this photo was taken 3 days after the atomic bomb was dropped onto hiroshima. why do people still believe that nuclear bombs are real?


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

this photo was taken 3 days after the atomic bomb was dropped onto hiroshima. why do people still believe that nuclear bombs are real?

  1. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    >why do people still believe that nuclear bombs are real?
    >why do people still believe that the earth is round?
    >why do people still believe that space is real?
    >why do people still believe that the holocaust happened?
    >why do people still believe that biden won?
    >why do people still believe that vaccines are safe?
    Meds.

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          get a tripcode so i can filter out discord trannies like you

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everyone who disagrees with me is a tranny
            Why are LULZnes so insular and delusional?

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >i post the truth
              >shills like you immediately derail the thread
              i guess that proves that nukes are fake. thank you, mr. goldberg

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                What "truth" are you trying to prove when you are basically promoting the insane idea that nukes aren't real

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                you want to know insane? insane is that you refuse to believe irrefutable evidence when it is presented to you

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >a picture of a trolley is irrefutable evidence that nukes aren't real
                Okay

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                ay tone, how is there an electric trolley full of people driving around 3 days after a nuke landed here?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sure a random homosexual on LULZ has the answer and not credible historians

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >completely ignoring the fact
                the israelite shouts in pain when the truth lies in reverse searching images

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                these poles have very little resistance to blast waves so they can survive while bigger structure have a far bigger vertical surface and get the full force
                that one famous building was directly under the blast wave so it didn't experience a lot of shear stress
                there were lots of those shrine entrance things that survived as well

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >these poles have very little resistance to blast waves so they can survive nukes

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                It was an archaic atomic bomb, nowhere near the capabalities that were soon to be discovered. And the Nagasaki one was even weaker.
                Reminder that the Tsar bomba test, was felt all over Finland, Sweden, Norway.
                Peopel like you are just shill, promoting fake conspiracy theories to make legit cponspiracy theories to be forgotten and dropped, so when peopel liek me discuss legit conspiracy theories, we just get laughed at "aren't you the guys who believe there's no nukes and that earth if flat?"
                ABsolutely disgusting the lot of you. I can see through your lies, and all of you bullshit just appears out fo nowhere, and all of a sudden is huge, in the cas eof flat earth, even with hollywood celebreties defending it.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I've seen this on LULZ a couple of times recently. Thought it was some brand new bullshit, but apparently the 'nuclear truth' movement has been around for over a decade. Doesn't seem to get much traction, though.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                I definitely remember browsing a forum for it sometime around 2008 or 2009, no idea what it was called.
                They also really did not like when people mentioned all the nuclear explosions witnessed by ordinary Nevadans over the decades
                "Obviously the US government was stockpiling huge mountains of TNT in the desert, setting them off, and sprinkling the ground with radioactive dust for miles and miles, just to pull one over on the gullible American people"

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              It's okay bud. You can call us homosexuals. You won't get written up for trying to blend in.

  2. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    good thread

  3. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    if you were wanting to have a giggle about a silly conspiracy that has no basis in reality, you're doing a really shitty job at it. You could've posted about sleep paralysis facesitters or meth immortality or solar plexus clown gliders

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >no new posters in thread
      nice try shlomo, pretending to be someone else is not going to change the fact of the matter

      • 8 months ago
        Anonymous

        >EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS ONE PERSON
        You still haven't taken your meds

        • 8 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the moon landing and round earth is real because we have photo evidence of it
          ok
          >your photo evidence of a nuked city being operational 3 days later is fake
          sounds like you have a loose screw. have you remembered to take your medications?

          • 8 months ago
            Anonymous

            >your photo evidence of a nuked city being operational 3 days later is fake
            When the fuck did I say this? Also there is clearly rubble in the background of the image
            Explain how an image of a streetcar in Hiroshima is supposed to debunk the bombing? I reverse searched your image and it was taken in September in 1945. Hiroshima was nuked early into August of that year, not "3 days after" you lying homosexual schizo
            https://www.life.com/history/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-photos-from-the-ruins/

            • 8 months ago
              Anonymous

              >functioning electrical grid
              >wooden poles standing
              >tree still has leaves on
              >zero birth defects from radiation
              well golly, i guess my wood cabin is going to be fine when world war 3 starts

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Probably because none of that shit was in the blast zone retard. And the "little boy" bomb is not like the fuckin tsar bomba

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                well heres another photo near ground zero. little boy was 15 kilotons, but i guess another 5 KT would of been enough to take down the Peace Memorial Building, or whatever you're going to spew next

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                funny how the shill stops replying when presented with this. makes you think

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because why bother? Your mind has been made up since before you started this discussion

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                That building looks destroyed enough. Plus all the surrounding building are debris

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://muse.jhu.edu/article/224008
                >On August 6, 1945, the building was 160 meters from the hypocenter of the atomic blast.
                >The building retained its appearance because the bomb exploded right above it.
                words from the utterly deranged

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                So you're telling me all the people inside that building were perfectly fine when the bomb went off? All of them survived without a scratch?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                no retard, its clear the city was attacked. but really? pic rel wasnt able to take down a building that was near the explosion?

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                The point of a bomb is to kill people. Did the bomb kill people? Yes? Then it did its job. I don't see the deal? Why are you claiming it didn't exist when clearly it did.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Why are you claiming it didn't exist when clearly it did.
                what clearly existed? the firebombing of hiroshima? yes that happened. the nuclear bombing of hiroshima? no that did not happen

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                Do you have proof Hiroshima was firebombed? Because even Japanese reports only a single plane dropped a single bomb.

              • 8 months ago
                Anonymous

                how would anyone see a single plane flying at 10km?

  4. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    The bomb didn’t destroy the whole city like a lot of people think. Much of it was still intact and at a certain range they only got minor burns. It was far weaker than modern nukes. But it’s obviously that it was a nuke by the fact that a large number of people blinded by the flash continued to live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki long after the bombs, some of which are still alive today, and it’s the reason Japanese government put so much effort into designing stuff for blind people. Like you’ll see some old woman who was 8 or 9 years old at the time walking around blind with a cane and you just know what probably happened to her. It’s sad. Conventional bombs don’t do that

    • 8 months ago
      Anonymous

      >. It was far weaker than modern nukes
      It's also that people don't really understand the square-cube law. A 20 kiloton bomb will generally do a lot less damage than 20,000 one ton bombs scattered more widely, even though they possess the same explosive force. Nukes are massive overkill unless you have a huge hardened target or you're willing to go into the double digit megaton range where you can really wipe out significant portions of a city in one go.

      And even then, you'd still probably need like a dozen W-59s (1 megaton bombs) to blow up a city the size of Moscow, and place them fairly precisely if you want to get a 20psi overpressure wave to cover the entire city.

  5. 8 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's all in this book bro. nuclear weapons are fake.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *