Do Nuclear Bombs Exist?

reply to post by violenttorrent


I keep posting here because there are 2 sides to this discussion.
You ask
Do nuclear bombs exist?

I am answering no and providing evidence to support my claim as many others have.

You have said yes and provided no evidence to support your claim.

And sometimes you learn about new bits of info such as those posted by freakyclown. I found his posts fascinating and had I NOT stuck around, I never would have learned what FC posted.

In addition, there's always that tiny, tiny hope you may actually post any kind of evidence to support your claim



Freakyclown thanks for the links mate !

Watch the vid www.youtube.com... and read what LTRU has to say about Japan. This topic has been covered in depth. You are only demonstrating that you have not been following the thread.

Originally posted by violenttorrent
Quotes from one of the articles findarticles.com... linked to by freakyclown:

"MANY OF the huge strategic missiles displayed in Red Square parades during the Soviet era were only dummies, but they scared the West into an expensive response, a Russian magazine reported yesterday."

"prompted the United States to build an anti-missile defense system worth billions of dollars..."

"Another two mobile ballistic missiles shown in the same parade were also fakes, their test launches having been a failure..."

""A huge international uproar followed, and only those who prepared this demonstration knew they were dummies.""

"he had worked on a support system for one of the fake missiles"

"bluffed the West with the legend of powerful Russian missiles, saying the Soviet Union was making them "like sausage""

First BIG PROPS to freakyclown for finding this information for us.

Hah! This is irrefutable evidence that at least some NUKES ARE FAKE.

Yes that SOME were faked. That doesn't mean nuclear bombs were not and cannot be built, it's just that those particular ones were not. Hopefully you see the HUGE difference.

Your response will be that that doesn't prove that they are all fake. But if they faked some of them, and this is now proven public knowledge, then why wouldn't the whole program be faked as well?

Why would they?
Many examples can be cited showing how some things are inflated to look more then they are.
As a very common example, many people over inflate their resumes. Does that mean the whole resume has been faked? Not necessarily.

We can bounce the hypothetical question around all day but there are mountains of solid evidence to suggest that:
First, it is possible to build nukes
and second, that they indeed were built
and third, they've been used/tested.

Now if you can provide evidence that the 3 points are not true, please post it. Please note, opinions are not necessarily evidence.

Originally posted by violenttorrent
Kyo I'll admit that you have been courteous in your posts, but none of the other naysayers have been. It started out with everybody claiming that this important topic belonged in "skunk works," remember?

And it still does. So what?
Skunkworks is still a part of ATS and many people view it and discuss in it.
Why isn't this thread in the cryptozoology section of ATS? The reason is, it doesn't fit there. Just as your thread doesn't fit here as well as it might in skunkworks. OBVIOUSLY this is just my opinion but it is MY opinion and I have a right to it. I've also shown you why I've given this opinion.

Here is what skunkworks is as quoted

This forum is dedicated to the all-important highly speculative topics that may not be substantiated by many, if any facts and span the spectrum of topics discussed on ATS. Readers and users should be aware that extreme theories without corroboration are embraced in this forum. Discussion topics and follow-up responses in this forum will likely tend to lean in favor of conspiracies, scandals, and cover-ups. Members who would seek to refute such theories should be mindful of AboveTopSecret.com's tradition of focusing on conspiracy theory, cover-ups, and scandals.

Your thread fits into this category PERFECTLY.
You've never posted one fact to support your hypothesis.
Does that mean your thread should be closed ? NO it doesn't but maybe it should be moved to the correct area.

You say that the article pertaining to fake russian nukes is not proof that nuclear bombs do not exist. It does, however, prove that fake nuclear bombs do exist.

So? Unless you can provide evidence that they, as a whole, don't exist and/or can't exist, claiming that not as many exist as people have said, doesn't mean much. In short, we drop the total number down a bit but we still have them. Just for the record, I wish we didn't have them.

