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: 13
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
What about cobalt bomb they say that is dooms day bomb would kill everything on earth, how many of those did they make only need one, maybe two for good measure.




posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 02:28 AM
link   
You know in the bottom of the reaction chambers of those Nuclear power plants they slope the sides so if they have melt down it will just run down side in puddle, then they just have to worry about a China Sydrome.
The slope sides is that they fear any drop and sudden stop of the hot molten material may go boom.
It' kind of like when making nitro you keep beaker in bowl of ice as you slowly stir, not shaken. Same thing though hot nitro blow real easy.
That's how they killed Joe Kennedy he was pilot in WWII and they were still wating for nuke to be ready. They were in hurry to do something big, Joe volunteered it was his chance. So they loaded his plane full of nitro and he very carfully took off, he was to parachute out and let another person fly radio control to designation from plane that followed. As soon as he turn over control to other guy boom, we hit a little turbulents there. This was largest none nuke explosion of war. If this had not happened Joe would have most likely became president instead of John.
I just wanted to put that in because it was part of nuke thing.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 04:07 AM
link   
"Use legitimate well-established sources that are backed up by independent parties, go ahead."

And then you cite Wikipedia? LOL

[edit on 5-1-2009 by violenttorrent]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 07:17 AM
link   
Dooms Day Bomb

Source; The planet of the Apes Movie The Mutants used Cobalt Bomb to destroy Ape planet and what was left of entire word and humans. Check the facts. Well documented.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Well outside your movie on the ever intelligent youtube, I ahve yet to see any real citation from you VT

At least LTRU is saying things, giving opinions, and making an argument. All you've done is tell us it is our duty to prove them. Sorry, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.

-Kyo



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
You're the plaintiff. I'm just asking a question: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist? Maybe you need to watch NUKE LIES again for a clarification of my motive: www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


Ok lets try this buddy, instead of attacking the site, attack the information, I use wikipedia as a reference tool as it lists the sources for its own information, it is an online encyclopedia after all.

Did you look at the other sources before you got all trigger happy with a negative response?

Right you have nothing to say about those right?

Instead you'll label my post useless based on one thread. I don't care what you say, wikipedia is used by everyone at some point, it's a legitimate source for referencing. READ: REFERENCING.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Who started the thread VT?

Ok let me ask this to simplify

what is your charge? Do you personally think they exist or not?

-Kyo



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by violenttorrent
You're the plaintiff. I'm just asking a question: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist? Maybe you need to watch NUKE LIES again for a clarification of my motive: www.youtube.com...


So your motive is for us to once again watch your video that has been pasted together with completely baseless opinions?? You offer ZERO evidence to backup your opinions on your video. Are you asking us to grade it? Was this video a school project or what?

Just to clarify.
The plaintiff is the one making the accusation. The accusation is that nukes do not exist. Therefore the plaintiff is violenttorrent as he is the OP (the person who started the thread).

The plaintiff is responsible for PROVING their accusation. So the plaintiff (YOU) needs to prove that NUKES DON'T EXIST.

So why don't you simply prove they don't exist? We're STILL Waiting....tapping fingers on desk.......


[edit on 5-1-2009 by jfj123]

[edit on 5-1-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Let's add another layer to the: 'It's obvious, don't be stupid' argument:

The only way nuclear bombs could not exist was if nuclear physics don't exist.
I'm assuming, though disappointed, that the OP has graduated High School science. I remember debating the mythical cold fusion as an alternative fuel back in eighth grade, so perhaps that far as well.

If nuclear bombs don't exist:

Nuclear carriers don't exist.
Three-mile Island didn't exist.
Chernobyl didn't exist.
Which means the Kremlin didn't really assassinate the spy.
Which means Iran and North Korea are increasingly international pariahs for no reason.
Which means Israel has no ace in the hole.
Which means France and Japan are actually mostly powered by very few conventional power plants rather than fleets of Nuclear plants.
Which means particle colliders are useless
That Stephen Hawking was an idiot and Los Alamos is fictitious.

Please, grow up.



posted on Jan, 5 2009 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by violenttorrent
You're the plaintiff. I'm just asking a question: Do Nuclear Bombs Exist? Maybe you need to watch NUKE LIES again for a clarification of my
motive: www.youtube.com...


I feel like parroting many others here, but YOU are the plaintiff since you challenge the commonly accepted reality. Anyway, I even made the effort and watched your little video collage a 2nd time. And the basic verdict is: your video criticism is mostly baseless, and the rest is purely opinion.

Lets analyze your "brilliant" examination of the tree footage. I´ll give some time cues and quote your statements:

1:10 "Take a look at these trees...now what was that? and who turned the camera?"
Umm... the pan shot was from a normal speed camera. Then the footage cuts to a DIFFERENT, a high-speed camera. thats whats happening, and noone "turned the camera".

1:20 "They´re in awfully straight lines, aren´t they?"

I hope you do know these tests were made in the middle of a DESERT plain, right? Desert plains are not exactly the places where you will find forests. That measn someone PUT them there for the test. And artificial forests tend not be naturally grown.

1:24 "Now this must be a different blast ´cos its coming from a different direction."

Well, let me be the first to introduce you to the magic of MULTIPLE CAMERA ANGLES. Do you honestly believe they put up only one camera to film the most expensive experiment in history?

1:57 "And then they show us, what looks to be a real forest, has been chopped down or torn down or something."

When was the last time you were in a real forest? Notice something missing in that picture? Undergrowth. This is the same desert plain with the same evenly spaced trees, you can even see the rolling hills in the distance. And it looks neither chopped nor torn down, these trees are clearly blown apart by a powerful blast. Look at pictures from heavily shelled WW1 forests for reference.

