Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

  • 1237 Replies
  • 288085 Views
?

Ziosin

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #60 on: January 23, 2009, 09:08:56 AM »
Nukes exist. The damage and radiation levels (and sicknesses within survivors) prove so. No single bomb in existence could ever match radiation levels or destruction scales that high except the nuke. And it IS true that the plane that dropped the nuke, only dropped one single bomb.


Dunno if this counts as proof either:

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #61 on: January 24, 2009, 01:12:06 AM »
"Nukes exist. The damage and radiation levels (and sicknesses within survivors) prove so."

I have not seen: damage, radiation levels, sickness, with my own eyes. Have you?

Most of us have seen these things on television, or in photos.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #62 on: January 24, 2009, 01:17:31 AM »
"Nukes exist. The damage and radiation levels (and sicknesses within survivors) prove so."

I have not seen: damage, radiation levels, sickness, with my own eyes. Have you?

Most of us have seen these things on television, or in photos.
Yes I have
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #63 on: January 24, 2009, 04:09:33 AM »
Uhh, you do realize that hundreds of nuclear bombs have been tested around the world and that north korea has nowhere near the ability to create any CGI.

Because Korea is a primitive civilization barely out of the dark ages  ::)

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #64 on: January 24, 2009, 10:55:27 AM »
I have not seen: damage, radiation levels, sickness, with my own eyes. Have you?
This is a common logical fallacy. I guess, by your argument, atoms and bacteria do not exist.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17720
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #65 on: January 24, 2009, 07:15:33 PM »
This is a common logical fallacy. I guess, by your argument, atoms and bacteria do not exist.


There are a couple things wrong with your statement.

First of all, we can see bacteria with a classroom microscope.

Secondly, there is no empirical evidence that atoms exist. No one has seen what exists within an electron shell. What we know as atoms could easily be something entirely different: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
« Last Edit: January 24, 2009, 07:21:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #66 on: January 24, 2009, 07:18:13 PM »
This is a common logical fallacy. I guess, by your argument, atoms and bacteria do not exist.

First of all, we can see bacteria with a classroom microscope.

Secondly, there is no empirical evidence that atoms exist. What we know as atoms could easily be something entirely different: http://www.glafreniere.com/matter.htm
Who made the microscopes?
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #67 on: January 24, 2009, 07:25:49 PM »
There are a couple things wrong with your statement.

First of all, we can see bacteria with a classroom microscope.
:-\

That's why his argument is a logical fallacy. Just because he doesn't see radiation levels/damage with his own eyes, doesn't mean nukes do not exist.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17720
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #68 on: January 24, 2009, 07:33:50 PM »
Quote
:-\

That's why his argument is a logical fallacy. Just because he doesn't see radiation levels/damage with his own eyes, doesn't mean nukes do not exist.

I believe he was saying that there is no empirical evidence for nukes, which there isn't.

Your phrase "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #69 on: January 24, 2009, 07:50:49 PM »
I believe he was saying that there is no empirical evidence for nukes, which there isn't.
Read:

I have not seen: damage, radiation levels, sickness, with my own eyes. Have you?

So nukes don't exist just because he, some random guy on the internet, never saw the results of a nuclear strike in his life? Other people might have seen the results, but not him. What makes him so credible that I should accept his argument as the reason why nukes don't exist?

Your phrase "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.
We never know, as ghosts might exist; we just probably don't have the technology to detect them without relying on our naked eyes. Same thing to bacteria; we can't see a bacterium with our naked eyes, but we can with a microscope.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #70 on: January 27, 2009, 11:10:02 AM »
I agree the footage of the nuclear bomb detonations does look supsect. The back drafts which also appear quite damaging consistently appear a little too soon.

Another question I also have is surely the two halves of the uranium bomb or the sub-critical mass of plutonium in the implosion bomb, would have got a little a bit warm even though not exploded. I'd like to see what the modified half lives of those lumps of radioactive material were.

