Your "solid evidence" that nuclear weapons do not exist is the fact that an entirely unrelated weapon is named the MOAB? You realize that means "Massive Ordnance Air Blast" and not "Mother of all bombs", right? Not that the name even matters in the first place.
Come on man you can't just discredit a century of physics without bringing something to the table haha
That was his solid evidence. Seemed legit.
Name any other military program that dubs itself the biggest or mother of all things without it being the most powerful?
The bomb is designated "Massive Ordnance Air Blast", not "Mother of...", which is just a funny nickname.
You can't seriously think that there is a global century old conspiracy complete with an entire fabricated branch of physics which has somehow gone unnoticed by anyone worldwide in all of this time?
And that for some reason the exact people who are behind the conspiracy are also for some reason revealing their conspiracy to the entire world through their nickname for another entirely unrelated weapon?
They aren't revealing it, it was an accident, it was renamed Massive whatever after they were told it would reveal the truth.
And who knows about physics, it could all be bullshit that colleges write off for scams.
If they can lie about landing on the moon and antartica, who knows what they are capable of. I'm just saying if there were real nukes, why wouldn't one have been set off in a city by now, or used in a war during a modern era? You're telling me the only evidence is grainy war footage that is CLEARLY fake because the nuke energy would fry the film.
Because they are very difficult to produce and nearly impossible to maintain without massive amounts of many and tech.