2:37 "These frames were cut together - why?"

Because the light picture shows normal speed footage and the dark picture is from the aforementioned high speed camera. You know, an explosion and nuclear chain reaction happens a LITTLE bit too quick for the human eye to register.

2:44 "Then this frame was cut to...this which looks like the sun to me..."

No it doesnt. You can see that the blast at first is a circular shape and then expands into a half circle. It still is little bit pointy towards the top, which is an effect of the lower density in greater heights, so the blast can more easily expand vertically than horizontally. If it were the sun it must have been at least perfectly semi-circular, if not even broader at the horizon because of athmospheric light diffraction.

6:11 "Everything gets blown everywhichway except for the camera".

You´re kidding me. With sufficient steel and concrete you can make the Statue of Liberty blast resistant. Of course you can then make a blast resistant camera housing. In fact, as these were pre-digital imagery cameras, how do suppose the filmstock survived the tests without sufficient protection? Theories are only valid when you think them through, my friend.

Oh, and the last gem:
7:03 "And why don´t they call them nuclear bombs anymore?"

Because weapons of mass destruction are not only nuclear but also chemical and biological weapons, genius.

Anyway, I could go on, but your video pretty much makes it clear that you are not really interested in factbased discussion of your opinion anyway. You have your set ideas about the Great Satan, and fabricated your nice and cozy nuclear hoax theory around it. Of course one can question anything. I can question electricity for example. Is it possibly just a hoax and its actually the harvested souls of Siamese twins that are powering my Toaster? I mean, has anyone ever SEEN electricity?

C´mon, try harder.

[edit on 5/1/2009 by Lonestar24]



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 


Great post !
Have you noticed that the OP has never once tried to provide evidence to support his video over 13 pages. He's deflected questions, tried to turn arguments back on everyone else but NEVER provided any evidence to support his claim.

Why would he spend all that time editing the video and then REFUSE to support it in any way?
TROLLISH BEHAVIOR maybe ?



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Lonestar24
 


Lonestar,
If you keep posting reality, our friend may take his video down through sheer embarassment.



posted on Jan, 6 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Where does the OP live? I'll gladly come over, and feed him some Uranium. After all, no threat, right? Radioactivity must not exist.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by violenttorrent
 


Are you serious? Are you serious? The reason we have been there so long and have spent trillions of dollars fighting this "guerilla war" is because to drop a high yield nuke in the middle of Baghdad would be an atrocity of a much greater scale than say - the Haditha Marines or say - the incidents at Abu Ghraib. Yeah - I got it - you're still gonna run your mouth about how evil the big bad Americans are - whatever. Your ignorance aside - one high yield bomb would not only wipe out millions of innocent civilians - ie "THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T KILLING AMERICANS" within seconds, but it would also make the central area and the surrounding areas unlivable for anyone for years to come. And to the guy who said "Roman style plundering" in an earlier post............ I've been twice to Iraq, buddy - during the invasion and again in 05. I don't recall where my stash of gold and young virgin women were supposed to be. They must not have told me.


That's why the big bad Americans don't use nukes when we go to war. It's meant as a last resort style weapon - ACTUALLY - let me back up here... The nuclear stockpile is a result of the cold war with Russia when it was used as a way to deter attacks from the Soviets. "We'll use ours if you use yours" and "We have more than you now" - style thinking. I think the last mention of actually deploying a nuclear weapon was back during the Korean war when the Chinese started coming south to fight alongside the North Koreans - that's when MacArthur suggested employing a nuke on the river up there to stem the flow of thousands of Chinese moving through the area. This was denied by his highers and the President at the time.

Also - another thing.

A bit back on the main subject.

There was an article back in Early 2008 where several Air Force Generals and officers lost their jobs because a jet was allowed to fly between two bases in the US while carrying unaccounted for.....drumroll..... Nuclear Weapons!!!!!!!! I'll go dig up the link to that and put it on here in the near future.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by greshnik
 


You "know" no one ever landed on the moon?

I have a friend who worked at NASA for a while who told me about a mirror that's up there used by the "evil, mason-controlled, lie-filled, conspiratorial organization NASA" to bounce a laser off of to test the rate our moon is receding from the Earth's gravitational pull as the years go by. He even showed me how this thing works.

So please. Tell me how it got there.

Also, being a real live actual CI Agent - this always makes me laugh...

Can someone please explain to me why you think we would waste resources and time from the real missions out here to come onto this site and spend 8 hour working days for 5 days a week arguing with anonymous people on a forum/blog site? Also - wth is Cointelpro? Just curious.

[edit on 7-1-2009 by mf_luder]



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Cointelpro...easy to explain...that's me!

Haven't ya noticed yet? :-p

I worked as a 2W2 in Minot for several years...hence...intel

This whole thing has slowed down and I still haven't gotten an answer as to whther or not he belives in them because now OP has switched from nukes don't exist to 'I was just asking'

-Kyo



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 05:45 AM
link   
reply to post by KyoZero
 


Cool - not sure what a 2W2 is man - lol

I'm a "35L - CI Agent" US Army.

It seems like this guy is paranoid - the one who's calling you an "operative."

Funny people on this site sometimes.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 07:47 AM
link   
13 pages later and my original point still stands: Talking to violenttorrent is a massive waste of time.

People don't make these claims because they want to debate their truthfulness. People make claims like this because they're under the delusion that it'll make them look "deep" and "introverted."

It's an attention grab, period.



posted on Jan, 7 2009 @ 08:05 AM
link   
2W2 is a Nuclear Weapons specialist... worked in Minot for over 6 years on the ICBM project

-Kyo



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join