Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Atom Bomb Hoax revisited

atom bomb hoax conspiracy to defraud

  • Please log in to reply
229 replies to this topic

#141 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:12 AM

Next a pair of models showing the layout of the bombed area of Hiroshima before and after the raid:

k3hzgD.png

d5Z83U.png
  • 0

#142 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:22 AM

Note the buildings I have circled in red, find them on the AFTER model and try, as I have, to envision the type of weapon that might inflict uneven damage this way. The blast wave, as depicted with the epicenter flag, is inconsistent with what one would expect in a linear radial development of patterns of force in a singular detonation of great magnitude. Look at the building closest to the river's edge and ask why it still stands while similarly strong buildings in the back of it (therefore, further from the blast), are obliterated.

HmJWtk.png

Why is this bridge still standing after the blast?

Re45Fh.png

Same distance from epicenter of blast but damage is inconsistant.

NGZBHr.png
  • 0

#143 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 02:33 AM

They suckered us good

eidJ4f.png

42euWn.png

UMao5W.png

VLqj1F.png

Edited by Ghostwriter, 27 February 2014 - 02:48 AM.

  • 0

#144 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 03:01 AM

M69 incendiary clusters are the weapon that burned both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the ground.

jw26UU.png
  • 0

#145 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 27 February 2014 - 03:11 AM

Fuchida wrote that he was in Hiroshima the day before the atom bomb was dropped, attending a week-long military conference with the Army. He had received a long distance call from Navy Headquarters, asking him to return to Tokyo.


Mitsuo Fuchida is the Japanese Imperial Navy Pilot that led the attack on Pearl Harbor. A trusted affiliate.
  • 0

#146 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 04:33 AM

Next, from the UK's Telegraph:

How Russians copied captured B-29
 

FRESH details showing how Stalin's engineers stripped a B-29 Superfortress bomber "rivet-by-rivet" and copied it to produce their own aircraft capable of carrying a nuclear bomb to New York were published by an American historian yesterday.


Well, here we go again with the Soviets stealing everything. They are accused of stealing the plans to build an atomic bomb, the B29 and the space shuttle.

I suspect the Americans were having their B29 engineered at slave wages behind the Iron Curtain then producing them in the USA and charging the American masses for engineering work that was already done for them behind the Iron Curtain. Readers must bear in mind that behind the scenes the US and Soviets were very cozy at the leadership levels.

The Soviet Buran space shuttle was superior to the one they designed for the US. More elegant too.

Ok, so, here we are to believe that the Soviets needed a B29 clone to deliver an atom bomb that they did not suspect existed yet:
 

The impounded plane, one of three United States Air Force bombers that made forced landings in the Soviet Far East port of Vladivostok in 1944, was reduced to its 105,000 component parts and each one was copied by engineers working for the aviation pioneer Andrei Tupolev.


The Soviets had their ER-2 bomber, why would they need a B29? Add to this the well known fact of the problematic nature and overheating and fire issues of the b29. Add to this the fact that the Soviets had many submarines capable of delivering such a bomb safely to New York.

What is this habit the atomic hoaxsters have of choosing the worst possible mode of transport for their precious, and back then, very exclusive cargo? I call this the hoaxster's hive mentality. The lead hoaxster sets the parameters and the others follow suit no matter how inept the strategy.

Depending where you read, Little Boy weighed between 8000 and 9000 lbs. Well within the ER-2's payload capacities.
 

Having the Tu-4 meant he had some way of delivering it to America. Suddenly he had a strategic bombing force and was going to be able to stand up to America in the Cold War


A submarine is more reliable than a bomber. Only the atomic hoaxsters can overlook that.
Using submarines to deploy a bomb means the bomb will go off at ground level, meaning the damage could not practically be simulated by firebombing a city with conventional weapons from the air. Meaning the atomic bombing hoax had to be an airborne affair, nothing else.

Edited by Ghostwriter, 08 March 2014 - 06:07 AM.

  • 0

#147 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 05:14 AM

In this next quote from The Air and Space magazine online seems to suggest the Soviets were cloning the B29 for a swarming of the US with conventional ordinance:
 

Ramp Tramp was flown to Izmailovo because Soviet leader Joseph Stalin wanted a B-29 to serve as a template for a new heavy bomber to be produced in massive numbers in just two years: the Tu-4. Such a high-stakes scheme in technology transfer, if successful, would recast the Soviet air force into a strategic air arm and pave the way for military parity with the West in the uneasy peace that followed World War II. By copying the B-29, the Soviets would have an intercontinental bomber capable of striking New York City and the industrial heartland of the United States—and in a fraction of the time it would take them to develop their own design.


