It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 26
<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2009 @ 05:42 PM
I watched a video a year ago that had some Australian guy ho was kind of saying the same thing. But he was saying that they can only be set off at certain places at certain times of the year / day. He said he had the full backing of the Australian prime minister over his theory. But ive never been able to locate the video again since.

posted on Sep, 20 2009 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by punkinworks
reply to post by orangetom 1999

since were on the subject of chernobyl,
Id like to acknowledge the selfless sacrifice of those who volunteered for the immediate clean up.
It was one of the most epic displays of bravery ever.
those men received lethal doses of radiation in just a couple of minutes, and many died horrible agonizing deaths.

They picked up pieces of radioactive debris with their bare hands and used wheel barrows to remove it.

Indeed pumpkin works..indeed once again. I am not sure many of these young men actually knew the full extent of what they were getting into but it required bravery nonetheless. Courage under fire.

I join you in saluting these sacrifices of these peoples in there struggle to contain this disaster.

The video of the helicopter pilot interview is forever etched in my mind as representative of the effort by all of these folks. I still see his interview and the images of him hovering his helicopter over the uncontained pile and dumping filler on top of this heavily radiating material.

Thanks again,

posted on Sep, 21 2009 @ 03:11 PM

Originally posted by footfall
so what did destroy hiroshima and nagasaki if not a nuclear bomb

[edit on 27-12-2008 by footfall]

I'm tired of people like you. Just because the theory is widely considered unorthodox, you mock us dissenters. Obviously, the whole atomic bomb thing was just a cover-up for Godzilla running rampant throughout the Japanese cities. If you look closely at the Hiroshima footage, you may be able to see that it is actually film from the director's cut of Independence Day.

In all seriousness, though, how can anyone doubt the existence of such a weapon? The amount of evidence supporting its existence is so massive that there is no possibility for it to simply be a conspiracy concocted by the powers that be.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:41 PM
What is interesting if one reads the accounts of the bombing of Japan in WW2 is that there was actually more damage done by conventional bombs than by these two Nuclear devices.

Conventional High explosive and Incendiary Bombs did so much more damage to Japanese industry and cities than did these weapons. The accounts of these conventional raids are a horror to read. It was the same with certain raids in Europe.
THese were huge multi plane raids made possible by large bomb loads and the speed by which these new B29 bombers could fly when under way. This made most Japanese air interceptors/air defenses useless.

What is also very telling and indicative that something very different was afoot is how few planes actually went on this raid to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As I recall it was only some three or four planes. The bomber itself carrying the weapon...two or three spotter planes to record camera footage and still photos. As I recall the narrative...the spotter planes stayed far away on the outskirts while the Enola Gay went ahead to history.
Also I believe they were not entirely sure with the first bomb that the plane...Enola Gay would survive the explosion and shock wave.

There were not enough planes on this raid to cause such massive damage with conventional high explosives or Incendiary weapons.

Also...though it has been years since I read the of these cities Hiroshima or Nagasaki was actually a secondary or alternate target. Pathfinider planes went ahead to certain cities in the target group to check the weather. One of the targets was judged to overcast and the alternate city was selected and the planes were rerouted to this alternate target.

Nonetheless...there were not sufficient planes sent on these missions to cause such damage with conventional weapons.
Just another facet of looking at this history.


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 03:20 PM
"The amount of evidence supporting its existence is so massive that there is no possibility for it to simply be a conspiracy concocted by the powers that be."

Evidence like this?:

posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 11:34 PM
reply to post by violenttorrent

No evidence like this

warning graphic

Tell that to the light that was so intense it burnt shadows into pavement.

and the hundreds of thousands of people with genetic birth defects, or the hundreds of thousands who suffered radiation poisoning and had to watch their skin stop retaining their blood and guts.

Trying to be dismissive about nuclear arms is like spitting in everyone of those poor souls faces.

Which sounds more simple nuclear arms exist or every nation that has them is making it up so that they can keep from getting bombed by other countires fake nukes?

[edit on 25-10-2009 by conspiracyrus]

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:36 AM
My family originally come from Hiroshima, thankfully they were lucky enough to have moved away before the war. To even postulate that nuclear weapons don't exist is insulting and retarded beyond belief.

What you state in the OP about atoms being split constantly as ionisation just shows a lack of understanding regarding the basic and simple, easily proven physics behind ionisation. Ionisation is the imbalance between protons and electrons in an atom. This is a relatively low energy exchange that as you state happens constantly, nuclear fusion and fission are much higher energy state exchanges, that involve the nuclei of an atom, not the electron shell around the nuclei.

posted on Sep, 7 2012 @ 11:26 PM
Well, I am sure I don't know whether they exist or not. Nuclear power clearly exists, but there are good reasons to doubt ANY official story that originates from the 'governments', and which contains suspicious video footage, that's supposed to prove everything. Especially if the photos that emerge along with the video footage are also suspicious, and completely lacking in true proof.

Some people say it's "insulting" to doubt the 'official story' - an often used emotional rhetoric that is supposed to launch a fear-based reaction on the target, and to make them stop posting the truth. No matter where any of 'my ancestors' lived, I would never consider some theory or doubt of a theory 'insulting'. The poster probably doesn't know the people in question, and thus can't be specifically insulting them, so why would revealing the truth (or a theory, doubt or counter-theory) be INSULTING?

Something should be considered insulting ONLY when something is meant to insult. Only then will it become an actual insult.

Not when something is meant to raise awareness, open up questions about 'the official story', or to reveal the truth. Or at least reveal some goofs/suspicious things about a certain event.

I have seen same exact rhetoric used against 9/11-countertheories and Apollo Moon Hoax theory, and there is enough reason to suspect something similar may have been used throughout the ages to silence the people who say "Wait a minute..", before blindly believing something the idiot box claims to be true.

