-30 seconds.
Look, a rocket can use damn near anything as fuel if you have enough of it. HPT is a horrible fuel for energy storage.
You know what the energy density of hydrogen peroxide is? If it is 100% pure it’s 2.7 MJ/Kg. Since it’s usually lower due to the fact that it is not stable, most industrial hydrogen peroxide is < ~95% which is roughly 2.5 MJ/Kg.
That is NOTHING! It’s pitifully small.
Gasoline is about 45 MJ/Kg when burned in the atmosphere. Diesel is even higher.
A rocket can get off the ground with compressed air for fuel, but won’t go very far! Neither will it on HTP.
You are 100% wrong.
Alexis1111 said:
My god, you’re irritating. It’s not that anyone has the responsibility as much as the riduclous claim that such a massive program would be undertaken for no reason than to fool a few people left out of the conspiracy or that every single of them would not leak the information. It’s absurd that this would not just be kept from me, but that such a program could be kept from the word;
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 8:27 pm
DV82XL said:
I think it’s actually a her. “Alexis” sounds like a female name to me.
If so, then I guess this shows how women are really breaking into everything. You know, realy idiotic conspiracy theories like this have always been such a male dominated field. It just proves women can be as crazy when it comes to making up paranoid ravings!
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
drbuzz0:
So, in your opinion 5000 orbiting satellites, many in line of sight LEO positions with respect to one another cannot be arranged in a configuation that simulates GEOstationary orbit? I need to hear your most compelling argument in support of that impossible idea. Especially the part where you claim that approximately 500 of the 8000 manmade objects in orbit around the earth are satellites after claiming you have no idea how many are up there. A bit contradictory if you ask me.
Also, are you claiming you observed 500+ satellite sun reflections per day on the horizon where you are located?
Assuming I made a claim that only 50 well positioned satellites are all that is required to simulate GEOstationary using a LEO trickery of highly synchronized propritary software configurations to meet domestic needs. I imagine rotating dishes were no party to maintain. Better to organize LEO birds to eliminate that chaos.
Btw, Japan endured on of the most complete, draconian, nation-wide censorship campaigns known to journalists worldwide. Approach all testimonials with great caution. Let reason prevail instead. McArthur had Japan all “zipped-up” if you will pardon the expression. At least 165 B-29 were required after the Tokyo area numbers were adjusted to the Hiroshima damage model. One half the bombers that raided Tokyo March 9-10 1945 in the evening of friday to saturday afternoon. Swarm after swarm dropping firesticks on the most flammable cities of the epoch. Firestorms are sure to ensue on very short notice.
The Richter estimates represent tremors arising from shockwaves. Elementary physics eludes you. A blast they say uprooted a big camphor tree in Hiroshima is not the burning of autumn leaves.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:13 pm
drbuzz0:
Usually when the best arguments coming from the affirmers are concerning the gender of the messenger instead of the substance that makes up the hoax debunk that means the bag of misdirections has finally bottomed-out, empty.
Now that the craniums here are a little less depleted maybe I should get back to my work and let you good folk sort this out or I dont mind chatting some more if a few quality questions start cropping up. Quality questions are those that leave one perplexe even after a reasonable effort at finding the truth of the matter failed to bear fruit. I like those questions that show the person has made a minimal effort at discovering how deep the rabbit hole really goes.
Thank you to my host that gratiously let me express myself and inform the readers. The world needs more like you.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:19 pm
Alexis1111 is male not female as implied by the depleted cranium contributor that cant help to jumping to conclusions without the slightest substantiation. Trying to prop the female uprising hoax on my back, lol. Have you no shame?
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Finrod said:
I’m with you Finrod. I’m done.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:33 pm
drbuzz0:
You claim that it is absurd that that hoaxes of that magnitude would be kept from you when in fact my online debunks at LF started in 2004 and that was when the world was informed that earth is a nuclear-free zone now. Just because you have no clue where to get quality information does not mean it was not out there right under your nose if you had put your preconceptions aside and your personal bias aside and explore this new reality with an open mind and a wideband curiosity. Not the type of curiosity hobbled by personal interests of a monetary nature or other. The world is growing aware of the atom bomb hoax cluster exponentially meaning the idea is getting around faster than a pandemic. They are having trouble kick-starting the Iran illusions of failed diplomacy because its very fioundation and justification is coming under serious scrutiny for the first time. People worldwide are becoming aware of these multi-billion dollar jew-driven rackets. The jews have the means, the motives, and the opportunity to pull off large scale robberies like those. Most jews know this also.
It’s absurd that this would not just be kept from me, but that such a program could be kept from the word;
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:44 pm
drbuzz0:
The running of the Stirling cycle engine is what will charge the battery banks that turn the screws. The Hydrogen peroxide is manufactured onboard the submarine and serves to feed the “hot” portion of the “hot-cold” thermal piston action. The air sealed inside the cylinders expands and contracts based on the thermal disparities at its extremities. The hydrogen peroxide is not turning the screws, it is feeding one of the most pollution-free, silent, super efficient engines known to man. It does not need air to function and the hydrogen peroxide fuel made onbaod by electrical process is consumed leaving fresh water and oxygen that can be exhausted back to the showers and life support systems.