A clear indication that Stalin recognized the fierce nature of swarming B29 with conventional weaponry.

Is it possible that this cloning story has more to do with shrouding the Soviet designed b29 making it appear as if the US designed it and the Soviets had to steal a few to have them too? The Soviets had a lot of engineering talent available.

With regards to the stealing of atom bomb plans we must believe the Soviets could only obtain this info by stealing it from Americans, as if Americans had a monopoly on physics. The reason the Soviets did not get the bomb first is because it did not occur to them to fake it. Besides, Soviet cinema and organized special effects were not worth mentioning behind the Iron Curtain. That part I'm certain they got from the US cinematics experts.

Big hoaxes like the space agenda and atom bombs require a significant amount of cinematic expertise to fake. That is why the Soviets never faked manned space shuttle exploits or manned moonlandings and had to wait until the US launched their fakes to see what worked best in visuals.

Washington quietly acquiesced to the confiscation of the B-29s and kept the matter under wraps. There was no concerted diplomatic effort to gain their return, as maintaining cordial relations with Moscow was a high priority for the United States throughout World War II. The War Department even asked returning interned airmen to keep silent about their sojourn in the Soviet Union.


Like I said before, relations between the so-called superpowers at the leadership level was very cozy and accomodating. Even while the corpses piled up in the fake failed diplomacy of genocide masquerading as war.

Edited by Ghostwriter, 04 March 2014 - 05:23 AM.

  • 0

#148 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 05:39 AM

World War 2 had been over only for a little over a year when an article appeared in the November 11, 1946 issue of the Berlin newspaper Der Kurier claiming that the Soviet Union was manufacturing a bolt-for-bolt copy of the B-29 in a series of factories located in the Urals. [RAP comment: This most likely leaked from German scientists and engineers who were detained in the Soviet Union after WWII] This report was widely disbelieved, since the Soviet Union was at the time thought incapable of manufacturing an aircraft as large and sophisticated as the B-29.


As far as fake atom bombs are concerned the Soviet 50 megaton scaled down 100 megaton Tsar Bomba exceeded anything the US ever faked.

Where is the evidence that the Soviet Union was mechanically inept or incapable of big engineering projects? The social engineering of the Soviet nationwide prison camp and its captive slave workforce was perfectly designed for the job expected of it. The Soviets are every bit as brilliant in physics and math as their counterparts in the West. Their war machine a hell on earth. Anyways, I dont buy the "dumb Russian" propaganda of the West. Most of it is window-dressing to hide their complicity with the Soviets at all times.

Edited by Ghostwriter, 05 March 2014 - 02:58 AM.

  • 0

#149 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 05:51 AM

During the Great Patriotic War, Josef Stalin had allocated the highest priority to the development of a strategic bombing capability, and the presentation to the Soviet Union of three intact B-29s was extremely fortuitous, since the Soviet aircraft industry could now overcome the immense technological problems involved in the development of a strategic bomber in a fraction of the time it would have taken to develop an indigenous design from scratch. [RAP comment: It is not that USSR have not had experience with large bombers. Sikorskii's Ilya Muromets was first four engined bomber ever build. Tupolev prewar designs (early 30's) such as TB bomber series were revolutionary at the time of introduction. The rest of the world was using biplane bombers when sleek TB was delivered to Red Army air force. ANT-20 Maksim Gorkii was the largest aircraft when it was build and Petlyakov's Pe-8 was on pair with B-17, although only few were build during WWII]. Stalin ordered that the Soviet Union develop a copy of the B-29 for immediate manufacture. The design bureau of Andrie N. Tupolev was given responsibility for the airframe, while the engine bureau headed by Arkadii B. Shvetsov was assigned the responsibility of copying the Wright R-3350 Duplex Cyclone engine. The Soviet version of the B-29 was assigned the designation Tu-4. The Shvetsov version of the Wright Duplex Cyclone was known as the ASh-73TK.


I think the Soviets were capable of designing their own B29-type bomber if they wanted. The Soviets had no need for the crappy B29 so why all the fanfare about impounding and cloning them? Could it be because the engineering plans for the B29 were already in the Soviet Union because it was developed there and assembled in America? A cover to explain the presence of those plans in the Soviet Union?