[edit on 23-1-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by violenttorrent
Watch the vid www.youtube.com... and read what LTRU has to say about Japan. This topic has been covered in depth. You are only demonstrating that you have not been following the thread.

I've watched this 2 times. This video provides ZERO evidence to suggest that nuclear bombs do not exist. This video is just baseless speculation from beginning to end including the moon landing. I can't believe people actually think the moon landing never happened as there are reflectors on the moon that we can bounce lasers off and measure distance between earth and the moon.

To me, the video looks as if the author is trying to act like the loose change guys.

Is there another video that actually provides evidence to support the no nukes idea?

reply to post by tamusan


incredible links. Thanks for posting them.
Very disturbing but it does provide more evidence that not only do nukes exist but they've been used against our fellow human beings.

Orangetom, I know exactly what you're talking about.

The F-16 you described is in fact the F-16XL tested by NASA, two were built.

Here's a fun little site for you:

NASA Dryden Fact Sheet

Now you'll be able to understand the aircraft you saw in far better detail, closure to your extraordinary experience.

Sorry for digressing off topic, but there really isn't much left to discuss about the topic on hand, the OP has done exactly what I thought he'd do, when the chips are down and he can't back up himself, he used the ONLY other person arguing for his stance to be the SOLE researcher. The video shows nothing, and letthereaderunderstand has not posted back in this thread.

Not much left to do here...

Shattered OUT...

reply to post by ShatteredSkies



Yes Shattered,

That is exactly what I saw in the NASA hanger. Quite striking as compared to a standard F16 which is also flown out of Langley in the alert barns.

Very nice link you have provided. Thanks.

The little bristles sticking out of the wings were unusual as well. It obviously had something to do with the experiments they were running at the time.

Graceful looking is the best I can think of in discribing this aircraft...very graceful and very pleasing lines...even unpainted she was graceful.

Oh..and to keep on the topic line. I know that the F16 as well as other aircraft are capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons. Not a problem for them to be configured for such delivery.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Don't be discouraged by may "skeptics" - that is their job. This is a good topic, and I find it most informative.

Thanks!

A youtube presenter named rerevisionist sent this to violenttorrent under his youtube alias "jessewaugh". I take no credit for the posting.

It was obviously buried in the media of those times, but it shows a sentiment that some of the military didn't believe that the atomic bomb was really dropped, nor that it was real.

Watch for yourselves.



As always, Peace...

I thought this thread had died for good...

Anyway, the video is improperly labeled as "evidence". Since when is third- to "n"th hand opinion evidence? Then again, this is what this whole thread was built on - opinion. Everything we have been presented with so far is but a half-hearted circlewank about why the trees look "artificial" (because they were planted there in the middle of the desert?) why the cameras don´t move (because they were reinforced if only to keep the filmstock intact?) or why the camera angles are shifting (because a myriad of task-specialized cameras were used?) etc. ...

The thread starter has so far demonstrated that he has breached the first rule of the conspiracy theorist, which is to believe his own theory in full without accepting the slightest evidence to the contrary. He has also breached the second rule of the "conspiracist" by forming his own conclusions on phenomena that can very easily and thoroughly be explained using common logic and basic scientific knowledge, and that without actual scientists and specialists explaining the scientific reasons behind it.

So where is it, the smoking gun? The 9/11 truthers at least have some evidence that works in their favour (although evidences can of course contradict each other). The Birthers at least have some worthwhile hints if not actual evidence. However, the only weapon that has been used in this thread is gross injustice against those who genuinely tried to correct the misperceptions offered in these videos.

Needless to say even if we ASSUME for a second the Japanese bombings to be staged - how would that be evidence against the existence of nuclear weapons in the present? It is not.

[edit on 18/9/2009 by Lonestar24]

Circlewank, huh? Are you from Texas Lonestar or from the UK? Either way your wrong about me "breaching the rules of a conspiracist." I am not a conspiracy theorist. I did not make this new evidence clip - someone named SHERMAN GRINBERG did in 1964. One of your friends?

