It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

page: 12
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by jfj123
 
You can see lots of electrons, one amp a coulomb contains about 6.28 billion electrons. You can see a lot of electrons together but to see one alone would be hard. A lightning strike would be a bunch of electrons to see, not up close and personal.
We have also been able to track a single electron as it moves along a wire. It moves very slow, down the wire for the fact billions are coming out end of wire every second.



[edit on 3-1-2009 by googolplex]

[edit on 3-1-2009 by googolplex]


I should have been more clear. You can't see an individual electron with the naked eye.

I was trying to make the point to another poster that, simply because you cannot see something with the naked eye, directly, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This directly contradicts what that person was saying.

Sorry for the vague post.




posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
That nuke they blew off in the upper atmosphere was a good one, they said oh #%^& when the electric pulse blew out everything for amost a week.
What the OP needs to be convinced is first hand experience, like the soldiers they used at test site, to see a bomb blast in person. It's strange how so many of them died such terrible deaths due to radiation posioning.

The way things are going it's quite possible OP can see for self, hope he's not so close his eyes melt out of head.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by googolplex]



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
You know... I wonder what Einstein and Oppenheimer would have to say if they saw this thread today.

After all they fought to try to get their very creation extinguished from mankind's use.

I believe they failed in their objectives post World War II, but succeeded during it. As their mission changed so did their lives.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   
wow...this is so not the thread for this...I have yet to see anyone prove God...

oy....you know what you know and are so sure your way is right and not ours. On the other hand I know what I know and I don't need to see one live to know it

So I guess we're at odds

-Kyo



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
"Perhaps the OP would be able to draw a much more well founded theory were he /she to be versed better..."

If you were to exercise your mind just a little, you would realize the "the OP" has not "drawn" any theory - well founded or otherwise. It is *your* theory which has been challenged and which does not stand up to analysis.

"...in the history of nuclear weapons development and world history surrounding nuclear weapons."

What world history? You mean "The Day After" and "Red Dawn"? Because just in case you were not aware - those are works of fiction.

Check out this image of the cover for a Red Dawn DVD set where the sun is made to double as a nuclear bomb - just like in the "nuclear bomb test" footage: www.collider.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by violenttorrent
"Perhaps the OP would be able to draw a much more well founded theory were he /she to be versed better..."

If you were to exercise your mind just a little, you would realize the "the OP" has not "drawn" any theory - well founded or otherwise. It is *your* theory which has been challenged and which does not stand up to analysis.

Actually, the OP's "hypothesis" is that nuclear bombs don't exist.

see

Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

I've put together a seven minute piece which asks the question "Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?" www.youtube.com...

He put together an approx 7 min video that suggests nuclear bombs don't exist but provides ZERO evidence to support his "hypothesis".

Since the OP brought up the subject by opening the thread and is making the accusation, the OP should be the one to back up his claim and he has not done so in any way.

It's sad that people still insist on supporting this idea but refusing to supply evidence to support it.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:29 AM
link   
The burden of proof lies with you.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


You have seen the evidence and claim all of it is faked. Visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki while there are still survivors and ask them for eyewitness accounts. If that doesn't do it for you, nothing will, and you can continue to live in your alternate reality fantasizing at whatever level you choose.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by violenttorrent
The burden of proof lies with you.


The burden of proof lies with the person making the charge.
Innocent until proven guilty. Sound familiar?
How about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ?

The burden is upon the OP to prove their position since they brought it up to begin with.

You can't make a baseless charge then make someone prove they're innocent of the charge.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Hold on, I'm going to have a field day with this one...


Originally posted by violenttorrent
"Perhaps the OP would be able to draw a much more well founded theory were he /she to be versed better..."

If you were to exercise your mind just a little, you would realize the "the OP" has not "drawn" any theory - well founded or otherwise. It is *your* theory which has been challenged and which does not stand up to analysis.


Since you are the one who started the thread and you are the one who is claiming that nuclear weapons do not exist based on some hashed up 7 minute video you made for youtube, you my dear friend are the one making the theories.


"...in the history of nuclear weapons development and world history surrounding nuclear weapons."