Too many witnesses to the B29 design?

Edited by Ghostwriter, 04 March 2014 - 05:52 AM.

  • 0

#150 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 06:26 AM

Now this from airforcemag:

(bold mine)

In the 1940s, the United States produced a bomber with capabilities so advanced that it required a national revolution in engineering, aerodynamics, manufacturing, electronics, material, and operation. And so did the Soviet Union.

The US spent more on its new bomber than it had on any previous aviation project. The Soviet Union did the same.

The US aircraft—the B-29 Superfortress—made history on Aug. 6, 1945, when it dropped an atomic weapon on Hiroshima. The Soviet aircraft went on display on Aug. 3, 1947 at the annual Tushino air show. Visitors in Moscow that day witnessed a stunning flyover: the debut of the Tu-4 bomber.

Here’s the odd thing. The monumental US and USSR bomber programs had produced what was, for all intents and purposes, the same aircraft.

The three Tu-4s flown at the air show were indistinguishable from US B-29s, the state-of-the-art aircraft that had revolutionized long-range strategic bombing.

Western observers initially believed—hoped—that the aircraft seen at the Moscow air show were actually three B-29s that had made emergency landings in the Soviet Union near the end of World War II. But there was also a Tu-70 passenger version of the B-29 in the flyby that day, which forced the observers to accept a troubling fact.

The Soviet Union had done the impossible: It had reverse engineered and produced flyable B-29 replicas in two short years. The Tu-4 was a virtual carbon copy of the Superfortress.


More to support the idea that the Soviets designed the B29 assembled in the USA. Were they gloating their tribal arrogance?
  • 0

#151 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:06 AM

The Soviets made remarkable progress in producing nuclear weapons, but without the amazingly rapid production of the Tu-4, the USSR could not have delivered those weapons for many years.


Delivery by boat or submarine is very reliable. Why do they invariably stick to the high altitude airburst deployment strategies while ground-based explosions are far more devastating? Maybe because the Hindu scripture that inspired the atomic hoaxsters spoke of bursts of light in the air. The aliens assisting the Hindus must have forgotten to show them how to deploy atom bombs by submarine or naval vessel, aliens might forget that :)

At least they remembered they had naval vessels when delivering bomb components to Tinian and they acknowledged the existance of submarines when the Japs sank the USS Indianopolis. The sinking of the Indianapolis is a very suspicious story. Nobody noticed she was off schedule and missing. Reports had deemed the waters free of submarine activity on the path to Leyte in the Phillipines where she was headed. Captain was poised for safe evacuation at the time of the explosions. Reminded me of the Titanic story a bit. Like a ritual killing.

Edited by Ghostwriter, 05 March 2014 - 02:55 AM.

  • 0

#152 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 08 March 2014 - 06:26 AM

Next, stanford.edu examines the psychological impact of the nuclear age:
 

Although no bombs have yet exploded in World War III, there are already victims - not physically, but psychologically. Worse yet, these victims are often those most precious to us, our children. This paper examines the impact of the nuclear threat on the human psyche with particular emphasis on the mental state of young people and children.


This is not to say that the threat of a large-scale war with conventionall weaponry won't have an effect on the mental state of young people and children. Actually, in light of the fact that atom bombs are bogus and the nuclear fakes staged with conventional weaponry the fear could not have been worst in the atomic scenario. If the world had a global nuclear war the end would hhave been mercifully quick and you can't fear the end of humanity if you are dead and your world died along with it. In thiis respect atomic war was less frightning than a long, agonizing mental torture of conventional warfare.
 

While a few farsighted individuals from the psychological community, notably D. Krech, E. Hilgard, R. Lifton, and J. Frank, took the threat to heart early in the nuclear era, it took almost forty years for the community in general to realize the danger. Now we may have very little time left. Hence the need to understand and overcome the psychological barriers that prevent people from responding adequately to this life-and-death struggle.


How does one "adequately" respond to the total annihilation of mankind? They don't. The decision to wage war on a global scale is not a decision made my little people although mostly little people die in them. The idea of potentially wiping out all life on earth essentially means that the priviledged few that usuallly profit from these genocides will perish also. If the atomic armageddon fears were founded I would not consider those that escaped it as "fortunate" in the least. Thankfully, the end of all life on earth is not something that man will achieve with the realities of physics really at his disposal.
 

In an American study of the 1960s, M. Schwebel surveyed 3,000 children and adolescents of school age. The survey showed that even then nuclear war figured prominently in the thoughts and feelings of the younger generation. Of those asked, 95 percent expressed a serious concern about the danger of war and 44 percent lived in fear, waiting for war.1 In similar work, S. Escalona surveyed more than 300 subjects, from age four to teenagers.2 When asked how they saw the world in the time of their adulthood, over 70 percent spontaneously mentioned the possibility of nuclear war.


Of these 70% how many would have said they believe atom bombs have made conventional global warfare obsolete? Of those in our day that understand the bomb to be a hoax believe we will have another global genocide soon? The universal perspective is to expect our masters will incite us at each others throats in homicidal passions and, as usual, reap the profits of our demise. The only thing I think people are devided on is the type of instrument they will use to eliminate us. We are ttalking here about school kids that are fluent in the brutal history of mankind through their history studies. They know that history repeats itself when thhe lessons are not heeded and they know we have not learned from those lessons and history will give those tribally-affiliated maniacs a chance too mass kill us again.
 

I am constantly aware that at any second the world might blow up in my face.


Amazing this idea that those that start and profit from war would start one that might consume the them too. The idea is beyond ludicrous if you truly understand the nature and driving forces behind global warfare. Its not supposed to be dangerous for the priviledged class. Which brings us back to my earlier assertion that the atom bomb plans and engineers would have been buried deep if the project had been viable. The threat to their dominion that such a weapon might represent if viable would make the thing go away permanently.
 

Even the more neutral question, "What does the word 'nuclear' bring to mind?" produced the following responses:

Danger, death, sadness, corruption, explosion, cancer, children, waste, bombs, pollution, terror, terrible devaluing of human life.


Those are all words that describe very well the conditions during conventional war. What is supposed to make atomic war different is the near "instant" extinction of life and hardly a moment for a thought before a painless vaporization. That is the thing that is different when the word "nuclear" is used yet none expressed this association to the word "nuclear." This demonstrates how confused the public are about this whole atomic thing. Too many contradictions perhaps?

Edited by Ghostwriter, 08 March 2014 - 07:11 AM.

  • 0

#153 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 08 March 2014 - 07:21 AM

stanford.edu continues:
 

An eleven-year-old girl complained to her psychiatrist that she was afraid of not having enough time to commit suicide if war started.


They expect us to believe that a kid can't make out the difference between an instantaneous death and comitting suicide.
 

A ten-year-old boy was taken to a doctor to be cured of insomnia and nightmares caused by fear of nuclear war.


The atomic hoaxsters scaring the crap out of kids with their "smoke-and-mirrors." They are pathetic. Scaring kids is the favorite passtime of our ruling elites and their widely broadcast ideas about guys being nailed to a cross. I'm sure the wanna-be nice guys get that message loud and clear. You be nice or try to make other people happy and we will nail your a** too that cross, capiche. Same with the atomic boogy man, you be good little subservient slaves or we will blow up the planet, capiche?
 

Similar symptoms were found in the fifth-grade students of a private school. Many children treated by psychiatrists and psychotherapists have dreams of being lost after their parents and family have been killed.


More likely they heard about conditions in state-run foster homes. Anyways, where did these kids get that irrational expectation that they will not be vaporized instantly with everyone else? Where do they find the confidence to believe there will be a stop to the destruction and cooler minds might prevail in the midst of global annihilation so they may be saved and cared for? Hollywood has blurred the perceptions of armageddon, making it appear survivable.
 

The authors of the present article have conducted a related study of Soviet youth. Our study, conducted from 1984 through 1986, covered over nine hundred high school and college students. Particular attention was given to the techniques employed. Many people are reticent to talk about their thoughts and innermost feelings, especially when part of a public opinion poll. In addition, some emotions or the reasons behind them are not always perceived and, therefore, may not be properly articulated.


The Soviets know a thing or two about death in a global conflict and death by various other forms of armed combat. If anyone might hope for a mercifully quick death it is those that have agonized in the midst of large-scale conventional warfare. They know what it is like to have invading foreigners march over their borders to attack and kill them.
 

