[News]

News: The Flat Earth Society's new website has launched and the Society is officially accepting new members for the first time since 2001!

[Violent]

I've put together a seven minute piece which asks the question "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RQJyt-BzM

Although this possibility is rarely postulated, and although when it is put forth it always receives scathing incredulity, even from the most skeptical conspiracy theorists, I am certain that the canon of nuclear/atomic explosion footage shown to the public starting in the 1940s was falsified from the beginning.

Nuclear bombs are the cornerstone of the world's military-industrial control structure. It is therefore necessary that, if the current order is to be maintained, everyone must believe in them.

[Chris Spaghetti]

The theory behind the technology is sound. While I can't be certain about the physical existence of them I am fairly confident that they exist, after all even if the videos were faked, the damage to Hiroshima wasn't.

[Violent]

Thank you for your fair response.

The damage to Hiroshima is not proof of nuclear bombs.

[Moonlit]

Thank you for your fair response.

The damage to Hiroshima is not proof of nuclear bombs.

No, but it is pretty damning evidence.  What else do you purpose did that sort of damage?  I can't watch the video.  They're blocked on my work computer.

[Jack]

So E=mc², through the process of nuclear fission, is wrong? Can you prove that atoms can no longer split apart?

[Raist]

I somehow doubt japan would have surrendered if that was fake.

[Johannes]

Can you prove that atoms even exist?

[Tom Bishop]

Thank you for your fair response.

The damage to Hiroshima is not proof of nuclear bombs.

No, but it is pretty damning evidence.  What else do you purpose did that sort of damage?  I can't watch the video.  They're blocked on my work computer.

Well the damage from Hiroshima looks just like the results of the fire bombing of Tokyo:

Nuclear Blast aftermath at Hiroshima: http://www.moonofalabama.org/images/Hiroshima-big.jpg

Firebombing aftermath at Tokyo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Tokyo_1945-3-10-1.jpg

The majority of the structures in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rickety termite eaten poor Japanese wooden houses.  Many still question why those two cities were chosen as targets since they had no military value. Up until then every Japanese city was chosen based on military value. It's clear that those two old wooden cities were chosen for maximum propaganda value.

[Raist]

The big difference I see here is horoshima seems like its grounds have been blasted clean. Which would be the only difference I expect between a huge hot blast and a huge burn.

[cbarnett97]

also the one of the first ways we found out that the Russians had the bomb was then it registered on seismographs, and it is the reason that coal miners need tostagger their blasts instead of setting it all of at once so Russia did not think the US was setting off a Nuclear Bomb

[Raist]

also the one of the first ways we found out that the Russians had the bomb was then it registered on seismographs, and it is the reason that coal miners need tostagger their blasts instead of setting it all of at once so Russia did not think the US was setting off a Nuclear Bomb

So wait, it could have been faked by setting off underground charges at once?

[cbarnett97]

also the one of the first ways we found out that the Russians had the bomb was then it registered on seismographs, and it is the reason that coal miners need tostagger their blasts instead of setting it all of at once so Russia did not think the US was setting off a Nuclear Bomb

So wait, it could have been faked by setting off underground charges at once?

the charges the set off though look nothing like a nuclear bomb but they do set off similar seismic waves so yes that portion could have been faked the all of the visible signs could not be faked that way. unless you wanted to pile tons and tons of TNT and set it off all at the same exact moment

[Violent]

Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.

[Violent]

Tom thanks for the excellent link to the Hiroshima still photograph. It's obvious from the picture that they burnt down a large section of the city in both Hiroshima and Tokyo, using whatever method. All brick buildings are left standing intact save for apparently missing windows.

[Chris Spaghetti]

Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.

Well yes, that's how nuclear power stations work. Even if you deny the existence of nukes then power stations still prove that the equation is sound.

[Jack]

Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy."

Nuclear fission was the true answer to E=mc². Before that, and although he did derive the equation, Einstein never thought that it is possible for mass to "split" and release energy.  Scientists tried many procedures to release energy from mass directly using equipments; however, they always get less energy from the mass than the amount of energy they actually put into the equipment.

The bold part is why nuclear weapons are allowed to exist.

Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.

Right, it's a theory of relativity, or a theory that studies the FoR of moving objects relative to the speed of light. What's your point?

[Edtharan]

Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U According to Einstein mass and energy are "different manifestations of the same thing," and "very small amounts of mass may be converted in to a very large amount of energy." Now this all sounds very scientific, but it's very important to note its title: The Theory of *Relativity* -which is dissolutionist- and next and perhaps even more revealing is the spoken equation itself, which is apparently Masonic / Kabalist: E is equal to mc-squared, in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light." We've got the Square mentioned repeatedly. Light is given a velocity and is squared.

E=MC² is the simplified version and assumes no energy other than what is in the mass itself. The proper equation is:

E² - (pc)² = (m₀c²)²

E is energy
p is momentum
m₀ is the rest mass of the object
c is the speed of light

As you can see, this is not the simple equation that you claim is Masonic/Kabalist.

[Tom Bishop]

The big difference I see here is horoshima seems like its grounds have been blasted clean. Which would be the only difference I expect between a huge hot blast and a huge burn.

There are also entire blocks which look swept away clean in the Tokyo image.

But if we go down to lower altitudes we can see that there's obviously a lot of rubble in a majority of the Hiroshima aftermath photos. Hardly "blasted clean."

http://www.earthstation1.com/WWIIPics/Japan/ResidentialStreetInHiroshimaAfterA-Bombing.jpg
http://www.annefrankguide.com/en-GB/content/hiroshima-2f.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/12/31/hiroshima_wideweb__430x323.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

Why can't the results of a nuclear blast look similar to the results of extensive firebombing?  I imagine they both would look very much alike.

[Moon squirter]

If nukes are a conspiracy, then the so-called Hiroshima shadows must also have been faked, because the "flash" (photon energy) required to make these is not possible with conventional explosives.