Do you drink coffee all day while you sit in your fusion center cubicle? Or is it coke?

You and all the other liars on Above Top Secret can spew all the pseudo-science that you can muster, and it will still not change the fact that there is a real possibility that nuclear bombs might not exist.

What I don't get with all these negative comments on this co-opted forum and on youtube and emailsfromcrazypeople is WHY IN THE FOCK would people want nuclear bombs to be real? If you're a government operative - like you Lonestar - the Texas cowboy provocateur over in the UK - then I can understand - it's what you get paid £13,000 a year to write, but for the [few] truly ignorant deniers I really feel empathy. Oh well, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make him drink. Unless it's Kool-Aid. Then he'll suck it down like every other poison he can get his mouth around.

reply to post by Lonestar24


The smoking gun for what? Existence or Non-Existence?

A real explosion would prove it to me. Television won't. We have three to four generations that have never witnessed anything live, yet believe what ever the news tells them. I could understand having no opinion, but to back up something that you yourself have no real experience in is just asking to be taken advantage of.

Maybe define what a "smoking gun" is. If it is what you saw on television, I'm sorry, but that isn't a smoking gun to me, it's entertainment.

A paper saying they exist is about as good as the bible saying a man split the red sea by holding a stick in the air. That takes blind faith. Blind is blind no matter which word you attach to it.

People have been conditioned by repetitive hypnotic programming to accept this as truth. You can also hypnotize people to believe they are naked or that the audience is naked. It's real to them, just like nukes are real to people, yet they aren't naked and nukes aren't real, but under the blue light at 60hz you believe. Now it's 120hz. Double the BS.

"Show me the money Jerry...."

You can show me all the numbers in the world, that is not a nuke.
You can show me all the video's you'd like, that is not a nuke.
You can direct me to all the documentaries you'd like, that is not a nuke.
You can show me nuclear rods in a tank producing steam to turn turbines, that is not a nuke.
Until I SEE the real smoking gun, i'm not buying the mind terrorism.

People really thought Orson Wells was broadcasting as aliens landed on the white house lawn. Panic broke out...it's really easy to scare people, especially when you foster calling who ever doesn't believe in what they have not witnessed for themselves nuts and get every other soul to do the same that will go along blindly. And so many have...I don't blame them, only I hope people will start asking where all their money is really going. Did it really blow up two cities? Is it really on the moon?

Watch "A clockwork Orange" for an example of social engineering.

Who's irrational?
The person not giving credence to something they don't personally know or the person telling everyone they know what they have never personally experienced?

Why be scared of monsters when they only exist in your mind or worse on celluloid?

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
Have no fear for atomic energy,
cause none of them can stop the time.
How long shall they kill our prophets,
While we stand aside and look? ooh!
Some say its just a part of it:
We've got to fulfill the book.

...Bob Marley

Since 2001 I have worked in Nuclear Fueling as a fuel installer. I have been around operating nuclear power plants. I know how certain nuclear fuel cells are constructed. How they operate.

I have handled radiated and contaminated items. Decontaminated many of them.

I can tell you that these items and the power they give off to make heat are real...as are the byproducts of the process...radiation, contamination, CRUD.

What you have in a nuclear power plant is a contained nuclear reaction for the purposes of generating heat to make steam.

It is nothing more than a very exotic/expensive steam kettle.

A nuclear weapon is nothing more than a uncontained nuclear device Designed to rapidly implode and then explode. In some cases...they are hydrogen enhanced. This is called Thermonuclear verses just nuclear. Hydrogen, being one of the more powerful atoms out there, the uncontained reaction is thus more powerful in terms of yield.
There are features in some of them to change the amount of hydrogen enhancement and there by change the yield characteristics. The yield or explosion effects can be dialed up or down as necessary or required. This is called "dial a yield."

Interesting post on the part of some here in how the knowledge and control of this technology changed the nature of politics and relations with other nations.

