SH Archive Nuclear Weapons: do they exist or not?

[Magnetic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Magnetic
Date: 2019-02-19 16:26:37
Reaction Score: 6

Would you share some of your opinions? i find this interesting.
I'll start it off...
Intro for the simpsons, i am jumping ahead alot but it makes me smile

The nuclear bomb hoax has made a lot of money for defense contractors over the years in the hundreds of billions! The surprise that President Truman experienced when he told Stalin that America had a secret weapon where one bomb could destroy a whole city or army and Stalin did not bother to ask any questions which perplexed Truman. Stalin knew it was a hoax from Klaus Fuchs, a communist agent inside the Manhattan Project (aptly named for it was an advertising/propaganda machinery in NYC which was the driver). Stalin knew it was a hoax and a few years later made his own hoax bombs of mass destruction. The two different designs of the bombs defy known laws of material engineering...you cannot press uranium together with a physical explosion to get the run away neutron cascade to ignite the bomb. The lack of radiation in Japan and the fire bomb look of the bomb sites show it was not an atomic bomb. Follow the $$$$$.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-02-19 17:39:33
Reaction Score: 7

The philosophical implications about atomic bombs are interesting. After I found out that we are living in a small encapsulated world, it always irritated me that there would be something in the hands of the PTB that could simply destroy everything. I'm not even sure nuclear reactors work the way as advertized.

The hoax makes people believe in a world full of chaos and without a higher meaning, and it goes together with the lie that we are living on a planet racing through the empty universe.

The biggest myths about life are all a hoax: Planets, the universe, atomic bombs, radiation as dangerous (they have to demonize it because it's endless energy. I bet there are a couple of contraditions here Economics of nuclear power plants - Wikipedia), life ending with death, life-after-death as a one way street, society as ever-progressing, etc.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Prawda
Date: 2019-02-20 14:56:30
Reaction Score: 5

Yes, they exist. At the same time, they do not.

That answer may seem contradictory on the surface, but it depends on perspective.

9/11 happened exactly as we are told. Oswald shot Kennedy. The Holocaust happened.
At the same time, there were no planes, Kennedy's head flew backward when it should have flown forward, and there are windows in gas chambers.

We have been gifted with sight; we see through this 3D play of life, but when we show others holographic planes, they cannot see.

We struggle to make sense of such dichotomy, but it is very simple. When people died on 9/11, it was only their bodies, not their souls. Souls are eternal. We see things spiritually, but we don't realize that; we try to make sense of it cognitively, and it does not work.

This may not resonate with anyone, and I struggle to find words to explain it, but perhaps that is because this realization is supposed to be an innerstanding, not an understanding; it is supposed to come from within, not without.

This is the most real thing I've read. Very good!

One has to ask themselves about nukes, why are we scared of these again? How long have they been around for?

We have staged events like Cuba in the 60s, but beyond that, how many terrorist attacks with nukes have there been? Zero.

How many times have our psychotic killers we call our leadership, used these nukes? Zero.

If these bombs were a real threat, we'd have been a smoking cinder long ago.

And don't get me started on Israel's "secret" nuclear missile bunker or whatever it is. It's so top secret and high security a guy not only snuck a camera in, but he was able to wander around and take photos willy nilly! What a joke..and we took the bait, as usual.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ISeenItFirst
Date: 2019-02-20 19:26:47
Reaction Score: 1

This is the most real thing I've read. Very good!

One has to ask themselves about nukes, why are we scared of these again? How long have they been around for?

We have staged events like Cuba in the 60s, but beyond that, how many terrorist attacks with nukes have there been? Zero.

How many times have our psychotic killers we call our leadership, used these nukes? Zero.

If these bombs were a real threat, we'd have been a smoking cinder long ago.

And don't get me started on Israel's "secret" nuclear missile bunker or whatever it is. It's so top secret and high security a guy not only snuck a camera in, but he was able to wander around and take photos willy nilly! What a joke..and we took the bait, as usual.

Umm, there have been LOTS of nuke terr. Ataks.
OKC, Bali nightclub,911, Saudi embassy, Chernobyl, etc, on and on and on.

There have been many, once you know what to look for, the signature is obvious.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Prawda
Date: 2019-02-20 22:42:11
Reaction Score: 3

Umm, there have been LOTS of nuke terr. Ataks.
OKC, Bali nightclub,911, Saudi embassy, Chernobyl, etc, on and on and on.

There have been many, once you know what to look for, the signature is obvious.

How was 9/11 a nuclear attack? Did the CGI planes contain nuclear material?

Since when was Chernobyl a nuclear attack? And what are the "on and on and ons" on speak of?

Last I checked on Wikipedia, it doesn't list any terrorist attacks with nuclear weapons. This is something that would be listed there, and televised. Show us the details?

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: ISeenItFirst
Date: 2019-02-21 04:25:00
Reaction Score: 6

How was 9/11 a nuclear attack? Did the CGI planes contain nuclear material?

Since when was Chernobyl a nuclear attack? And what are the "on and on and ons" on speak of?

