This topic is in the Weaponry discussion forum. (rss)

Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

<< 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 >>

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 11:33 AM by letthereaderunderstand

OrangeTom

This is the guy I was referring too in regards to the WTC.

YouTube Link

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 11:45 AM by letthereaderunderstand

reply to post by orangetom1999

I gotta admit tom, you are trying to illicit an emotional response from me by calling me a drama queen are you not?

Please quote my "emotion" filled responses. It is proper procedure and protocol in a civil debate. You should know this, you're trained in it, otherwise it is called "propaganda" and is used by many military dis info agents. I already know you are military, would you care to give away the rest with such uncalculating remarks?

Thank you, ltru

[edit on 13-1-2009 by letthereaderunderstand]

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 12:27 PM by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by KyoZero
Oh I am certainly not denying the holocaust...was terrible and I feel awful for it...

My point was is the testimonies sometimes were lead by

"What happened?"

and the answers would be very long and emotional. With damn good reason too. What his regime did to those people was awful. When I was in high school we had three survivors come to our schol for a talk and some Q and A. One person asked how did it feel. The answer took almost 20 minutes to tell. Emotions took over, tears flowed, and the elaboration was so intricate I could almost feel as if I were there. It was incredible.

Now I am not knocking what happened in the holocaust and I am certainly not trying to compare. What I am saying is using what you just said, I could apply that and say because of how overboard her answer was, the holocaust may have never happened. Now again, I am certain it did and will never argue against it and I am sorry this is such a touchy subject but here's what I am getting at.

The arguments posted in this debate are the following..

1. The interviews and summations were too elaborate and emotional

2. We've never personally seen the nuclear weapons detonated

3. Some of the videos looked faked

Well from this...and please take this with a grain of salt...

1. I've already discussed how elaborate and emotional interviews from the camps were

2. I have never myself witnessed a gas chamber, the camps, or anything of the sort

3. Those videos, while inhuman looked like they could have been reproduced to me. In fact, watching Band of Brothers I've seen video that looked liek it came directly from there, minus the fact that I know the characters played it. The individuals who played the tortured members looked very much like the walking dead.

Like I said, I wholeheartedly believe the holocaust took place and will never make light of it, but if I apply some of the same arguments then frankly to me, the holocaust, the moon landing, the nuclear weapons, WW1....none of it ever happened

-Kyo

Kyo, thanks again for your responses.

Would you not say that "What happened" is pretty wide open as apposed to "What did the flash look like"? Couldn't a flash be summed up as "it was a flash, like a really bright light"? Instead these witness compare the flash to Magnesium, but don't stop there, they go into what the trees looked like, how the air smelt, what they were feeling, descriptions of Buddha in hell etc.

If the question was "what happend" I could understand the wide response, but these people were given specific questions like "what did the black rain feel like", "what did the flash look like", "did you see the mushroom cloud". These peoples answers, only you can judge for yourself. To me they are fishy because, they give info not even related to the question. They drive it home about the children dieing, and mothers who "just want their babies to see life", who die in their arms yet save the child. (see dis info-"for the children"), and use language only writers would use, not elderly Japanese, unless every Japanese person is a schooled writer. These are stories meant to grab the reader and pull sympathy in a "shock and awe" type display.

Again, I find them improbable, but I have posted them so that you may read them and make up your own minds. You know what I think, so the rest is up to you. I trust you are all able to read and judge for yourselves. Perhaps, I should not have said what I think until, everyone had read them. I don't want to skew anyones views. I read them, leaving my emotions at the door, so that I could evaluate the testimonies with a clear mind and have given you what I determined them to be therefore, I leave everyone to their own judgments.

Again, thank you Kyo

Ltru

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 12:28 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by violenttorrent
whiterabbit85 You sir, are a troll.

Actually the term you're looking for is
CORRECT.

Whiterabbit85 is CORRECT
There are nuclear weapons.
The moon landing happened.

There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise. Only those people who wish to hold onto a dream of being special and knowing SECRET INFORMATION that the rest of us poor shlubs don't have, think nukes don't exist and the moon landing didn't happen.

There is a vast amount of evidence to support that these things are real.

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 12:59 PM by letthereaderunderstand

Originally posted by orangetom1999
reply to post by let the reader understand

LTRU,

Goodness me...you are sort of a drama queen..using rationalism to pass your positions. I get this a lot when dealing with gnostics and atheists. No problem.

I'll illustrate for you by what happened. The police ..after arriving..were not interested at all in center mass. They were interested in me going with them to where they had a vehicle fitting the description I gave the 911 operator. To my surprise they were very quick in responding thus indicating me that they have a textbook plan to spread out their people and cars on predetermined routes/areas to get the best coverage about town. I never considered this until this event. No reason to think about it. It was not five minutes after calling the 911 operator before the local police came and wanted me to go with them for an identification out in the field. No mention of the firearm used or questions about it.
IT was only hours later when writing out my statement that the issue came up as to what kind of gun it was..not center mass issues. This never came up until court last Friday. The police only seemed interested in my statement as far as contrasting with the testimony of the people apprehended.

I am glad to hear that you don't have a television. This makes me ask from where did you get this rationalism....emotional type response??
Is to you ...rationalism same as emotional justification..the same as being correct?? Very similar to political tack now days. PC??

I too don't watch reality Television. I watch little television and only the occasional movie. I watch them closely for the fingerprint of the writers, directors and social content...ie..politics/religion.

As to being killed. I have put my life on the line many times for my moneys. Being robbed at gunpoint is to me no different than handling a nuclear fuel cell. No different than going into a torpedo tube to do some work. When you go into a torpedo tube...you'd better know how to check that the safety devices are correctly installed and the hydraulic system shut, isolated, and tagged out. If you don't ..the torpedo tube can close on you and crush you in half or to death. It is just the facts of the trade. Same with a missile tube on a submarine..they close quickly and quietly. You need to know that the safeties are installed and then commit to going inside one to work. You don't pee your pants when you have to do this type of work.
It was the same with a gun pointed in my center mass. Ironically ...these guys were more concerned with me having a gun of my own. Ironic for someone in this kind of trade. Nonetheless...spooking and getting afrighted here will profit one nothing. Disciplined people know this.
Mind you now..this does not make me better than others..but it does make me very different. I don't care for being around and about a bunch of wildlife...when the situation calls for dicipline.

Hope this helps,
Orangetom

[edit on 13-1-2009 by orangetom1999]

Orangetom, it helps more then you know.

I didn't realize you were speaking about yourself, that is why I asked you to clarify it.

Was asking you to make yourself clear "rationalism" or was that "emotionalism" or did that constitute your idea of a "drama queen"?

Your tactics are really funny to be honest. I really like the "agnostic, atheist" comment. Let me guess, you saw the Jesus on my avatar and thought you would "rile" me up by painting me as something I would not like?

Another one you used that was funny was the voting one in your "counterfeit" spiel, then you proceed to tell me, you don't like to be around the "wildlife", yet you protect them as a specialist by loading rods into slots. They require advanced people to put a stick in a hole? Can't every sailor do that? Isn't that what Bangkok is for?

Please don't tell me that you are a Christian, yet you are calling your unsaved brothers and sisters, "wildlife" who, "you don't care to be around".
"To the least of these, so to have you done unto me"...

I just find it all funny, and I admit, that is an emotional response.

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:12 PM by ShatteredSkies

Letthereaderunderstand:

I find it very interesting that you believe in nuclear power plants, yet do not believe in nuclear warheads.

For you to believe nuclear power plants work and are real, you must admit that the science behind them is physically sound and logical, would one to understand said science.

Now I ask you, other than you never seeing a nuclear detonation (I have not seen many things, but believe they exist), why do you not believe that the science that yields nuclear power plants, cannot yield nuclear weapons? Why do you believe we are not capable of this?

After all, according to the history text books, the nuclear weapon came before the nuclear power plant, as so many other great things in commercial use, they have seen combat first.

Shattered OUT...

reply posted on 13-1-2009 @ 06:31 PM by KyoZero

Well now that I can understand but then again listening to the camp survivors, they strayed from details as well...

They would go on about all they wanted was to see their spouses or kids. I mean it parrallels the nuke survivors quite a bit in my eyes.

I think when such an awesome (be it good or bad) experience happens people can find words beyond their normal vernacular.

-Kyo

reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 04:20 AM by violenttorrent

reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 01:06 PM by violenttorrent

jfj You've fallen into a trap. whiterabbit wrote the following to me: "Are you actually mentally disabled or do you just like to appear that way?" I copied and pasted it as follows: "jfj Are you actually mentally disabled or do you just like to appear that way?
" - and you banned it. So whiterabbit can write that directed at me, but if I copy it verbatim and send it back in your direction, my comment is erased.

This is outright proof that you are a shill.

AboveTopSecret.com is advertising supported.

reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 01:42 PM by jfj123

Originally posted by violenttorrent
jfj You've fallen into a trap. whiterabbit wrote the following to me: "Are you actually mentally disabled or do you just like to appear that way?" I copied and pasted it as follows: "jfj Are you actually mentally disabled or do you just like to appear that way?
" - and you banned it. So whiterabbit can write that directed at me, but if I copy it verbatim and send it back in your direction, my comment is erased.

This is outright proof that you are a shill.

What are you talking about?
Banned what?
Where was IT banned, whatever IT was?
I didn't see anything posted on the thread?????
If someone made a personal attack, I'm guessing the MOD's cut it. Is that what you're referring to? If so, ask the mod.......utter confusion....

Since I can't understand ANYTHING you've just said, I'd like to fall back on the following quote:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[edit on 14-1-2009 by jfj123]

reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 02:00 PM by jfj123

There are two basic types of nuclear weapons.

TYPE 1: FISSION
Produces explosive energy through nuclear fission reactions alone and are usually referred to as atomic bombs or atom bombs.