Some of you naysayers here should consider how much of your daily electricity comes from nuclear sources before continuing down the lines of these weapons do not exist.
Commercial nuclear power plants do not use the highly refined Uranium as do some other types of plants but make no mistake..it is enriched uranium. Commercial power plants also go through fuel cells very rapidly as they are in the summer months operating at or near full capacity.

Think about this ...not just on an emotional level...but a logical, reasonable, technological level.
Working in a nuclear power plant is no place for a drama queen.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Yes Orangetom, let us think about this on an unemotional, rational level. Your proposal is that uncontained radiation has the potential for "nuclear explosion," but this is unfounded pseudo-science. Isotopes exist naturally, and are not subject to spontaneous explosivity. If they were, there would be no existence, because isotopes are merely atoms, and if given atoms were to randomly and spontaneously explode, then the entire universe could not exist. Your proposal is founded in irrational, sadly ill-informed, I dare say indoctrinated, erroneous thinking.

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Since 2001 I have worked in Nuclear Fueling as a fuel installer. I have been around operating nuclear power plants. I know how certain nuclear fuel cells are constructed. How they operate.

I have handled radiated and contaminated items. Decontaminated many of them.

I can tell you that these items and the power they give off to make heat are real...as are the byproducts of the process...radiation, contamination, CRUD.

What you have in a nuclear power plant is a contained nuclear reaction for the purposes of generating heat to make steam.

It is nothing more than a very exotic/expensive steam kettle.

A nuclear weapon is nothing more than a uncontained nuclear device Designed to rapidly implode and then explode. In some cases...they are hydrogen enhanced. This is called Thermonuclear verses just nuclear. Hydrogen, being one of the more powerful atoms out there, the uncontained reaction is thus more powerful in terms of yield.
There are features in some of them to change the amount of hydrogen enhancement and there by change the yield characteristics. The yield or explosion effects can be dialed up or down as necessary or required. This is called "dial a yield."

Interesting post on the part of some here in how the knowledge and control of this technology changed the nature of politics and relations with other nations.

Some of you naysayers here should consider how much of your daily electricity comes from nuclear sources before continuing down the lines of these weapons do not exist.
Commercial nuclear power plants do not use the highly refined Uranium as do some other types of plants but make no mistake..it is enriched uranium. Commercial power plants also go through fuel cells very rapidly as they are in the summer months operating at or near full capacity.

Think about this ...not just on an emotional level...but a logical, reasonable, technological level.
Working in a nuclear power plant is no place for a drama queen.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Thanks Tomas.

How do you "decontaminate" something at the atomic level?

Doesn't a meltdown occur when the rods become unstable due to lack of cooling?

Maybe not as simple as that, but isn't that the jist?

Put the rods into water, the rods boil the water producing steam, the steam under pressure then turns a turbine, thus producing electricity just like water through a dam. Is that correct? Without the proper amount of water (coolant) the rods being "radioactive" can become so hot that a "meltdown" occurs. Is this the basic concept?

If that is correct, then why don't nuclear weapons melt, being cooled by nothing? How does one fire a nuclear weapon out of a cannon without having the weapon explode inside the barrel of the cannon?

What would happen if you shot a pistol at one of the rods you work with? Would you blow up the plant with half of the state as well or would it just ricochet doing nothing?

No drama, just questions I'm hoping you can help me with.

Peace

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Since 2001 I have worked in Nuclear Fueling as a fuel installer. I have been around operating nuclear power plants. I know how certain nuclear fuel cells are constructed. How they operate.

I have handled radiated and contaminated items. Decontaminated many of them.

I can tell you that these items and the power they give off to make heat are real...as are the byproducts of the process...radiation, contamination, CRUD.

What you have in a nuclear power plant is a contained nuclear reaction for the purposes of generating heat to make steam.

It is nothing more than a very exotic/expensive steam kettle.

