Do nuclear weapons even exist?
(i.ibb.co)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
So, are nuclear power plants full of little hamsters running on a wheel? Or is that fission reaction totally different to the same fission reaction of the same materials in bombs thats swaps out the neutron slowing and/or capture tech for reflectors which kicks off the chain reaction?
Critical thinking.
A nuke power plant produces energy via slow fission, i.e. the rods are brought online very slowly. This is probably real. An atom bomb on the other hand allegedly uses quick fission. Take a look at how basic the design was for the two bombs dropped on Japan compared to the lasers and all that shit that are apparently used today. You have to ask, how could it work? The big tell for me is the German nuclear program of the 1930s/40s. The best scientists in the world investigated heavy water but stopped short of trying to make an atom bomb. Why was this? Perhaps they knew it wouldn't work.
We've seen from the Russia / Ukraine war that the West has the best propaganda units in the world. They were the best in the 1940s too.
Rather than ridicule the idea that nukes don't exist, take a step back and ask the question: "If nukes DON'T exist, and we've been lied to, what are the ramifications?" Give it serious thought. And keep on coming back to it. A lot of pieces will fall into place.
BTW I've no doubt that dirty bombs are real. A high explosive core surrounded by finely milled plutonium will produce the same effect as a 'nuke' - big bang, mushroom cloud (all large conventional explosions have one) and detectable nuclear material spread over a blast zone. We couldn't make those in 1945 but we can now.
If you want to get technical about the physics, we can do that.
Here are the basics: nothing is 'online', online is not a state of matter, or of anything. Fission produces energy, as does fusion. This guy called einstein even figured out a famous equation to express the released energy, you have probably heard of it. As the names suggest, fission is a split which is easiest done to heavy elements (since their large atomic radius is at a distance where the short range 'strong' force is tapering off, making it inherently more unstable than lighter elements) , and fusion is a joining, done mainly to light elements since they are the easiest/lightest to smash together at speeds high enough to overcome the mutual repulsion and fuse. Both release energy, since the mass after is less than the mass before the reaction. Its the heat that makes bomb explosions hot, that gives the reactor 'coolant' their heat that is used to boil water and run turbines with steam. Easy.
We know of natural fission and fusion reactions, all going on without the aid of people. If fusion were not possible, the stars wouldnt be shining. If fission were not possible, well ive mentioned the reactor power plants, and there are also fission products found in rock formations that demonstrate isotopes typical of uranium reaction products - one such was found in Gabon.
Radiation is provable and measurable, both in EM form and alpha/beta particles. You can detect it, defract it, shield against it, deflect the charged particle types in fields, and so on.
So presumably radioactive decay is something believable, indicating other nuclear reactions like fission and fusion are also possible.
Where are the holes or gaps in the theory?
I just dont think the 'tells' are there that you assert. Supposedly Germany had a quantity of refined weapon grade material that was spirited away to the US after the war, operation-paperclip style. So did Japan, or at least the makings of research projects that would have led them down that same direction.
There could easily be a power source that is less dangerous than advertised. The plants clearly generate power. There is a man named Galen Winsor who testifies to having built nuclear power plants and explains how the perception of danger was artificially created, ratcheted up and designated as secret over time. His talks can be found on rumble, and YT (but harder to find on YT).
And yet, Olympic torch runners ran through the Fukushima area. 3-Mile Island has not produced mutations, nor has Chernobyl nor Hiroshima.
Lets say the danger hype was overstated. To what end? Wouldn't it be better for their industry if it was truly safe, could be demonstrated as such, and hence could be widespread without the concerns of meltdown, threat to nearby populations, and all that? Expressing needless danger is counter to their interests.
Japan is an interesting case because of the 3 cases you gave, its the most inhabited region. If there was no population-wide cancer spike post WW2, something that would be very easily measurable, I'd put it down to the heavy domestic consumption of seafood which is high in iodine. Which to some extent has probably primed their population to have higher resilience to long term genetic damage.
To what end? It gets to the heart of the current awakening, realizing that the folks running our government do not act as we assume they should, they did not act in good faith with our best interests in mind; instead, they are nasty and evil control freaks, using the citizenry as mere tools for their comfort.
If you change your perspective and theorize that they are not trying to benefit humanity but only themselves, it unfortunately makes perfect sense: they pretend it is dangerous in order to guarantee artificial scarcity, to monopolize an asset and to charge a hidden tax on the populace. Exactly like the planned obsolescence of light bulbs, DeBeers and their diamond cartel, or big pharma suppressing natural cures.
I won't pretend to have gone inside the power plants to be able to tell you exactly what is done inside. But I can tell you that Galen Winsor is logical and convincing, and he claims to have swum in the cooling pools of the power plants regularly. And the points in OP's graphic make sense. There are many common sense questions about nuclear energy and nuclear weapons to which the answers simply don't make sense.
A good common-sense case for it being a possible hoax, are written about here: https://decodingsymbols.wordpress.com/2021/09/08/nuclear-q/
I made a smaller tease with similar questions here: https://media.greatawakening.win/post/AqzGbvGdalHb.png (ignore the Geiger counter question- that was gratuitous on my part ... but even that is worth questioning if you read the thread.)
Anyway, there's more to nuclear power than what gets reported in our science classes and newspapers. By all means, come to your own conclusions.
Sorry for the wall of text response. I guess a more direct answer is: what would you do if you had free energy? And more importantly, what would the cabal do? Would they give it away and make the world a better place? It depends on what their interests truly are.
Thanks for all of your responses, having the luxury of civil wall-of-text debates is something rare enough that I treasure the moments! So no need to apologize.
Anyways, what we agree on in common is that there is shared interest of people with the levers of power to keep holding and hoarding that power, no matter what. If that can be done with deception, it surely will be.
simples the oil and gas lobby!
I guess there are science deniers out there lol, how could anyone think that they’re a hoax? Explain the Manhattan project