[GoldCashew]

What studies or research have you done to conclude that when a crate of TNT is set off, that the blast pattern behaves like that of a mushroom cloud many miles up in the sky?

Did you perform some type of very small scale experiment or did you reference ordinance experts to arrive at your conclusion?

What studies did you perform to say that pattern must be unique to nuclear explosions? You're asking me to provide you evidence that all possible types of explosion don't match that of a nuclear explosion. That's a completely nonsensical way to approach an argument. You've been here for at least like a year by now, shouldn't your ability to form serious arguments be improving?

Since you brought it up, let's talk a bit about non-nuclear explosions. In fact, let's use wikipedia. It's mainstream. You like mainstream things, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud

mushroom clouds generated by explosions were being described centuries before the atomic era

Uh oh, it looks like you're wrong! Wow! Who knew! If only you had the ability to research basic facts before posting then this could have all been avoided. Tragic!

I didn't say mushroom clouds weren't possible with a crate of TNT. I was just asking you what of your own Zetetic observational research have you done to build your own confidence and conclude that with a crate of TNT the observation would be that of a mushroom cloud many miles in the sky?

Again, you'll notice that I never mentioned whether it was possible or not. Unfortunately. It looks like you assumed.

(When an atomic bomb has been detonated, it has been observed to look like that of a mushroom cloud many miles high in the sky.)

[Dr Van Nostrand]

If nuclear bombs do exist, what proof would it take for you to believe it?

If nuclear bombs existed, we'd have nuclear terrorism, we'd have states like Pakistan using them to bully neighbors. Russia would have nuked Ukraine first, not invaded, made a fool of themselves, then threatened to use them later. Ukraine doesn't even have nukes! What, are they afraid NATO will declare war on them? That's a MAD scenario. There is absolutely zero downside to nuking non-nuclear states and yet no one does it. How curious! Humanity must be super restrained, intelligent and moral. It can't be that nukes are made up nonsense!

So the nuclear explosions of the past didn't happen but you would believe one that happens now?

If Pakistan did set off a nuke how would you know it really happened and wasn't a false flag media operation?

Holy Shit! How do we know anything really happened!?!  What if nothing's happening right at this very moment and we don't even know it?

We're fucked! We're fucked!  Please send us to CN! End our ignorant suffering! Kill us Kill us!

[Rushy]

I didn't say mushroom clouds weren't possible with a crate of TNT. I was just asking you what of your own Zetetic observational research have you done to build your own confidence and conclude that with a crate of TNT the observation would be that of a mushroom cloud many miles in the sky?

Again, you'll notice that I never mentioned whether it was possible or not. Unfortunately. It looks like you assumed.

(When an atomic bomb has been detonated, it has been observed to look like that of a mushroom cloud many miles high in the sky.)

I don't subscribe to Zeteticism and I have no idea why you'd make that assumption (or even bring it up!).

No government on this planet claims mushroom clouds appear during air detonations of nuclear weapons. That's entirely a quality of ground detonations. Wow! Once again you have no idea what you're talking about! What a surprise!

So the nuclear explosions of the past didn't happen but you would believe one that happens now?

If Pakistan did set off a nuke how would you know it really happened and wasn't a false flag media operation?

Holy Shit! How do we know anything really happened!?!  What if nothing's happening right at this very moment and we don't even know it?

We're fucked! We're fucked!  Please send us to CN! End our ignorant suffering! Kill us Kill us!

My point is that if a big bomb that was easy to use existed, governments would use it nonstop. You don't see false flags or "nuclear terrorism" because it turns out lugging around kilotons of TNT is difficult and something you only do when you have access to large deserts or Siberia. It's not that they don't use the bomb because it's big and scary, they don't use it because it's not real.

Think about it. Your argument is that a big very powerful bomb exists that can oppress any non-nuclear nation and governments don't use it. Why? Sure, MAD is the reasoning behind not attacking other nuclear powers. But why not attack a non-nuclear state with it? Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke? All I ask is that you take a bit of time to think about the conclusions you're making. Stop having these weird emotional outbreaks and THINK for a bit before you write words and hit the "post" button.

[GoldCashew]

I didn't say mushroom clouds weren't possible with a crate of TNT. I was just asking you what of your own Zetetic observational research have you done to build your own confidence and conclude that with a crate of TNT the observation would be that of a mushroom cloud many miles in the sky?

Again, you'll notice that I never mentioned whether it was possible or not. Unfortunately. It looks like you assumed.

(When an atomic bomb has been detonated, it has been observed to look like that of a mushroom cloud many miles high in the sky.)

I don't subscribe to Zeteticism and I have no idea why you'd make that assumption (or even bring it up!).