Here is a list of good reasons (with links) to doubt the official story about nuclear explosions:

I don't know what the truth is about the matter, but I am starting to seriously doubt the official story about the nukes. The fact that there is nuclear energy, doesn't mean there ever were actual nuclear explosions. However, I do have reasons to take other possibilities into consideration as well, because if all nuclear explosions and the very possibility of a nuclear explosion is a hoax, it would open such a huge can of worms that it would cause a lot of problems in other, almost completely independent areas as well.

It could be that the videos and the official story were manipulated, embellished, exaggarated, and most of the time, faked - but that there could still be something real behind it. Perhaps they couldn't get good footage of the real nuclear explosions, so they wanted to fake them.. who knows? I certainly don't.

But I still think there's something very unfair, uncalled for and even fishy about many comments in this thread, and the lack of other similar threads also raises a question. It's always "masses vs. individual", where some commenter or poster, who doesn't belong to the 'clique', says something the masses do not like (or have been brainwashed to believe to be otherwise), and then there's a 'mob mentality', that seems to take over in the commentary - and many different people join forces to attack the individual and insult him, taking a 'superior' attitude towards them, and laughing at the poster together.

This kind of system has to change, if the truth about -anything- is ever to become public. No matter how wrong you think someone is, or how unlikely you think his argument is, you should still treat him as a human being and try to be rational and civil about the propositions or claims. You don't have to demand proof, you can ask for more information in a kind and respectful manner. Only if that very someone starts being mean without a good reason, that's when some more harsh comments become understandable, even if not justifiable or necessary.

Let's try to deal with information critically, but with an open mind - while treating each other in a friendly and civil manner, okay?

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 03:13 PM

Originally posted by violenttorrent
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. Atoms are split constantly - it is called ionization. Protons and neutrons, as well as electrons can all be manipulated in and from atoms without causing any explosion - it's called nuclear transmutation:

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. There are only two types of objectors to this postulation: obfuscators and the ignorant.

How exactly is that footage fake?

posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 11:42 PM
Ahem. Nuclear weapons don't split ONE atom. The energy contained in one simple carbon nucleus couldn't do a thing. They work through chain reaction. Are you sure you're just not some idiotic conspiracy nut who believes he is possessing more brain cells than everyone else?

posted on Oct, 3 2012 @ 02:07 PM
The OP seems to be the same person who has tried to peddle the same unsubstantiated rubbish on a number of other threads. This is also the only thread on ATS started by the OP. I sense an agenda.

posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 07:00 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Oct, 16 2012 @ 10:32 PM
I signed up more or less to comment on this thread. I think it's quite absurd how it's progressed with the dismissiveness of the naysayers towards explanations of the theory behind nuclear weapons. It's high school level physics understanding the theory behind an uncontrolled "runaway" fission reaction. Those proponents for the case against the existence of nuclear weapons I've seen in the thread seem to accept the existence of radiation. In the case of U235 fission for simplicity's sake we have alpha particles causing the spontaneous fission of further atoms. In a subcritical mass the likelihood of these fission events is low enough that the reaction can be controlled; especially in the case of an actual nuclear reactor with moderating influences to dynamically affect the number of fission reactions as required. In the case of a supercritical mass such as formed by the "gun" method used in the "Little Boy" bomb by joining two subcritical masses the likelihood of fissioning of atoms increases exponentially, thus an uncontrolled reaction is born.

Someone queried earlier, to paraphrase "why isn't the mass just blown apart?"; sometimes it does and nuclear tests record this as a "fizzle", a reaction that failed to reach design yield due to the mass separating before enough material could fission.

Another stated something about nukes having more energy than the sun being ridiculous, that's because that idea is ridiculous. Even Tsar Bomba had faaaaaaaar less energy than even our tiny sun. Perhaps this was confused with statements about the light intensity being similar to the suns? Which is true given proximity to an explosion.

The "best" counter argument I've seen in this thread is that for most of us we can't verify nuclear reactions in person. Yes this is true. However the same is true of many things. The math is sound, and comparisons to observable effects such as radiation burns caused by the sun a.k.a sunburn can add more weight to the matter.

Edit: I'm not exactly a physicist but I did study physics for a time and nuclear weapons have been a pet interest of mine for a while as well as other Cold War and war history topics. Happy to try and answer anyone's queries on the matter.
edit on 16-10-2012 by nitestick because: because

posted on Oct, 18 2012 @ 11:41 PM
There are various classes in physics and chemistry you can take and learn about what goes into building a nuclear bomb. The technology is quite old now.

posted on Mar, 21 2013 @ 03:38 AM
This guy knows what he is talking about. The site is just a few months old. He offers $ 1.000.000 to anyone that proves how an atomic fission bomb works.

There is definetely something very strange here.

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:15 AM
reply to post by neformore

i am not arguing against or implying the op's claim is true but a little interesting fact i learned about japan is that they dont teach there students about the bombings of nagasaki or hiroshima, so my question is why would they not teach teach that in a japanese history class

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:26 AM
Reply to post by violenttorrent

I wondered why "Do Not Drink" was printed on bottles of bleach. Now I know.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 03:32 AM
Reply to post by amsterdamn87

They have school trips to the "Peace Memorial" in Hiroshima. It would be kind of silly not to explain what it's all about and go there.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:44 AM
The ignorance in the OP's post is astounding. Questioning reality is natural, but, this is akin to the stupidity of questioning the Holocaust.

posted on Mar, 24 2013 @ 04:57 AM
reply to post by GreenGlassDoor

yeah that makes sense i was just relaying a piece of info passed to me from a person that did a college assignment

<< 23  24  25    27 >>

log in