So just a few short weeks ago there was talk and and panic about New York prepping for a nuclear fallout type of incident. Now with the narrative that President Trump had the nuclear codes or whatever, one must ponder the possibility that they are getting ready for their false flag event involving nuclear weapons...
I really hope I am over thinking this...
They could be. But considering the millions of historical accounts thereof, no it's not that likely. They use nukes as a fear porn tool, no doubt there, but the science is fairly easy to understand and follow. Remember, we use nuclear power so it does exist.
As far as an actual weapon goes, they are probably the dumbest one man ever came up with. Yeah we can decimate our enemies, but in the process we make their lands unlivable and therefore unconquerable... sounds like a shit deal all around.
Maybe. I haven't made up my mind. And I'm talking about weaponized fusion, not power generating fission.
Have you ever compared photos of Dresden and Tokyo (phosphorous fire bombings) with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? They look identical. Concrete structures all standing, even at "ground zero", wood/paper all burned away. You'd never be able to differentiate between the two if I showed you pictures without telling you where they were from.
Did you know that food vendors were back on the streets in Hiroshima 2 days after the bombings? And they were clearing out the debris and rebuilding within a week of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki? So much for radiation fallout, eh?
Did you know nobody was allowed to take photos at Nagasaki and Hiroshima except for two guys, both with the OSS (former CIA)? And that the OSS is who released all known photos of both? Zero independent sources.
Have you ever watched the government released videos of nuclear bomb explosions? Loaded with obvious forkery and CGI (like clouds not moving). Other government videos of nuke tests are obvious tiny models, but passed off as legit.
Have you seen the guy who says he worked within the US nuclear power plants for 20+ years and used to drink the water and bathe in the nuclear rod reactor pools? I wonder why he would make all that up?
Did you know we spent over $2 billion dollars on the Manhattan project, which is probably equivalent to $2 trillion in todays fiat currency. That's a lot of time, money, energy and resources spent on something that was never guaranteed to work in the first place. Would our government be open to admitting that it was all a giant waste or would you expect them to whip up some propaganda to reassure the people that it was all worth it in the end?
It occurs to me that everything we know about nuclear bombs is 100% government provided, whether us or the Soviet Union. And the US taxpayer paid for the entire Soviet regime all the way through 1992 (See "The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" by Antony Sutton). So the cold war was also pure propaganda. Fear, layered on fear, wrapped in fear.
Basically my position today is, I haven't seen any convincing facts, but instead, mountains of government propaganda, much of it provably fake. In a nutshell, where there's smoke there's fire.
I'm just surprised more people here don't pause and think it through a bit, especially after all the lies and deceptions being uncovered on a daily basis.
What was the name of the nuclear guy you talk about? I remember seeing a video of him years ago. Saying it he used to carry two pieces of reactive material of he exact same size, in either pocket on each side of his lab coat. Because he knew he was the only thing stopping the critical mass. Dwight gayler? Or something along those lines
Galen Windsor. Here's his presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZ8WsEHX1B0
Thank you fren. That name has evaded me for quite some time
The book 'War Against Goyim' by Chris Caskie offers a lot of sources to backup the claim of nukes being an illusion, such as:
Hiroshima revisited by Michael Palmer
Nuke Lies forum
Death Object: Exploding The Nuclear Weapons Hoax by Akio Nakatani
Excellent shares my friend. It seems there are still quite a few not yet ready to entertain this idea. I've read Palmer's book and visited the "Nuke Lies" forum but had never heard of Nakatani's book. I just ordered it and look forward to adding it to my stack of red pill books!
Cooling pools of water never touch radioactive material, FYI. You also just separated "fusion based weapons and power generating fission", and then brought nuclear power into the discussion again. Which is it? We already know that water in nuclear power plants is recycled, as it's literally only there for its thermal conductivity, like water cooling a graphics card or processor. It doesn't touch anything radioactive.
Unfortunately, there has been too much sensational bullshit about nuclear weapons. The fact that there is no evidence to confirm the bullshit does not mean that the evidence disproves the reality.
There are differences between firestorms and a nuclear event. For example, there are flash shadows visible on walls of buildings where the outlines of people are shown. That happens only with a hellish illumination from the bomb fireball. My father saw these at the ruins of Nagasaki. I think there would be other differences due to blast effects far from the epicenter. But why bother with speculative nonsense? The bombing crews witnessed the detonations.
Yes, Hiroshima was back in running order (to some extent) within days or weeks. This is true of any devastated city. Building reconstruction takes longer. Fallout went elsewhere, and it wasn't much or very debilitating.
Compare photos with eyewitness recollections. My dad saw it and described it. The photos are consistent with his description. There is no evidence that the photos were fake (is what you are implying).
No fakery with the nuclear test photos. (The Peter Kuran video "Trinity and Beyond" is the best.) You have to be able to sort out the high-speed photos from the others. The fireball moves pretty fast. But there is no abnormality about the clouds not moving. Why should they? They don't move during volcanic eruptions of magnitudes comparable to a nuclear detonation (e.g., Mount St. Helens). The bomb detonation creates a pressure wave, but not a bulk movement of the whole atmosphere. No tiny models of buildings being blown away. You are confused by the lighting conditions and the fact that the filming is high-speed, so the initial illumination seems dark.