I am also sceptical about the physics supporting the A-bomb. Knowing that relativity is wrong, see my website www.webspawner.com/users/relativity, and that the classical laws of physics are wrong also, see www.webspawner.com/users/gjalex, quantum physics must also fall as it is entirely dependant on the classical equations.

It is also strange that at the time they weren't even fully aware of the dangers of radiation!  :P 

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #71 on: February 04, 2009, 09:23:09 PM »
Maybe the part where the Nuclear Bombs completely take out the communication for an area far greater than that of the actual destruction factors into this? It was very strategic, drop a bomb, and suddenly a huge part of the country has no functional telephone wires. Drop another, and chaos ensues.

It involves an incredibly top secret compression process, of course it doesn't make "sense" with the physics that we understand, or the process wouldn't be top secret anymore.

~Jono

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #72 on: February 05, 2009, 01:41:26 PM »

I am also sceptical about the physics supporting the A-bomb. Knowing that relativity is wrong, see my website www.webspawner.com/users/relativity, and that the classical laws of physics are wrong also, see www.webspawner.com/users/gjalex, quantum physics must also fall as it is entirely dependant on the classical equations.


i had to laugh a lot at that

?

tungs10

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #73 on: February 06, 2009, 05:22:49 PM »

You might as well ask, "Is nuclear energy real?"   They charge a reactor with a couple tons of fuel pellets and the reactor
turns out hundreds of megawatts of power for the next two years.  So where did that energy come from?  Those pellets
are only enriched to about 1.2% U235. Now take 2 10 pound pieces of uranium enriched to 70% U235, drive them together at supersonic speed so they don't vaporize before the chain reaction has a chance to get started - it should come as very little surprise that you would suddenly get several terajoules of energy.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #74 on: February 06, 2009, 06:17:00 PM »
Jack that's interesting you should mention E=mc? - check this out: 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.



If you assume that the speed of light is the same in inertial reference frames, then you are forced to conclude that, at least for inertial frames, velocities transform according the the Lorentz transformations. Now, the assumption that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames is supported by experiment and electromagnetic theory. But you mention c^2, but LIGHT isn't the real key here. SPACE AND TIME are. If you assume light has the same velocity in all inertial frames, you are saying something about space and time as much as you are saying something about light, and in turn you are saying something about the universe as a whole.

Anyway, from that, and the assumption that momentum is conserved, it is straight forward mathematically to prove that E = y mc^2, where y is the Lorentz factor, is valid (although it's usually written as E^2).


As far as c being squared... what do you think the physical units of energy ARE in the first place? Kilograms times meters/second squared. Squaring c makes PERFECT sense in an energy relation. Just like KE = (1/2)mv^2, mc^2 is the exact unit of energy.



It's actually fairly easy to derive it from the basic assumptions that the speed of light is constant in inertial frames and that momentum is conserved. I've already done nearly half of it here for you, lol.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=3152.msg609126#msg609126
The Earth rests on an Infinite stack of Turtles...
Stop raping the llamas!
I'm a platypus gynecologist, damn it!
"I once taught a rabbit to fly with only a string..." -Now

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #75 on: May 06, 2009, 06:25:45 PM »
Quote
:-\

That's why his argument is a logical fallacy. Just because he doesn't see radiation levels/damage with his own eyes, doesn't mean nukes do not exist.

I believe he was saying that there is no empirical evidence for nukes, which there isn't.

Your phrase "just because you can't see it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist" sounds like some lame excuse for the existence of ghosts.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Japanese willingly conspired with their war time enemy to level two of their own cities killing hundreds of thousands of their own people and mutilitaing even more to fake the appearance of a new super weapon? What possible reason Tom? Your belief that NASA has been able to fake photographs since the sixties is quite a stretch, but the US army and Japanese being able to do it in the forties? Seriously Tom?
Clothes are proof evolution never happened.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #76 on: May 07, 2009, 01:30:50 PM »

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.