What world history? You mean "The Day After" and "Red Dawn"? Because just in case you were not aware - those are works of fiction.

Check out this image of the cover for a Red Dawn DVD set where the sun is made to double as a nuclear bomb - just like in the "nuclear bomb test" footage: www.collider.com...


I want you to go back to all of my posts and tell me where any of my references were to Red Dawn and The Day After. For your information Mr. OP, I have never seen Red Dawn or The Day After, nor have I read a single Tom Clancy book(In case you're under the impression that I have for whatever reason).

So don't even make believe you know what you're talking about when you tell me that my only knowledge on nuclear weapons are based upon Red Dawn and The Day After.

I like to read up on history and I like to know what happened in the past, it better allows me to make educated decisions and base educated arguments more appropriately.

I'm merely suggesting a route you might be interested in taking to better understand the world around you as your understanding seems to be limited to the confines of your imagination with limited hint of reality.

And the burden of proof my dear friend is on YOU. You are the one saying nuclear bombs don't exist, no one else here started the thread, in fact several members have come forth with first-hand experience and evidence to the contrary. You choose to ignore it and dismiss it as dis-information, but you cannot claim that it's not evidence simply because you don't like it.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
So prove nuclear bombs exist. I dare you.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


That's your job, you brought up the entire topic.
So you prove they don't exist.

I dare you



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


Why do I have to prove Nuclear Bombs exist.

You're the one who stated they don't, prove they don't other than the video YOU made.

Use legitimate well-established sources that are backed up by independent parties, go ahead.

Wikipedia

Wikipedia on nations with bombs

The Brooking's Institute research on nuclear weapons

More Fun Facts

Description of Broken Arrow incidents

That's just using the internet as my resource.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   


In comparison, what would you guys say the TSAR could take out as compared with the Hiroshima blast. I'd say about half a State?

What do you guys think?

[edit on 4-1-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 08:53 PM
link   
so...you believe no LTRU?

anyway...Tsar Bomba was about 59 Megatons...thing is...it was supposed to be 100 Megatons...imagine if it had gone off that way...dang..

-Kyo



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyoZero
so...you believe no LTRU?

anyway...Tsar Bomba was about 59 Megatons...thing is...it was supposed to be 100 Megatons...imagine if it had gone off that way...dang..

-Kyo


not a believer yet, just working with what I got.

So what do you think Kyo, half a states worth of damage? A average size state like Oklahoma (Nothing against oklahomans)?

Peace



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by KyoZero
wow...this is so not the thread for this...I have yet to see anyone prove God...

oy....you know what you know and are so sure your way is right and not ours. On the other hand I know what I know and I don't need to see one live to know it

So I guess we're at odds

-Kyo


Do you remember not being alive? Even God takes rest.



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 10:53 PM
link   
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


The Tsar bomba could take out maybe a medium-sized city, no where near a state though. And by a city, I mean blast-damage. Fallout and radiation will most definitely travel for dozens of hundreds of miles.

Tsar Bomba is absolutely massive, but it is still limited to its application and was ultimately determined to be impractical for the Soviet purposes. It was merely a show of force and a demonstration of technology.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 4-1-2009 by ShatteredSkies]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand
 


The Tsar bomba could take out maybe a medium-sized city, no where near a state though. And by a city, I mean blast-damage. Fallout and radiation will most definitely travel for dozens of hundreds of miles.

Tsar Bomba is absolutely massive, but it is still limited to its application and was ultimately determined to be impractical for the Soviet purposes. It was merely a show of force and a demonstration of technology.

Shattered OUT...

[edit on 4-1-2009 by ShatteredSkies]


A medium-sized city? Isn't that what Hiroshima was?

200,000 people is a pretty good sized population. The scale on that chart has the blast at hiroshima in comparison to the tsar as being barely even seen. The scale of damage seems it should rise with the blast size.

Peace



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
Did anyone see when they used a high speed camera to photo Nuke going off. The slow motion was much better than the normal speed. It was really cool you could see ligtning shooting out of the top of it.
Wonder if someone could find on internet, I have not tried but would like to find.
And people ask what Obamas campaign sign ment it it looked like nuke blast to me or maybe sun rise.







 
6
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join