Last I checked on Wikipedia, it doesn't list any terrorist attacks with nuclear weapons. This is something that would be listed there, and televised. Show us the details?

Oh yeah, it's well known among the right circles.

No, the planes (If they were there, which I doubt, but not important to the true story, only that people thought they were) did not contain any weapons, but many people were meant to think they did. There was one at the other site though, which although intentionally disabled, was meant to further convince that there were 2 additional devices lodged 1200 or so feet above our biggest city. I could even tell you what specific devices they were, and where they came from, but it's better for you to discover on your own. The devices that were called into service that day, have been there since the late 70s.

Look, I'm not gonna pull the pics and show it all, but all of the evidence is there. I've said more than I really want to already. There are certain words used in the news and in wiki that are signals to those in those circles, to know the type of device. There are extortion and power plays involved at the highest levels.

Just look at any location referred to as ground zero. Ground zero only had ONE definition prior to 2001. Where you find a ground zero, you find the location of a nuke blast.

Don't trust the dictionary either, they've been reprinted and swapped out, but if you have an old one, printed (as in YOU purchased it or had it in your possession, not just a copywriter date, almost all libraries have already been swapped) PRIOR to 2001, check the definition of ground zero. There is ONLY one definition, prior to 2001. Ground zero is one of those key words to signal those in the know.

Check the evidence, the burn patterns of victims, the burn patterns of the surroundings, the witness reports, the ongoing responder damage (victims fund anyone? Insane, rates of radiation caused cancers, orders of magnitude above the general population). Look at the decontamination procedures put into place on site, and the agencies responsible.

Look at what previous devices did to the same or similar structures, and calculate how much fertilizer it would have taken (even if purified, we are talking hundreds of tons to do the damage shown).

Once you understand the differences in the effects between conventional and otherwise, and look at the evidence carefully, you will see that there can be no other answer.

I'm sure you have some questions, that you believe would refute this hypothesis, and I likely will not answer them here, but suffice to say, they are answers, technical, specific answers, which answer those questions. Look into it with an open mind, and I am sure you will find the pieces fit together like a wall at machu pichu.

The NY one was different from the others for a variety of reasons, but once you start to see the signs, you can not look at these events and Not see it.

 

[wizz33]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: wizz33
Date: 2019-02-24 03:44:43
Reaction Score: 1

VT Proving Again that Nuclear Weapons Are Your Friend | Veterans Today | Military Foreign Affairs Policy Journal for Clandestine Services

a collection of nuke attacks

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: maco144
Date: 2019-03-04 16:05:41
Reaction Score: 1

The whole nuclear power and weapons has all the same features of standard big money fear hoaxes. Others have touched on it but there's no way that nuclear power exists the way we are told these plants operate. Nuclear plants most likely operate as the electrical grids dump load. All the info and arguments you'll ever need to convince yourself of the hoax I discovered on the Nuke Lies part of Big Lies forum / website

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2019-03-04 16:49:17
Reaction Score: 1

If there's no nukes or nuclear radiation/fallout, what pings the Geiger counters? They don't ping post dynamite explosions. Not trying to be contrary, just seeking info.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: maco144
Date: 2019-03-04 17:38:41
Reaction Score: 1

If there's no nukes or nuclear radiation/fallout, what pings the Geiger counters? They don't ping post dynamite explosions. Not trying to be contrary, just seeking info.

There are a variety of radiations eg alpha, beta, gamma, neutron each with their distinct danger, distance can travel, penetrating power, etc. Neutron is the most serious/dangerous. However neutron is only emitted through nuclear reaction, their existence is short as they quickly decay (but can cause decaying chain reactions in other elements). Geiger counters do not measure neutron radiation, the technique used is best suited to measuring beta radiation. Beta radiation is essentially just a free electron or positron. There are numerous sources of electrons flying around us all the time, not just nuclear! Essentially putting stock in a geiger counter to tell you how dangerous the radiation is in an area is a rather primitive and ineffective way to tell what is going on and how dangerous it is.

I hope that is reasonably clear. I am very much a novice when it comes to understanding all that's occurring when discussing radiation.

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2019-03-04 18:14:34
Reaction Score: 9

Thanks for the explanation. We had some training in the various types of radiation in nursing school because people get radium implants for cancer (which seems completely asinine to me). Those that had implants got no more than 15 minutes/8hours of a nurses time. Of course, other people could go in the room but nobody was allowed to stay longer than 15 minutes per an 8 hour period. When the person was discharged from the hospital there was a special crew to come in and clean the room before anyone else could be admitted. Always wondered how you could just "scrub off radiation" from the walls but the cleaning crews never answered my questions. When I asked about wearing lead aprons when going into the rooms I was told that they actually attract the radiation to you and are not recommended. None of the information I received made a lick of sense to me.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: PrimalRed
Date: 2019-03-07 01:49:30
Reaction Score: 15

Wow- can’t believe I missed this thread- one of my favorite conspiracy “theories”.

