Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

  • 1472 Replies
  • 406053 Views
Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« on: January 13, 2009, 04:12:30 AM »
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.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #1 on: January 13, 2009, 04:47:50 AM »
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.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2009, 08:28:12 AM »
Thank you for your fair response.

The damage to Hiroshima is not proof of nuclear bombs.

?

Moonlit

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6061
  • The Rebound
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #3 on: January 13, 2009, 10:51:25 AM »
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.
You think that a photograph is indisputable evidence?  Would you like me to show you a photograph of Barack Obama having sex with a gorilla?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #4 on: January 13, 2009, 03:59:14 PM »
So E=mc2, through the process of nuclear fission, is wrong? Can you prove that atoms can no longer split apart?

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #5 on: January 13, 2009, 04:38:34 PM »
I somehow doubt japan would have surrendered if that was fake.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2009, 07:53:35 PM »
Can you prove that atoms even exist?

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2009, 08:05:35 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.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2009, 08:13:11 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2009, 08:18:43 PM »
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.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2009, 08:41:35 PM »
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
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2009, 08:42:55 PM »
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?

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2009, 11:17:04 PM »
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
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2009, 02:30:09 AM »
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.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2009, 02:35:05 AM »
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

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12744
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #14 on: January 14, 2009, 04:45:45 AM »
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.

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

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2009, 01:06:03 AM »
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."
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?

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2009, 03:23:11 AM »
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.
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.
Everyday household experimentation.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2009, 04:11:04 AM »
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
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 04:22:59 AM by Tom Bishop »

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2009, 07:13:12 AM »
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

  • 1405
  • Ding dong!
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2009, 08:56:50 AM »
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.
I haven't performed it and I've never claimed to. I've have trouble being in two places at the same time.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2009, 01:26:18 PM »
Tom, stop with the devils advocate.  It doesn't look good for your FE stance.

*

cmdshft

  • The Elder Ones
  • 13149
  • swiggity swooty
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2009, 01:53:18 PM »
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.

Agree'd. Fire doesn't do this: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bomb/shadow2.gif

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2009, 04:19:41 PM »
In nuclear physics the M in E=MC^2 is not mass, rather it is the mass defect? Correct?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2009, 04:22:05 PM by Johannes Kepler »

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2009, 04:49:43 PM »
There are two derivations of E=mc2 in inertial frames of reference. The first one is E=m0c2, in which m0 is invariant (rest) mass. The second one is E=mrelc2, in which mrel is relativistic mass. "M" (capitalized) also means relativistic mass. In a letter, Einstein said he did not like the idea of relativistic mass.

Invariant mass "m" is the mass we all use from Newtonian physics to most modern physics, at the basic level of course.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2009, 04:54:36 PM »
So relativistic mass could vary according to what? the amount of energy in it? Or it's velocity relative to the observer?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2009, 05:00:14 PM »
Relativistic mass varies according to energy in the system (mrel = E/c2). Of course, when an object moves, it gains energy and momentum.

Your mother.

*

Raist

  • The Elder Ones
  • 30590
  • The cat in the Matrix
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #27 on: January 15, 2009, 06:32:14 PM »
Relativistic mass varies according to energy in the system (mrel = E/c2). Of course, when an object moves, it gains energy and momentum.

So would the relativistic mass only increase at m=e/c2 to stay with conservation of energy?

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5179
Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2009, 06:55:12 PM »
Relativistic mass is just another term for energy. In an isolated system, since energy is conserved, relativistic mass will also be conserved relative to any inertial observers.

Re: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2009, 07:30:46 PM »
The term 'relativistic mass' is obsolete and has no physical meaning. What you reffer to as 'rest mass' is actually simply called mass. The formula E = m*c^2 simply tells that mass of a body is proportional to its energy content.
Your mother.