Was this in ENaG, Tom?  It is utter bullshit.  In 1945, Hiroshima was home to FM Hata's  2nd Gener Army Headquarters, responsible for the defense of the southern portion of Japan.  It was an assembly area for troops, a communications hub, and a 'warehouse' city for military supplies.  There were also quite a few targets of industrial and military significance.

Nagasaki was the third larges sea port in Southern Japan, from which millions of pounds of ammunition, ships, and various military and other war supplies were distributed.  One of Mitsubishi's main factories was located here, and was bombed with conventional munitions in the months before the atomic attack.

Seriously, where do you get this crap?
"An honest god is the noblest work of man. ... God has always resembled his creators. He hated and loved what they hated and loved and he was invariably found on the side of those in power." - Robert G. Ingersoll

http://theflatearthsociety.me

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #77 on: May 23, 2009, 02:33:02 PM »
What about the survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki that say nukes were used? No single conventional bomb could have caused that much damage. As for the video claiming they might not exist...you keep going back to saying it looks like they're zooming in on the sun. That's exactly what you would expect it to look like. Its a similar reaction happening in a nuke and in the sun(at least the early nukes which used only fission). If you're talking about newer fusion based nukes then it should look exactly like the center of the sun.
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."
-Albert Einstein


?

WLO

  • 14
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #78 on: May 26, 2009, 05:37:43 PM »
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.
Demons.  The US Government summoned demons to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

?

kkthegrunt

  • 11
  • Dr Love
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #79 on: June 07, 2009, 04:42:20 AM »
Can you prove that atoms even exist?
We have magnets that can move signle atoms. What interests me is what makes up the stuff that makes up the stuff that makes up the stuff (and so on and so forth) of atoms. It should, theoretically, go on for infinity.
If a conspiracy tells you the earth is round, and no one is around to say it's flat, does that mean the dark energy is making them all float beyond the ice wall?

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #80 on: June 11, 2009, 10:07:37 PM »
ask the thousands that died in japan if atom bombs are fake


*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #81 on: June 12, 2009, 02:52:47 AM »
ask the thousands that died in japan if atom bombs are fake

Which people that died in Japan? I hear 1.14 million people died in that country last year alone.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #82 on: June 13, 2009, 03:35:04 PM »
Ask Japan, they'll tell you.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #83 on: June 13, 2009, 05:05:12 PM »
Ask Japan, they'll tell you.

Japan is a country, a country is a) singular and b) incapable of speech.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #84 on: June 17, 2009, 07:47:46 PM »
I've put together a seven minute piece which asks the question "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?":

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.
If they didn't exist and work, then why the fuck are countries not invading each other? You forget that each country tests out their own weapons at the cost of billions of dollars.
If they were fake, nobody would bother with them.
Really, really stupid idea.
Get your head out of the Bible, back into real life, and get yourself an education. You're a disgrace to humanity.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2009, 07:50:53 PM by mazty88 »

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #85 on: June 27, 2009, 05:47:12 PM »
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.

What about the cancer? You know. how people were disfigured and got cancer from living in nagasaki, but not tokyo?

Or how people wearing dark clothing got burned only where the clothes were dark. This is consistent with photon emission of a nuclear weapon.

*

Guessed

  • 5379
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #86 on: June 27, 2009, 10:19:03 PM »
So you're saying that after World War 2 there were no cases of cancer or deformity at all in Tokyo? That's a rather sweeping assumption.
Is Dino open source?

Quote from: grogberries


?

sphericalE

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #87 on: July 21, 2009, 02:45:54 PM »
of course nukes exist and even those who dont believe in them can still die by them.  :o

?

sphericalE

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #88 on: July 21, 2009, 02:49:13 PM »

If they didn't exist and work, then why the fuck are countries not invading each other? You forget that each country tests out their own weapons at the cost of billions of dollars.
If they were fake, nobody would bother with them.
Really, really stupid idea.
Get your head out of the Bible, back into real life, and get yourself an education. You're a disgrace to humanity.
[/quote]
Lovely way of putting it :) couldnt have said it better my self

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #89 on: July 25, 2009, 07:21:49 AM »
you guys like to argue.

I like that.