As to the consequences of nuclear war, 46 percent of our subjects believed that it would result in the complete annihilation of humankind, 41 percent thought that 10 percent of the Earth's population would survive, and the remaining subjects estimated possible survival rates at 20 percent to 50 percent.


Considering the atom bomb is not true that means the worst that can happen is conventional warfare on a global level. This means that only a very small percentage of our global population will be affected.

During WW2 they reported about 55 million deaths. Compared to our global population numbers even then we can see right away that calling it a global war is a bit of an exaggeration.

55 million deaths represented a drop in a very big bucket so-to-speak.

This means that the warmakers can only manage a small (relatively speaking) number of deaths from global mass carnage during any given time.

Now, considering our exponentially-expanding global population figures how many times the deaths of WW2 would be required to clear the air?

At three times the deaths of WW2 (150 million souls) you still have barely scratched the tip of the global population iceburg.

In other words we have better chances drowning in our own feces because of unsustainable population numbers than to perish in a man-made genocide passing for a global war. They can no longer cull us fast enough. They have let us breed out of control because they made and make lots of money off human cattle babies.

In answer to the question, "How do you see yourself in the year 2000?" more than 95 percent of the subjects made projections without any reference to the threat of nuclear war. Some pictured themselves as actively involved in public life, others banked on professional excellence, some hoped to achieve high moral standards, and some dreamed of love and family happiness. Only a very few answered that they had no personal plans because those plans were useless considering the threat of nuclear catastrophe.


Everyone lives under the threat of death for purely medical reasons at any time or instant of their lives. Therefore we are used to the idea that our world can come to an abrupt end anytime without the slightest threat of war. People can die because warfare has taken the form of toxic waste passing for nutritious food. Nuclear war or the threat of this potential needs to take a number and wait in line behind the other more personal things that can implode your world. That is probably why most stated they would just do what they can and hope for the best in spite of this Damocles-sword over our heads.

Edited by Ghostwriter, 08 March 2014 - 08:05 AM.

  • 0

#154 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 08 March 2014 - 09:07 AM

Based on work with American children, a US team headed by Dr. Eric Chivian, worked cooperatively with Soviet researchers over the past eight years to obtain similar data on Soviet youth. Findings confirmed previous studies which demonstrated that fewer youths in the Soviet Union fear nuclear war. In the most recent study conducted in October and November 1986, responses to questionnaires from 3,372 Maryland teenagers (average age 14.5 years) were compared to 2,263 similarly aged (average age 13 years) Russian children from the Tambov and Rostov provinces. About three-quarters of those interviewed from each nation agreed: "There can be no winners in a nuclear war since most countries would be totally destroyed." But 56 percent of Russian teenagers thought a nuclear war would never happen, while only 14 percent of Americans thought so.


Isn't this interesting. A majority of Russian teenagers do not believe there will be nuclear war while only 14% of American teens do not believe an atomic war will occur. I take it for granted that either side holds this opinion because they deny the atom bomb claim. The Russian and American teens believe in the bomb but don't think it will be used in a global war. Most these teens have been to school and were repeatedly spammed with historical bloodbaths in their lessons. Shouldn't they know that the pattern of violence on these scales is predictable? Why would any of those teen believe our leaders have enough common sense to avoid global annihilation?

Could it be that those teens understand that given the sabre-rattling and regional warring all over the world since the first atomic claims there must exist some invisible force preventing escalation and all-out nuclear war? Some benevolence of sorts preventing our leaders from expressing their genocidal tendancies on a global scale. Otherwise where in the name of creation do they find such reassurance?

In June 1987, we conducted another series of interviews of teenagers from eleven to fifteen years old, employing our previously described techniques. One hundred and ten boys and girls from three Soviet republics -the Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Armenia - were surveyed. Our results turned out to be somewhat different in comparison with the above described data of the Soviet-American cooperative research. To the direct question about the probability of nuclear war, only 26 percent stated that they believed it to be "improbable" and 7 percent considered it "inevitable."


The reasons for their choices would have made some interesting reading. What kind of reasons compel people to find the prospect of nuclear armageddon probable or improbable?

Edited by Ghostwriter, 08 March 2014 - 09:13 AM.

  • 0

#155 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 08 March 2014 - 09:22 AM

Soviet as well as American children and youth are aware of the magnitude of the nuclear threat and this awareness has a negative impact on their feelings, their emotions, their perception of life, and their plans for the future. In short, a significant fraction of the younger generation constantly lives with consciousness of the tremendous danger and perceives it more acutely than adults. We agree with our American colleagues that fear, anxiety, helplessness, and lack of confidence in the future leave an ominous imprint on the personality of the youth in both our countries. One may say that many are already victims of a war which has not yet started.