No government on this planet claims mushroom clouds appear during air detonations of nuclear weapons. That's entirely a quality of ground detonations. Wow! Once again you have no idea what you're talking about! What a surprise!

So the nuclear explosions of the past didn't happen but you would believe one that happens now?

If Pakistan did set off a nuke how would you know it really happened and wasn't a false flag media operation?

Holy Shit! How do we know anything really happened!?!  What if nothing's happening right at this very moment and we don't even know it?

We're fucked! We're fucked!  Please send us to CN! End our ignorant suffering! Kill us Kill us!

My point is that if a big bomb that was easy to use existed, governments would use it nonstop. You don't see false flags or "nuclear terrorism" because it turns out lugging around kilotons of TNT is difficult and something you only do when you have access to large deserts or Siberia. It's not that they don't use the bomb because it's big and scary, they don't use it because it's not real.

Think about it. Your argument is that a big very powerful bomb exists that can oppress any non-nuclear nation and governments don't use it. Why? Sure, MAD is the reasoning behind not attacking other nuclear powers. But why not attack a non-nuclear state with it? Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke? All I ask is that you take a bit of time to think about the conclusions you're making. Stop having these weird emotional outbreaks and THINK for a bit before you write words and hit the "post" button.

Noted that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism. (I brought it up because it's a main tenant of TFES approach).

I didn't ever reference government claims on mushroom clouds. I was just asking you about how you arrived at your own conclusion that when a crate of TNT is detonated that it is capable of forming a mushroom cloud many miles high. If you've confirmed that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism than that would explain why your conclusions aren't based on your own observations but an amalgamation of your own conspiracy theories that you have listed in this thread.

[Rushy]

I didn't ever reference government claims on mushroom clouds. I was just asking you about how you arrived at your own conclusion that when a crate of TNT is detonated that it is capable of forming a mushroom cloud many miles high.

Where did I say it's only a single crate? Are we about to have a discussion on what "at least" means?

If you've confirmed that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism than that would explain why your conclusions aren't based on your own observations but an amalgamation of conspiracy theories.

This is truly ironic, given that the only reason you believe nuclear bombs exist is because a large group of people keep telling you they do. Nuclear bombs exist in the same way the Enterprise from Star Trek does or the Death Star from Star Wars. Better be careful, don't declare war on Russia, they'll blow up your planet with a moon-sized space station! That's on the same order of delusion as nuclear bombs.

[GoldCashew]

I didn't ever reference government claims on mushroom clouds. I was just asking you about how you arrived at your own conclusion that when a crate of TNT is detonated that it is capable of forming a mushroom cloud many miles high.

Where did I say it's only a single crate? Are we about to have a discussion on what "at least" means?

If you've confirmed that you don't subscribe to Zeteticism than that would explain why your conclusions aren't based on your own observations but an amalgamation of conspiracy theories.

This is truly ironic, given that the only reason you believe nuclear bombs exist is because a large group of people keep telling you they do. Nuclear bombs exist in the same way the Enterprise from Star Trek does or the Death Star from Star Wars. Better be careful, don't declare war on Russia, they'll blow up your planet with a moon-sized space station! That's on the same order of delusion as nuclear bombs.

- Stack asked you how much TNT.

- Your reply was: "At least one crate of it"

[Rushy]

- Stack asked you how much TNT.

- Your reply was: "At least one crate of it"

And? That means there could be *gasp* more than one crate of it! Oh no! I guess we really do have to discuss what "at least" means! Extraordinary. I'm starting to think you're not really interested in an actual argument at all.

Don't worry, I'm sure it's merely coincidence that nuclear explosions are measured in tons of TNT. Don't think too much about it.

[GoldCashew]

- Stack asked you how much TNT.

- Your reply was: "At least one crate of it"

And? That means there could be *gasp* more than one crate of it! Oh no! I guess we really do have to discuss what "at least" means! Extraordinary. I'm starting to think you're not really interested in an actual argument at all.

"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.

[Dr Van Nostrand]

Think about it. Your argument is that a big very powerful bomb exists that can oppress any non-nuclear nation and governments don't use it. Why? Sure, MAD is the reasoning behind not attacking other nuclear powers. But why not attack a non-nuclear state with it? Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke? All I ask is that you take a bit of time to think about the conclusions you're making. Stop having these weird emotional outbreaks and THINK for a bit before you write words and hit the "post" button.

lol...

The reason they don't do it is because the residual radioactive stink would fuck up things far outside the intended target. Not to mention the fact that all the other nuclear weapons rights advocates would start shooting the place up with their weapons fucking the place up even more.

Your post is a reflection on you. YOU would use a nuke if you had one. YOU can't imagine having one and not using it. YOU don't see any diff between nukes and conventional weapons. That's just who you are.