A nuclear weapon is nothing more than a uncontained nuclear device Designed to rapidly implode and then explode. In some cases...they are hydrogen enhanced. This is called Thermonuclear verses just nuclear. Hydrogen, being one of the more powerful atoms out there, the uncontained reaction is thus more powerful in terms of yield.
There are features in some of them to change the amount of hydrogen enhancement and there by change the yield characteristics. The yield or explosion effects can be dialed up or down as necessary or required. This is called "dial a yield."

Interesting post on the part of some here in how the knowledge and control of this technology changed the nature of politics and relations with other nations.

Some of you naysayers here should consider how much of your daily electricity comes from nuclear sources before continuing down the lines of these weapons do not exist.
Commercial nuclear power plants do not use the highly refined Uranium as do some other types of plants but make no mistake..it is enriched uranium. Commercial power plants also go through fuel cells very rapidly as they are in the summer months operating at or near full capacity.

Think about this ...not just on an emotional level...but a logical, reasonable, technological level.
Working in a nuclear power plant is no place for a drama queen.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Another question. How do you have an "uncontained" nuclear reaction? For instance, in an uncontained fire the fire will burn until there is no more fuel to consume, but once no more fuel, no more fire. Wouldn't it be the same in an "uncontained" nuclear reaction? I don't see how this is possible since decay is happening to everything. Isn't that what "half life" is all about?

I could see controlled and uncontrolled, but not uncontained. That just makes no sense. A truly uncontained reaction would keep reacting, till nothing was left to feed on.

Could you explain that to me?

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


In a fission reactor, first you have to have enough uranium or plutonium in the reactor for it to have critical mass, that is enough mass of the fissile material to sustain a reaction.
A starter material is introduced, typicaly an alpha particle source.
The alpha particles kick neutrons out of the fuel, and these neutrons inturn split the nuclei of other atoms which kicks out more neutrons which split more nuclei and so on, this is a fission chain reaction.

If this process is initiated and not controlled you have an atomic bomb.
But in a reactor you have moderators such as water, graphite and control rods,.
the moderators absorb some of the neutrons given off by the reaction thereby slowing it down to a controlled rate.


all sorts of crazy materials are used as control rods. The rods are lowered into the reactor between fuel rods to control the flow of neutrons in the reactor, the more neutrons the faster the reaction.
The best analogy is closing the air vents on a BBQ to control the heat, the less air flow the less heat.
Thats a pretty simple explanation that most everybody can understand.
The first reactors were literally just pile of uranium, thats why they were called an atomic pile, surrounded by graphite blocks, there were spaces left that you could slide graqphite rods in and out of, these were the control rods.
the graphite that surrounded the core absorbed just enough neutrons to keep the pile from exploding, but would let it get hot enough to vaporize the graphite if left unchecked, this is where the control rods come in.
by inserting the control rods into the pile they absorb more neutron slowing down the reaction even more to of stopping it.

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


One thing I forgot, you have to have enough material for a spontaneous reaction.
if you were to pile up enough u235 or pu239 it will start up all by itself, but a starter is usually used.
The amount of material used in a warhead is not enough to start a spontaneous reaction.
That is why the two types of original bombs were produced, the gun type and the implosion type.
they add the needed energy to the pit to get it to chain react.
And the twom tyrpe of fuel require different ways od initiation.
The reaction of u235 is slow enough that in a gun type bomb the pit fully reacts before the pit is destroyed by the reaction.
If pu239 is used in a gun type bomb, the small amounts of more energetic pu240 contained in the fuel causes the reaction to blow the pit apart before all the fuel is reacted,causing a fizzle.

Originally posted by ANNED
I watch a test at the Nevada test site in the 1960s and i know they exist and till you have seen one you will never appreciate what power they have,

I was about 40 miles away on a mountain top outside the test site and we could still feel the shock wave from it.

There was a group of people that went to this mountain top east of beatty Nevada for many of the above ground test.

i just did a motorcycle race that went over the top of one of the largest mtns east of beatty nv, it was the only one with a road to the top id bet its the same one.
we aslo went by the gate to yucca mtn.