Actually, they are victims of an ongoing transgenerational war waged by the priviledged class of a tribally-affiliated wordwide swarm. A war that has many fronts. In medicine, in the food industry, in drugs, in schools etc. The battlefield is wherever an advantage is to be obtained by the rulers at our expense and suffering.
  • 0

#156 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 09 March 2014 - 12:51 AM

The Spherical Cow

A spherical cow is a metaphor for highly simplified scientific models of complex real life phenomena.


V56yxU.png

The phrase comes from a joke about theoretical physicists:

Milk production at a dairy farm was low, so the farmer wrote to the local university, asking for help from academia. A multidisciplinary team of professors was assembled, headed by a theoretical physicist, and two weeks of intensive on-site investigation took place. The scholars then returned to the university, notebooks crammed with data, where the task of writing the report was left to the team leader. Shortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer "I have the solution, but it only works in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum."

The point of the joke is that physicists will often reduce a problem to the simplest form they can imagine in order to make calculations more feasible, even though such simplification may hinder the model's application to reality. The concept is well enough known that it can be referred to in scientific discourse without explanation.


The atom bomb hoax is a spherical cow. The physics was oversimplified to accomodate it's application to reality.
  • 0

#157 klaatu

klaatu

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14 posts

Posted 09 March 2014 - 03:41 AM

The M69 was a wicked bomb.Most folks recall the jellied gas Napalm bomb used in Vietnam,but it was used in WWII.

 

Napalm Bombs Over Japan - The M-69

 

c1c15633d3.jpg

 

B-29s, flying over Japan, dropped napalm-filled cluster bombs known as the M-69.  Stewart Halsey Ross - in his book, Strategic Bombing by the United States in World War II: The Myths and the Facts - describes this devastating weapon, as follows:

.

..the M-69, [was] a 6.2 pound napalm bomblet of sophisticated design.  Napalm was the remarkable material that had been developed by DuPont expressly as a filler for incendiary bombs, as a substitute for commonly used magnesium, the lightweight metal increasingly used in aircraft components. 

The name was derived from its chemical compound, a mixture of naphthene and palmitic acids.  This new compound when mixed with gasoline produced a thick, sticky, jelly-like material. 

Napalm would revolutionize air-dropped incendiary weapons and would be used with equally devastating effect in flamethrowers by U.S. Marines in the Pacific war against Japanese troops. 

By 1945, an enhanced formula, Napalm B, had been introduced; chemists added polystyrene and benzene to the lethal brew, yielding a longer burning fire at temperatures up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and even greater stickiness.
...
In external appearance the M-69 was deceptively innocent looking, disguising its sophisticated destructive capabilities inside a 3-inch-diameter, 20-inch-long plain steel cylinder.  There were no stabilizing tail fins to make it look like a bomb; instead it contained a 3-foot-long strip of cloth, like a kite's tail, that popped out when it deployed to prevent tumbling. 

As the sturdy unit punched its way through the thin roof of a house, a time-delay fuse was activated which, after 3 to 5 seconds, detonated an ejection-ignition charge.  By this time, the bomblet would be at rest, on its side or its nose embedded in a floor. 

The exploding charge ignited a small quantity of white-phosphorous powder which instantly set fire to the napalm and at the same time blew a fiercely burning glob of gasoline gel out of the tail of the casing.  The burning gel could be propelled as far out as 100 feet.  Whatever the glob hit, it stuck to; if the material was combustible, it immediately started an intense, hard-to-extinguish fire.

M-69 bombs were bound together in clusters of 38 and fitted inside a finned thin-walled container that opened clamshell-like over the target, scattering the bomblets.  A primacord charge ran through the container's flange that was time-fuzed to explode and open the cluster at a predetermined altitude, generally about 2000 feet, an altitude that tests had shown yielded optimum dispersion.

A simpler, lighter construction was merely to strap the bombs together and attach a tail fin.  The primacord cut the straps at fuze ignition, allowing the individual bombs to freely disperse.

Such configurations were not as aerodynamically stable as the "containerized" bomblets, but incendiary bombs were large-area weapons and were notoriously inaccurate.