The rest of us have to work to keep people like you from getting into power.

[markjo]

Why is it okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms but not okay to do it with a nuke?

Who (other than Russia) said that it's okay for Russia to level cities with conventional arms?

[Pete Svarrior]

"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.

with that in mind, your IQ is at least 40.

[GoldCashew]

"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.

with that in mind, your IQ is at least 40.

Sure Pete. Whatever you say.

[Pete Svarrior]

Sure Pete. Whatever you say.

Damn, I may yet turn out to be wrong!

[Iceman]

Somethin fucky was happening in the atmosphere around the 50’s though

https://www.radiocarbon.com/carbon-dating-bomb-carbon.htm

[stack]

No government on this planet claims mushroom clouds appear during air detonations of nuclear weapons. That's entirely a quality of ground detonations. Wow! Once again you have no idea what you're talking about! What a surprise!

There was this one. Check out the mushroom cloud 18k' up...(1:18 mark):

There is a countdown; 18,500 feet above them, the missile is detonated and blows up. Which means, these men intentionally stood directly underneath an exploding 2-kiloton nuclear bomb. One of them, at the key moment (he's wearing sunglasses), looks up. You have to see this to believe it.

[AATW]

All those people who suffered or died from the radiation after Hiroshima must feel pretty silly.

https://hibakushastories.org/

This thread has to be a troll. At best it’s an argument from incredulity, which is no argument at all.

[Rushy]

"At least one crate of it" also implies there could just be one crate if it.

I don't think it implies it as much as it explicitly states it. Put it this way: I didn't exclude the possibility that there is only one crate of it, I did, however, include the possibility of there being more.

lol...

The reason they don't do it is because the residual radioactive stink would fuck up things far outside the intended target. Not to mention the fact that all the other nuclear weapons rights advocates would start shooting the place up with their weapons fucking the place up even more.

That's funny, because modern thermonuclear fusion weapons supposedly don't have any radioactive fallout. Are you telling me that your belief in nuclear weapons requires that you simultaneously disagree with governments on how they function? Beautiful.

Your post is a reflection on you. YOU would use a nuke if you had one. YOU can't imagine having one and not using it. YOU don't see any diff between nukes and conventional weapons. That's just who you are.

Oh geez, it's just me, I'm evil! Good thing nations don't invade each other and mow down thousands of people with artillery for no conceivable reason.

Seriously, this is the best you could do? You're telling me governments like Pakistan, Russia, and the US are just good people with such good moral standing they can't imagine using a nuclear bomb to kill people? Good god man, I've seen people eat up by propaganda before but this is just sad.

The rest of us have to work to keep people like you from getting into power.

Now this is what I call projection. I like how quickly this went from "how dare you question our leaders" to "you're evil to question our leaders!"

All those people who suffered or died from the radiation after Hiroshima must feel pretty silly.

https://hibakushastories.org/

This thread has to be a troll. At best it’s an argument from incredulity, which is no argument at all.

Oh no, a website of stories and pictures! My argument is obliterated! No way I can stand up to stories and pictures!

I guess if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, they are currently radioactive wastelands that glow in the dark. No one can live there!

Except, oh my, they aren't! Millions of people live there! And they don't glow in the dark at all! What a travesty.

[AATW]

Oh no, a website of stories and pictures! My argument is obliterated!

You don't have an argument.
And yes, it's stories and pictures of people who lived through it. I'd say that's better evidence than your argument from incredulity.

I guess if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, they are currently radioactive wastelands that glow in the dark. No one can live there!

It would take you 5 minutes to look up stuff like this and find out about the short half-lives of many of radioactive particles which were created and the way radioactive materials were removed during the rebuilding.

[Rushy]

You don't have an argument.
And yes, it's stories and pictures of people who lived through it. I'd say that's better evidence than your argument from incredulity.

It's propaganda from almost 100 years ago.

It would take you 5 minutes to look up stuff like this and find out about the short half-lives of many of radioactive particles which were created and the way radioactive materials were removed during the rebuilding.

And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it? Radioactive fallout lasts a long time or mysteriously vanishes in a short time with simple cleanup? It's almost like people are making things up as they go and can't get their propaganda straight!

[AATW]

It's propaganda from almost 100 years ago.

Imagine my surprise that you provide no evidence for that assertion.
(If you are imagining no surprise at all then you are correctly imagining how much surprise I felt)

And yet the claimed nuclear test sites are still radioactive because of the bombs. So, which truth is it?

Some are, some aren't. Depends on the type of test, whether it was above ground or below, how powerful the bomb was.
It's almost like you don't understand that different types of radiation have different half lives and that different tests produce different types and amounts of radiation.
Again, this stuff doesn't take long to look up.