Your grim views of the engines potential are not founded on reality. The nuclear navy=Sirling/battery array concepts. Nothing more exotic than that. The rest is taken care by big piles of national secrecy gag rules. The hoaxster’s paradise in other words.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 10:51 pm
I have bent over backwards trying to flush the grammar nazis out and still no takers, Maybe they got tired of being used as unsuspecting online spell checkers, lol.
Quote Comment
July 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 pm
Alexis1111 said:
I never said I knew you were female, only that I thought it was a distinct possibility given the name. It doesn’t matter one way or another. Are you saying it would be an insult to be believed to be a female?
Oh well, you’re an crazy guy and not a crazy girl. doesn’t matter too much in the end.
Alexis1111 said:
You disipoint me. Really? That stupid an error?
sure, you can make hydrogen peroxide from water using energy and you can use it to generate energy, but you can’t do it all in a closed system.
it’s like saying a motor turns an generator to power the motor. Okay – I get you won’t understand that because it’s not a perfect comparison..
A system that produces a chemical using energy and generates energy by consuming the same chemical can never work. There is an energy deficit.
You need energy to make the hydrogen peroxide. Where does this energy come from? It can’t come from the hydrogen peroxide engines!
Alexis1111 said:
I know how a sterling engine works, but you’re wrong about them being the most pollution-free super efficient engines ever known. They are thermal engines and require heat to run, so “pollution free” depends entirely on where that heat comes from. They’re just like a steam turbine or a reciprocating steam engine or any other thermal engine except they have a closed gas-phase working fluid.
Sterling engines work very well in a few narrow circumstances, but their thermal efficiency is nothing amazing. They may work better than steam in circumstances where the temperature difference is relatively low, but like all thermal engines they max out at the Carnot Limit. In practice they don’t really get anywhere close.
The thermal efficiency for a small to medium sterling engine is about 15%-30%. That’s roughly the same as a gasoline engine of the same size but less than a high efficiency diesel engine. At larger sizes, turbines just work a lot better.
You’re really boring me. Really.
Quote Comment
July 3rd, 2010 at 12:17 am
drbuzz0 said:
Doc,
I was reading a while back about some work using sterlings to replace thermocouples in RTG to boost efficiency. Any other thoughts on where they might be useful?
Quote Comment
July 3rd, 2010 at 12:34 am
matthew said:
Yeah, I read about that too. It seems like a pretty good idea. The one disadvantage as far as I can see is the whole issue of reliability. The thing about thermocouplers is that they’re free of moving parts and can do their thing for a long long time. The ones on the Voyagers are still in pretty good shape.
A reciprocating piston in a little engine just does not seem like the kind of thing you can reasonably expect to keep chugging in deep space for 30+ years with nobody to lube it or service it in any other way.
I don’t really know if that matters though. If it’s just for a mission of a few months or a year to deep space it might work out just as well.
It definitely could boost efficiency that is for sure.
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2010 at 5:56 am
“They worship the sun, after all. Lucifer. So why wouldn’t they use him as their greatest weapon?”
Thanks for finding this video. I about pissed myself laughing. I’m going to get some beer and show this to my friends tomorrow. This makes the World Jewish-Reptile Conspiracy seem downright plausible.
What is with all the Alex Jones/Elder Zion crazies? Why do they come here?
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2010 at 6:30 am
I just wanted to comment on Alexis (aka Dr. Crazy) on a point of WW2 history: “Why do you think Hitler extended every political coutesy to Switzerland while savagely divesting every other country of her treasure?”
Because Switzerland is geographically well situated, heavily armed, heavily fortified, and the Swiss would have bombed all the passages in and out of the alps (which could have stopped traffic from France to Italy and Austria) if Hitler tried anything. Not to mention it was a relatively small country that was easier to go around with armored vehicles. Switzerland has not been invaded in quite a long time, it’s not worth the trouble.
Even Napoleon quickly restored their independence, because it was better than having them revolt.
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
R.J. Moore II said:
That was surely part of it, but I also think Switzerland as an independent neutral state suited the needs of Hitler more than it would if they were to successfully invade and take it over. Switzerland has always been an important nation for banking and exchange and was a big banking partner of the Nazi government. As an independent neutral state it was the perfect go-between to conduct any kind of trade with others (Latin America, Spain ect). It had diplomatic importance. As a neutral body that was respected by the allies in this manner, it could do things like transfer assets between Japan and Germany. During the war, the Swiss Franc was the only freely tradable currency in the world.
By the way: This is not to say that there were not tensions or threats. Germany drafted plans to invade Switzerland but never used them. The Swiss military grew and the Swiss installed heavily armed troops at all passes and along the border. Switzerland was bombed a few times by both allies and axis aircraft either by mistake or because the aircraft were damaged and limped into swiss airspace before crashing. There were blockades at one point or another of Switzerland by both the Allies and Axis – this again caused some diplomatic clashes and threats of military action.
But the big reason is the obvious one: it’s a very very well defended country due to the natural geography and it’s small and not worth the effort to take, especially considering how badly Germany overextended herself.
Quote Comment
October 8th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
@drbuzz0
All excellent points.
Quote Comment
May 10th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
Thanks for your contribution to such a superb content. You appear to be to be really ardent and prepared to talk about your awareness not to mention invest your time constantly adding the web site to offer us all the viewer with such precise as well as enlightening content and articles.
Quote Comment