 

http://www.awesomest...-Japan-The-M-69

 


Depending on aircraft speed and winds close to the ground, the bombs would be spread out over a keyhold-shaped area about 500 feet wide at its widest by about a half-mile long.  A single B-29 on a firebomb raid over Japan typically would carry 40 clusters, or about 1,500 individual M-69s.


  • 0

#158 Radio1

Radio1

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5496 posts

Posted 09 March 2014 - 08:17 AM

Note the buildings I have circled in red, find them on the AFTER model and try, as I have, to envision the type of weapon that might inflict uneven damage this way. The blast wave, as depicted with the epicenter flag, is inconsistent with what one would expect in a linear radial development of patterns of force in a singular detonation of great magnitude. Look at the building closest to the river's edge and ask why it still stands while similarly strong buildings in the back of it (therefore, further from the blast), are obliterated.

HmJWtk.png

Why is this bridge still standing after the blast?

Re45Fh.png

Same distance from epicenter of blast but damage is inconsistant.

NGZBHr.png

 

Most likely because of how those buildings were constructed. Those built of wood or other less sturdy materials would be destroyed more easily than those built of stone, metal, and so forth. Japan's cities of the time were built primarily of wood, which is why firebombing by the Americans was particularly frequent and successful there.


  • 0

#159 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 09 March 2014 - 08:08 PM

In external appearance the M-69 was deceptively innocent looking, disguising its sophisticated destructive capabilities inside a 3-inch-diameter, 20-inch-long plain steel cylinder.  There were no stabilizing tail fins to make it look like a bomb; instead it contained a 3-foot-long strip of cloth, like a kite's tail, that popped out when it deployed to prevent tumbling. 

As the sturdy unit punched its way through the thin roof of a house, a time-delay fuse was activated which, after 3 to 5 seconds, detonated an ejection-ignition charge.  By this time, the bomblet would be at rest, on its side or its nose embedded in a floor. 

The exploding charge ignited a small quantity of white-phosphorous powder which instantly set fire to the napalm and at the same time blew a fiercely burning glob of gasoline gel out of the tail of the casing.  The burning gel could be propelled as far out as 100 feet.  Whatever the glob hit, it stuck to; if the material was combustible, it immediately started an intense, hard-to-extinguish fire.


The M-69 does not produce a seismic signature on a seismometer. No shockwave. Which explains the irrational absence of historical seismograms for Hiroshima or Nagasaki. No single earth-shattering explosion but rather a torrential downpour of these bomblets deployed by swarms of B29.

Coincidentally, the M-69 aimable cluster containing the bomblets opens up to release them at nearly the exact same altitude we are told the atom bomb exploded, 2000 feet.

The models and aerial photos of post-bombing Hiroshima bear the signature of the M-69. Concrete buildings are not ripped apart and thrown clear across town. The photos show streets clear of debris.

Concrete buildings collapsed when their wooden support beams were consumed by the firestorm. That is why brick or concrete buildings at similar distances from the so-called epicentre have inconsistant damage patterns.

Edited by Ghostwriter, 09 March 2014 - 08:14 PM.

  • 0

#160 Ghostwriter

Ghostwriter

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2080 posts

Posted 09 March 2014 - 08:25 PM

(bold mine)
 

A large part of the destruction caused by a nuclear explosion is due to blast effects. Objects within the path of the blast wave are subjected to severe, sharp increases in atmospheric pressure and to extraordinarily severe transient winds. Most buildings, with the exception of reinforced or blast- resistant structures, will suffer moderate to severe damage when subjected to overpressures of only 35.5 kiloPascals (kPa) (0.35 Atm). The velocity of the accompanying blast wind may exceed several hundred km/hr. Most materiel targets are drag- or wind-sensitive.


A couple of years back we experienced wind gusts up to 150 kph. Huge trees were bent over with their tops touching the ground and others were ripped out along with their large roots. Small branches were strewn about all over the place.

In the pictures of post-bombing Hiroshima you can see clearly the standing burnt trees still have their fine charred extremities intact. No wind pressure or shockwave of any kind.

The famous Hiroshima camphor tree they say was uprooted by the atomic blast still has it's fine extremities intact besides the probability that the tree's succulent roots were knawed by night rodents until the giant toppled over.

Edited by Ghostwriter, 09 March 2014 - 08:29 PM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2019 Pravda.Ru