I don't know who you are referring to who evidently did swim in a "swimming pool" reactor, but there is no harm in doing so, if you don't linger for hours. There is a lot of fear porn conditioning out there regarding radiation and radioactivity.
The Manhattan Project succeeded, proving the utility of two different fission bomb construction approaches. Your alternatives are both false. "Weaponized fusion" (the H-bomb) was demonstrated by the U.S. in 1952. No fake. An order of magnitude more powerful than the fission process.
The theory of nuclear reactions is an open subject. Read a text on nuclear engineering to get some idea. Then read "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons" by Glasstone to get some insight into how they work and what they do. Everything we know about jet aircraft originally came from the government. Does this mean that our jetliners are figments of our imagination?
I see you conclude with radical skepticism. Your argument can be summarized (in my view) as: "I don't know shit about this subject, so anything said about it is also shit." With that attitude, and limiting yourself to internet gossip, you will never learn anything.
How and why do you suppose that is? It seems to me that radioactive fallout is the #1 nightmare we've been sold when it comes to nuclear bombs. So the only two that have ever been known to be used produced virtually no harmful radiation? That seems highly suspicious to me and supports the argument that perhaps these were just different types of fire bombings.
I didn't imply any photos were fake. I suggested the aftermath damages of the Dresden and Tokyo fire bombings looked the same as those of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. So much so, you basically couldn't tell the difference unless you were intimately aware of the city structure and layout prior to.
As to models, some of the examples I've seen were clearly tiny models. I'm not saying all of them were, but some.
Galen Windsor. I think "fear porn" is all we've ever heard when it comes to radioactivity. Windsor suggests exactly that. And this is the basis of the questions I'm asking. The "vaporization" of anything within the blast radius is one highly questionable aspect. But far bigger is the idea that the entire region is going to be radioactive for 50 kajillion years is the much more frightening aspect. Neither of which quite OBVIOUSLY occurred at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which begs the question...
A false association isn't going to get us anywhere...weak analogy and suggesting such leads me to believe you're not an honest broker here.
You've now destroyed any chance of having a healthy debate with comments like this in the last two paragraphs. Cya later...
The reason that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "back in the running" was because the fallout threat has been overblown for over half a century. There is fallout and one should have a healthy concern about it. But if the prevailing winds blows it out to the ocean, hardly anyone will have a problem. This is why they situated the big nuclear tests out there. The only problem arose when a Japanese fishing boat happened to be in the fallout zone of one test, and the crew got a strong exposure. You will have to get used to the reality of nuclear weapons, not the Urban Myths. I am serious about "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons." It can be bought from Amazon. Read it. There are lots of interesting facts about such devices. (You will learn about the dual flash from the fireball.)
The photos don't show the blast damage very well, which would have been absent from the firebombing results (which would have burnt most of the structure anyway). The flash shadows of victims are not possible with firebombing. Anyway, as I said, the bomber crews witnessed the flashes and had to get the hell away from the shock wave. One bomber to accomplish what 279 bombers in Operation Meetinghouse did to Tokyo? That's the difference between nuclear weapons and saturation fire bombing.
No tiny models. There is no practical way to simulate the blast effects with models. You are being misled by the lighting conditions, I expect (dark background). You have to realize that these films were taken at very high speed with a very stopped down aperture to prevent the film from being saturated by exposure to the fireball light. Under those conditions, ambient daylight looks like the dark of night. Conventional structure looks flimsy when blown apart with a shock wave, but that is reality. Do you think it is any stronger in the face of a tornado that rips it to shreds in real time? Atmospheric pressure is about a ton per square foot. Differential pressures of even small amounts can develop huge forces against walls and blow them away.
The nukes/jets analogy is exact. Everything we know about nuclear weapons comes from the government. Everything we know about jet aircraft comes from the government. There is no more reason to doubt the existence of nuclear weapons than there is to doubt the existence of jet aircraft. I don't know what you mean by "honest broker," but I am certainly telling the truth. I have had 40 years as a weapons and aerospace vehicle engineer, and my interest is to dispel stupidity and fortify understanding.
You don't like my candid assessment of your intellectual position, so rather than deal with it like an adult, you take your marbles and leave the game. I dislike doing that, so here I am, willing to answer questions or clarify points. You have to realize that what you have accepted as "truth" about nuclear weapons has been pacifist fear porn conditioning. You say you question everything---except the fear porn. If someone says the porn is bogus, you are so attached to it that you accuse the nay-sayer of being a "dishonest broker." Those of us in the industry know that it is impossible for nuclear weapons to wipe out life on Earth---albeit, they could make life pretty miserable for some nations for years. (But even Germany recovered from the widespread devastation of World War II in a decade.) No harm to get back in the game and learn. You might have to question your porn, however.
It doesn't matter if nukes exist or not. Devastating bombs definitely exist so enough with this forum sliding nonsense.
There's a world of difference. If you can't understand that, you should head on back to Twitter where things are easy to understand and their fear and judgment threads never get slid so you're able to keep up.
What I understand is that you're a forum sliding shill who doesn't believe in nuclear reactors and bombs. Which is hilarious.
Nuclear power is just a really expensive steam engine.
That doesn't run out of fuel for decades on end.
It doesn't make land unlivable. Check out the present-day Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have swallowed too much anti-nuke Kool-Aid.