What?! Nuclear Hoax

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: turbonium1
Steel and concrete buildings won't be left intact after a conventional bomb attack, which we all know.

It may be safer than other structures of wood, perhaps, but they are not immune from destruction, with conventional bombs.

Steel and concrete structures are, however, much safer in a firebombing attack, than wood, or any other flammable structures. We know that, too.


What about 'nukes'? I've never heard them claim steel or concrete structures are left intact, after a 'nuke' blast....

Because they've never said it, so nobody knows about it, nobody builds steel or concrete houses to live in, which we would have definitely built all over the world, if we'd ever heard about it.

But we haven't heard that, right?

You clearly live in cloud cuckoo land.
You should be thoroughly embarrassed by the utter nonsense you have posted.
You do not even understand what an airburst detonation is and you simply ignore evidence that is presented to you whilst offering absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous claims.
Are you for real?

I should ask you that same question, in fact.

Evidence is two cities which had identical damage, identical injuries, identical intact buildings, identical everything, to Tokyo.

What do you have?

a reply to: turbonium1

Common sense evidence and a non delusional take on reality?

a reply to: turbonium1

Not identical at all.
Get a grip.

originally posted by: turbonium1
You are trying to change their entire story, of a bomb that vaporizes everything within a half-mile radius.

That's what we were led to believe, and it's believed today, that they invented a bomb which destroys an entire city within a few seconds, and we all saw the photos of those two cities, which shocked the whole world, after we saw two entire cities, which were 'wiped off the map'. Nobody had seen such overwhelming destruction, ever before. Not even close to it, in fact.

They never showed us Tokyo after the firebombing. None of you can possibly explain why they didn't show us any images of Tokyo, so you change the subject, again and again, ignoring it at all costs.

It's a key piece of the whole issue, which you ignore, because it's very relevant to the issue. That's why you cannot address it.


We never heard your version of the story. Where did you hear this version, anyway? Any source(s) on it? So we know it's not made up, or something...


You want me to prove that 'nukes' don't work, when you can't prove they DO work.

There are two examples you hold up as proof of 'nukes' that you excuse as 'special cases', where it can magically appear like a firebombing!

Yikes.

2 examples of nukes?
What about all of the very many fully documented and filmed nuke tests?
Answer those and stop being dishonest.

This reads like a Flat Earther thread lol.

a reply to: Masisoar

yeh more word spaghetti , goal post shifting

standard

all the while zero lack of evidence to disprove nuclear bombs


First its about nuclear bombs being the hoax, once the evidence for is presented, the posts shift to a smaller detail of the nuclear hoax which can be picked at and once that has ran its course another aspect of the hoax is picked at

in a circular fashion

all the while only opinion and speculation is offered with zero evidence.

a reply to: sapien82

Not so much shifting the goal posts - more like loading them onto an Eddie Stobart lorry, driving them to Heathrow and flying them off to the other side of the world.

a reply to: turbonium1


did you report my picture of a troll?

this thread should be closed. you clearly have no intention of wanting to learn or see the other side.

you never answer straightforward questions and set impossible standards of proof(like a personal nuke demonstration)

i get this might be fun to you but you are making ATS look bad.

deny ignorance right?

nothing wrong with asking questions but when you get the right answer and happen not to like it doesnt mean your right and the rest of the world and nature is wrong.

a reply to: turbonium1

have you served in a combat zone?

do you have a degree in fluid dynamics, architecture, material science or plasma physics? we all know you don't.

a nuke doesnt vaporize everything it touches all the time, reinforced buildings can survive a blast very intact, if they didnt why would we keep our missiles in harded sil0os and NORAD deep in a mountain?

if they vaporized everything in the fire ball why would they need nuclear bunker busters?

the 2 bombings in questions were air bursts, most of the damage came from the shock wave and the reflected shockwave.

the heat pulse was well over 1000 feet in the air and were by today's standards low yield weapons.



how do you think we have test footage?

its all about distance, building methods/materials and if there is any blast mitigation.


the bombs dropped on Japan were firecrackers compaired to the thermonuclear weapons now in use.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Oh right I get ye , I mean moving the goal posts across the globe

a reply to: sapien82

Aye.
But they will argue about the "globe" bit.
The earth is flat.
Rockets dont work in space.
Satellites are fake.
Gravity is fake.
And we are the deluded ones?
Jeez!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: oldcarpy

originally posted by: turbonium1
Steel and concrete buildings won't be left intact after a conventional bomb attack, which we all know.

It may be safer than other structures of wood, perhaps, but they are not immune from destruction, with conventional bombs.

Steel and concrete structures are, however, much safer in a firebombing attack, than wood, or any other flammable structures. We know that, too.


What about 'nukes'? I've never heard them claim steel or concrete structures are left intact, after a 'nuke' blast....

Because they've never said it, so nobody knows about it, nobody builds steel or concrete houses to live in, which we would have definitely built all over the world, if we'd ever heard about it.

But we haven't heard that, right?

You clearly live in cloud cuckoo land.
You should be thoroughly embarrassed by the utter nonsense you have posted.
You do not even understand what an airburst detonation is and you simply ignore evidence that is presented to you whilst offering absolutely no evidence to support your ridiculous claims.
Are you for real?

I should ask you that same question, in fact.

Evidence is two cities which had identical damage, identical injuries, identical intact buildings, identical everything, to Tokyo.

What do you have?

Facts? Plus everything you posted above is dead flat wrong.

Other members are never the topic, period end of subject.

Closed for Staff review.