In fission weapons, a mass of fissile material (enriched uranium or plutonium) is assembled into a supercritical mass—the amount of material needed to start an exponentially growing nuclear chain reaction—either by shooting one piece of sub-critical material into another (the "gun" method), or by compressing a sub-critical sphere of material using chemical explosives to many times its original density (the "implosion" method). The latter approach is considered more sophisticated than the former, and only the latter approach can be used if plutonium is the fissile material.

TYPE 2: FUSION
Fusion weapons are generally referred to as thermonuclear weapons or more commonly, hydrogen bombs, as they rely on fusion reactions between isotopes of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium). However, all such weapons derive a significant portion – and sometimes a majority – of their energy from fission (including fission induced by neutrons from fusion reactions). Unlike fission weapons, there are no inherent limits on the energy released by thermonuclear weapons. Only six countries—United States, Russia, United Kingdom, People's Republic of China, France and India—have conducted thermonuclear weapon tests.
Thermonuclear bombs work by using the energy of a fission bomb in order to compress and heat fusion fuel.
Source WIKI

Now this is just some very basic information about nuclear bombs. There are mountains of information including scientific papers, designs, photos, videos, etc.. supporting that they exist.

A nuclear reactor basically works the same way a bomb does except a reactor is designed to initiate controlled, sustained reactions at a steady rate.

OK so even the naysayers for the most part are agreeing that nuclear reactors exist and since nuclear reactors work basically the same way nuclear bombs do, we can easily understand that bombs must also exist.

To disprove the existence of bombs, you must do the following:
-Disprove eye witness accounts
-Disprove scientific papers written on the subject
-Disprove scientists claims in all countries who claim to have worked on the projects
-Disprove the photos and videos
-Disprove all the personnel who work with the bombs.

Can you do this? Because we're talking about millions of people in different countries around the world. And you must either agree that the bombs exist or they are ALL in on the plot to pretend they exist. Which sounds more reasonable?

reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 03:24 PM by starfleet1

if not, then i do not know what could have caused the destruction of hirshima or nagasaki. you would need to provide an explanation of that first. also, the nuclear tests sites in bikini atoll and near las vegas experienced apparent nuclear mushroom clouds, shock waves, fallout, debris and devastation witnessed by many thousands - what would have caused this if not a nuclear bomb? finally, in the military i was assigned to the prp (mini-nuclear) program. i was an assistant technician for the suitcase nukes (not counted by either side?). since they were never used i cannot say they would ever work if detonated, only that i worked on something i was told was a nuclear device and that my training had trained me to work with. good subject tho, makes you rethink your assumptions.

reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 03:49 PM by ShatteredSkies

This is really akin to the belief in UFO's if you think about it.

There are hundreds of eye witness testimonies to UFO's and even SOME official reports of it, yet on a whole they are discredited by the government and very few people believe in it.

Now if you believe UFOs are real, but don't believe in Nukes and the Holocaust, then something is seriously wrong with your upbringing(I'm not calling anyone out specifically).

I believe Nukes are real because simply put, the science is there, it's sound, there are videos, photos, recordings, scientific instrumentation to back up the events, and A LOT of eyewitness testimony. Even two cities succumbed to it.

To me the evidence IS conclusive and IS enough. Just like I accepted BARE minimum evidence to believe UFO's are real, I can accept that nukes are real.

It's personal objectivity really, it comes down to what the person WANTS to believe in, not what's in front of them.

I'm pretty sure that whenever anyone gets into a car, they believe they WON'T get into a car accident, even though car accidents still do happen (saw one today even).

Bottom line is, the science and hardware is there, if one choses not to believe in it, that's their personal choice, just thank god that those people are in no form of government power and do not control the supposed "warheads", or else we might have a wee bit of a situation.

Shattered OUT...

reply posted on 14-1-2009 @ 04:02 PM by jfj123

Chernobyl disaster

At 1:23:04 a.m. the experiment began. The extremely unstable condition of the reactor was not known to the reactor crew. The steam to the turbines was shut off. As the momentum of the turbine generator drove the water pumps, the water flow rate decreased, leading to the formation of steam voids. The control rods that were removed earlier were never fully removed and were still partially in the reactor, preventing the heat from reaching the cooling water. The great rise in temperature resulted in a massive steam build up and, due to the fact that the RBMK type reactors are largely positive void coefficient, the power within the reactor only increased.

As the reactor power increased, so did the neutron generation.

Soon it exceeded what could be absorbed by the xenon poisoning, starting a dangerous cascade.

With the manual and automatic neutron absorbing control rods removed, nothing prevented a runaway reaction.

A runaway reaction... ie an uncontrolled reaction. Kinda like a nuke.

If you believe nuclear power plants exist, you must believe in at least the possibility that nukes exist based on the SAME science. Now all that's left to believe is whether or not all the war mongering nations in the world would build them if they had the tech.

Well there are chemical weaponsen.wikipedia.org...
Biological weaponsen.wikipedia.org...
EMP weaponsen.wikipedia.org...
Directed energy weapons en.wikipedia.org...
etc..

So we have some extreme technology and nuclear technology is a bit older so why wouldn't/couldn't we have nukes?

[edit on 14-1-2009 by jfj123]