Nukes and truth; more in comments.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (18)
sorted by:
Those are all good counter arguments. I agree that the atomic model is an accurate representation of reality.
There are plausible arguments positing that both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were caused by conventional weapons. I haven't done original research, but I have seen others' research and believe this is likely. Once you begin to research from a different perspective, you can find more evidence. Obviously if the nuclear bomb were false, the secret would be closely guarded. In any case, proving a negative is not possible. A person should use discernment. But nearly 80 years of conflict with very powerful people striving for power, and no nuclear explosions against people, even while we are told they are smaller and more powerful than ever before, gives room for doubt.
I agree, there's always room for doubt. That's the true foundation of science: keeping an open mind.
Many cities in Europe and Japan were leveled by saturation incendiary bombing, a truly heinous war crime (Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five is based in part on Vonnegut's actual survival of the Dresden firebombing; he was a war prisoner working in an underground slaughterhouse when the air raid began).
I don't think it likely that such a raid caused the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; such raids involved multiple waves of many, many bombers. But who knows . . .
Micro-nukes are alleged to have been used (along with thermite on the upper floors) to bring down the Twin Towers; the evidence I've seen seems credible. Beyond that possibility, why haven't we had terrorist (or government, or accidental) incidents with nukes of whatever size? Just lucky? Good work by those tasked with preventing such events? Aliens helping us out?
I have no idea.