ITT we discuss whether or not nukes are even real. I'll start:

ITT we discuss whether or not nukes are even real. I'll start:

>explain how they filmed this footage
youtu.be/jXGsA7p4Sfs

Sure, big explosions are real, but a nuclear weapon? Bitch, please.

Attached: 35254534535.png (328x328, 114.57K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2vBvJxx7Oqc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Are all new worlders schizo's?

They're real but AI overlords from the future (aka TIC TACs) won't let them ever be used so that we invent them

take your meds chico

Yes, I AM the schizo for believing they can decimate a city with a single bomb.

Keep believing lies, sheeple.

>UN meme flaggot

Attached: 1644104759284.png (650x641, 460.96K)

I want to believe it esse

Exactly the point that the video makes: people want them to exist, so they allow this fictional narrative to remain.

If you don't believe in fission or fusion then no one will be able to convince you otherwise.

We have nuclear reactors, there is proof of fission. If you don't believe in nuclear reactors, then you should go visit one.

If you don't believe in radiation, then you have no reason posting this because you aren't looking for a discussion.

I find it hard to believe we could have nuclear reactors, but struggle to use the theory to make an explosion. There are books on the Manhattan project and the general theory of using neutrons to destabilize uranium and cause a chain reaction does not sound too ridiculous to me. But maybe you also don't believe in neutrons, which is fine.

You know you can study particle physics online right now and understand how nukes work at a fundamental level?

Yes they are real, yes it was/is possible to film them. Not sure why the maker of that video didn't do simple research on how it was filmed.

no need to respond. Easy to block retards these days.

Okay, so let's say I'm a brainlet (which most of this thread seems to agree with already).

I can make up a formula that says x+y=z, and publish a clever looking paper backed by one of the biggest (((scientific))) journals on the planet, and you all will just agree with it?

I'm skeptical, perhaps you can enlighten me.

Go ahead, block me on Any Forums, retard.

It is like one or two really dedicated guys (maybe just one). Nothing else. It is kind of funny watching how desperate they are for (you) when the poke into other threads. We really shouldn't be encouraging them by posting in these.

kek, yes there are only like 5 people on Any Forums at any given time.

It's okay to have a healthy dose of skepticism in the scientific community when it comes to race, gender, and climate papers. Generally, anything that can be considered politically or monetarily motivated.
but outright disregarding peer-reviewed scientific papers on particle physics is completely retarded.

Nut jobs like OP and the retard in the video tend to skip the fact that nukes tend to cause fires that will consume everything afterwards.

B-b-b-ut no radiation! The nukes were detonated on high altitudes, and the amounts of plutonium used on the bomb were so low that it hardly made an impact on the surface.

I've learned about how radiation works from very basic principles, I'm not sure who would need a current paper published to inform their worldview on some really fundamental physics.
That's like saying "If I publish a fancy essay on a literary magazine, will you all start believing there are 24 letters in the alphabet"

I just shit out something nuclear in my toilet

Attached: eb1.jpg (600x450, 34.07K)

Okay, Australiabro, fair enough - where might I begin my research to cure my skepticism?

Based on your comments I'll assume you've done your own research and actually studied these peer-reviewed papers you're referring to.

>youtube.com/watch?v=2vBvJxx7Oqc

sure they are , didn't you see The Day After in 1983

Well fuck dickhead a nuke by any other name

>explain how they filmed this footage
>10 minute video
Fuck off and take meds

>Flat earth thread
Fuck off and take your meds Jew.

You know, dickhead, how much moolah changes hands in the peer reviewed paper world??

Tell me you're not an NPC, please.

So far, the names I've been called in this thread:

>schizo
>jew
>retard

Yet not one person can provide even a shred of evidence as to why nukes are real.

The best we've got so far, is the user from Qatar Nuclear reactors =/= nuclear weapons

Some user dropped "but muhhh peer-reviewed papers that I've never read in my entire life"

No, i would not just agree with something because it has been publicized. But If you make a hypothesis, test it, then have the same hypothesis be tested by other people and it has the same results, then I would believe the published results. I don't see any reason why I wouldn't. And if your argument is for me to test it myself, I would argue that it is impossible for me to test every hypothesis.

Your cellphone works, the internet exists, chemical reactions are well understood and predictable, MRI's, GC-MS specs work, and these all work within our current model of physics. Sometimes our hypotheses are wrong, but our models have gotten us pretty far technologically.
You can go visit a nuclear reactor right now. Nuclear Meltdowns happen. With those two instances being realities, why does the step of making it a bomb seem so unbelievable to you?

I can never decide who is more retarded, flat earthers, moon landing deniers or nuke deniers. None of these people should be allowed on the internet.

If nukes aren't fake, why invest in conventional weapons at all? Just threatening to use them should suffice to pressure anyone into submission.

>they told me it was true so it must be!
>they mutilated my cock but... but it's better that way!!

Attached: e0d.png (785x1000, 263.67K)

>I swear goy, nukes arent even real. Let's just go to war with Russia! Nothing bad will happen

Peer reviewed peer reviewed peer reviewed!!!!!

Must mean it's all ok!!!!!!!

They've been peer reviewed!!!!!!

Haha hahahaha hahahaha ahhhhhhahahahaha