Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?, page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 29-12-2008 @ 08:01 PM by pteridine
reply to post by KyoZero



No problem, Kyo.

USAF doesn't use reactors [that we know about].


reply posted on 29-12-2008 @ 08:16 PM by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand



There are tactical nukes that are ignited well above ground level that emit a

very large dose of initial radioactivity without the property damage associated

with a ground level blast. The radioactive isotope has a very short half life and

after a short time the re-population of the area is possible...


reply posted on 29-12-2008 @ 08:25 PM by pteridine
reply to post by Anonymous ATS



Neutron bombs. These devices hang and "burn" emitting a tremendous neutron flux which will kill people and animals without damaging structures.



reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 12:02 AM by ShatteredSkies
reply to post by letthereaderunderstand



I like to look at History and attempt to look at the many angles of a single event.

Cold War history is above all, my favorite kind of history and at the center of Cold War history is Nuclear weapons.

I can only express to you, through my own experience with my own research that I believe nuclear weapons are real.

I don't have to have seen it to believe it's real, I can't see atoms, but I believe they're real. I can't see HIV, but I believe it's real, I can't see the combustion of the mixture of fuel and air in my engine's cylinders, but I believe they are real (I have dismantled engines).

Through my simple studies I can only tell you that the entire world has acted solely on the belief that nuclear weapons are real.

Like I have stated before, the Soviet Union dropped the Tsar bomba, the US dropped Castle Bravo, the French stockpiled neutron warheads.

The testing over Bikini Atoll, the SALT treaties, the bans to prevent detonation of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere. Why so much legislation and so much resources? To make the world believe in something that doesn't exist?

Wouldn't it have been easier to simply say "nuclear weapons aren't real" and simply not pay any attention to its existence?

Lets not forget the Cuban Missile crisis, were nuclear weapons real, why did the US come 12 hours within war with the USSR? We amassed troops in Florida to invade Cuba we had strike bombers in the air to attack Cuba, it was a fluke that war wasn't declared. All of that due to the belief that nuclear weapons are in fact very real.

What exactly are the Boomer submarines carrying in their missile tubes? You had said you had family members in the Navy, ask them to come here and report their testimony I'm positive their first-hand experience will be greatly appreciated.

I've never seen a Mack Truck collide with a passenger car, but I've seen pictures and movies of it, does that mean because I've never personally seen it, that it isn't real? I know passenger cars are real, I know mack trucks are real.

We know the ICBMs are real, we know the silos are real, we know the materials are real.

I'm genuinely curious; why do you not believe in the existence of nuclear weapons? Is that you don't think mankind is capable of such a feat?

Shattered OUT...


reply posted on 30-12-2008 @ 01:14 PM by mdiinican
Originally posted by violenttorrent
greshnik Thank you

AboveTopSecret is the most popular conspiracy forum on the web, therefore it is bound to attract the attention of the "authorities." It is becoming increasingly obvious that there are legions of paid bloggers whose job it is to mud-sling and obfuscate. Anyone who joins this forum legitimately is likely to be open-minded given the nature of the site. Posters who are immediately dismissive are probably here for a reason. They do not engage in real debate. Calling an argument "laughable" is a simplistic psytactic. Suggesting that this subject is unworthy and should be ranked among "skunk works" is petty obfuscation. They'd say that about the moon landing if it weren't already common knowledge that it was faked.

Operatives have game plans as to how to deter and manipulate - it's their job.

The "nuclear bomb" footage speaks for itself, so they stay away from arguing in favor of it being legitimate. They steer the "debate" in an impossible-to-argue direction - that of pseudo-scientific claims, which are unprovable by anyone.


Hahaha, oh wow. I'm sure claiming that your opponents are paid disinformants does wonders for your credibility. We have just as much call to say that you're a paid disinformant whose job it is to say ridiculous things so that nobody sensible will ever consider ATS as a serious website. Your rhetoric is childish. It shouldn't matter if the other posters are paid government shillls or not; they can't edit your posts, so if you actually had some indisputable facts, they'd speak for themselves, and rational onlookers would be convinced.

Discuss facts, not posters.
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



Nano Drones Flying in Formation
  Posted 9 days ago with 15 member flags
FPS RUSSIA
  Posted 14 days ago with 7 member flags
Spinel Thin Transparent Ceramic Armor defeats Barrett .50 Cal BMG
  Posted 13 days ago with 6 member flags
Self-steering Bullet Researched
  Posted 11 days ago with 5 member flags
Shockrounds take out three of your five senses.
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags
Defective Ammunition Warning
  Posted 3 days ago with 5 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Free Psychic Readings
  General Chit Chat, Posted 15 hours ago, 113 replies
Hollow Earth Theory New Evidence.
  General Conspiracies, Posted 13 hours ago, 88 replies
Anonymous show your face!
  Rant, Posted 9 hours ago, 63 replies
Free will
  Philosophy and Metaphysics, Posted 17 hours ago, 54 replies