|
|
Atom bombs do not workThe original newspaper release was that Nagasaki and Hiroshima were fire bombed like Tokyo and it was only later that the story of the Abomb surfaced. All brick buildings were left standing, including the Bank of Japan which is still in use today. No residue “radiation”..
No Atom bombs have ever been used even during the Vietnam war where every other despicable weapon was used including chemicals. The USA lost this war. No dictator or mad leaderr has ever used nuclear weapons. All photos and film of atomic explosions are easily proven fake mileswmathis.com/trinity.. . . Various scientists have shown the actual mechanics of an Abomb are not workable heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.h. . . The Atomic bomb hoax was thought up by the USA, Russia and UK after WWII. Various other countries have been let into the hoax. The idea is to keep the masses in constant fear. Not one single nuclear weapon large or small has ever been used. Logical conclusion:- They don’t work |
|||
| asked on Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 02:56:39 AM by account no longer exists | ||||
Top Categories Suggested by Community |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
|
1. I am going to need a source for that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. There were no methods in Japan to determine if it was an atomic bomb that was used and early reports about major catastrophes aren’t always reliable. 2. A firebombing campaign isn’t easy to hide. It requires a large amount of airplanes and there is no testimonial evidence from any survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki nor documented evidence from the U.S. and Japan of any major firebombing campaign between August 6 and 9, 1945. 3. Not true. The famous dome and its structure that was close to the Hiroshima blast were partially destroyed, and there are many photographs of the aftermath showing destroyed concrete and brick buildings. 4. The amount of radioactive material used in the bombings was negligible compared to the material released during Chernobyl and Fukushima. Most of it was carried away by winds, rain and water sources and eventually diluted in the environment to normal levels. 5. The war was already unpopular in the home front, nuking Charlie would have elicited further dissatisfaction plus why risk nuclear war with the Soviets? Also, ask McArthur how his idea of using nukes against the Koreans worked in 1950. 6. If anything we should be thankful for it. North Korea knows that if they use a single IRBM with a low-yield warhead on it that’s it. That’s the end of the country right there and then. I don’t know who this Miles Mathis is but I do know Heiwa. He is no scientist, he’s an naval architect and engineer. He also denies the Apollo Moon landings and he absolutely made a fool of himself back in late 2012 and early 2013 in the Apollohoax.net forum when he demonstrated his absolute ignorance of spaceflight theory and history which you can check out by yourself. I doubt his analysis of nuclear weapons is any better. Logical conclusion: nuclear weapons are real based on the preponderance of evidence based on hundreds of testimonies and scientific studies based on them. It is unlikely that the major world powers invested large amounts of funds on missile defense (early warning systems) and development (Atlas, Titan, Thor) for something they knew didn’t actually exist. Plus, where are the whistleblowers? 75 years after the first nuclear detonation and... nothing. |
|||
| answered on Sunday, Jan 31, 2021 03:16:15 AM by Susana Horia | ||||
Susana Horia Suggested These Categories |
||||
Comments |
||||
| ||||
|
|
This is simply a classic Conspiracy Theory , and personally, far more outlandish than most of the ones I have heard before. |
| answered on Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 06:05:29 AM by Bo Bennett, PhD | |
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
| |
|
|
I'm working on a series of political books, including one focusing on conspiracy science. I lump conspiracy theories into three categories: credible or confirmed (e.g. Watergate), non-credible (e.g. the U.S. government is creating earthquakes) and, in between, fringe conspiracy theory (e.g. chemtrails).
I agree with Dr. Bo on this one; this is a non-credible conspiracy theory. In fact, I hate to even call it a "conspiracy theory," because I think the term deserves a little respect. There are simply too many victims of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. There are even reports of people suffering from radiation sickness in Ethiopia. Africa's victims aren't associated with atomic/nuclear blasts but with nuclear wastes that are apparently being dumped off the coast. But if nuclear energy (along with accidents like Fukushima and Chernobyl) is a fact of life, is it such a stretch to imagine that people could have converted atomic energy for use in warfare towards the end of WWII? I believe that huge conspiracies involving multiple organizations and even national governments are not only possible but common. But a conspiracy involving eight or nine nations that falsely claim to have nuclear weapons is a little hard to believe. |
|||
| answered on Sunday, Aug 20, 2017 10:59:05 AM by David Blomstrom |
Comments |
|||
| ||||