Atomic reactions release pure heat. The huge mushroom clouds you see are from stacks of TnT blowing up- as evidenced by the large columns of unburnt hydrocarbons as the reaction struggles for oxygen. Fissile reactions release no such chemical byproducts.

Furthermore, the explosions you see in popular videos are orange/red. The color temperature of a supposed uncontrolled exponential fissile reaction would be bluish purple- as nitrogen turns into plasma in the atmosphere due to the extreme temperature. Similar to bolts of lightning.

And of course- the impossibility of the bombs even working. During the manhattan project, 2/3 of the top nuclear physicists and mathematicians in the world agreed it was impossible for an uncontrolled exponential fissile reaction to even take place. Neutrons from fission travel waaaay too fast to split an atom- they need a moderator to slow them down. Think of high speed rifles piercing right through a target vs a slow heavy impact from a sawed off shotgun that sends the target flying 20 feet. It’s the same kinetic principle of ballistics at work. At the time of WW2 they required an entire warehouse of graphite just to create sustained fissile reaction, let alone an uncontrolled exponential one. What were the neutron moderator mechanisms in Fat Man and Little Boy? None. Sprinkling some beryllium powder does not a neutron moderator make.

You can’t just slap two pieces of uranium together and get an exponential fissile reaction. At most the metal will get hot. You also can’t “implode” plutonium. Metal is one of the most compact materials in existence- you can’t just compress it into a little ball. The atomic forces separating the nuclei is astronomically strong. The entire plutonium implosion is impossible. On top of that, they couldn’t even get the triggering device to work on the night before Trinity. It’s a LOT more difficult than it sounds to get multiple pieces of explosives to detonate at the exact same instant, which was required for their implosion theory to work.

As KD already mentioned, Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed all signed of being firebombed. Paint on railings, trees standing, signs hanging, flimsy shacks still up- all in “ground zero” where the temperature should have reached a million degrees C. Lol.

It’s also been stated through medical studies of Japanese birth defects that there was no significant change after the bombings in spite of “radioactive fallout.”

I’d definitely call this one “case closed”

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: maco144
Date: 2019-03-07 04:27:46
Reaction Score: 2

Great post PrimalRed! There are so many reasons why the entire idea of nuclear weapons & power (as presented) is a hoax that the absurdity of each detail involved becomes overwhelming comical.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2019-03-07 07:59:49
Reaction Score: 8

Here's an interesting excerpt from a book: • Chilean Ambassador: Nukes Don't Exist

1994, (West) Germany, I'm sitting in a room in the house of a German Scientist. His wife and few friends are present too.
It's hard for me to believe the revelations I just heard. This people are atomic scientists, their research takes place in the most advanced center of the country, maybe the most specialized that exists in the world.
They just told me "The atomic bomb does not exist".
[...]
"And the French explosions in Bikini atoll?" I asked. "Underwater explosions".
[...]
I insist on arguing.
"I've been Ambassador of my country to the International Atomic Energy Agency, based on Vienna and I had acquired 'enriches uranium' for the experimental Chilean reactor."
"And you, have seen that uranium?"
"Truly...No. Tell me, all your colleagues think like you in the experimental research center? Do all believe the atomic bomb does not exist?"
"Only fifty per cent. Half of them"

Manhattanproject could have been a cover up to really find out how the Nazis managed to discover the ability to create anti-gravity tech and black holes.

In general my current understanding is as follows:

• Nuclear weapons are a pure hoax
• Nuclear energy production is extremely simple and provides abundant energy, but they don't want us to have practically free energy, which means the atomic reactors are being artificially made extremely expensive, sucking up enourmous amounts of tax payers money. The reason there is no real research into new forms of reactors is that no one really needs new ones, because the old ones work perfectly fine.
• Radiation itself is beneficial in low doses, and low risk in high doses, and all negative effects can be mitigated by anti-oxidants. Chernobyl has been safe already a year after the disaster and today 95% of the disaster zone is clean. The animals thrive: Animals Rule Chernobyl Three Decades After Nuclear Disaster, Only a very small number of people died, and everyone who died had extreme exposure directly after the incident at ground zero. Nowadays malnutrition, stress and toxins are making people die in Chernobyl, which is being attributed to radiation. But even so-called radiation sickness symptoms are simply stress symptoms. The people who stayed in Chernobyl are healthy. It has been noted even by so-called experts that the evacuation after Fukushima caused hundreds of deaths due to the stress of existential threat, but if everyone would have just stayed there, nothing would have happened.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: datagram1
Date: 2019-03-13 00:50:06
Reaction Score: 12

Imagine a tree on fire being filmed a long time ago vs today. It will look the same in the old footage as it does today, it may be low resolution, black and white, a lower frame rate but it is the same fire. If you compare footage from early explosions to present day they look radically different, you never see the source of the explosion, it is usually some ground being blown up. If you realize the early film is faked and the later films are just better fakes the game is up. The early fakes are terrible from lava lamps, minatures, fake perspective to shining lights down the camera lens to get the flash. You reach face palm territory quickly when you see it, catch one fake and they all must be fakes. Reminds me of NASA, bubbles in space anyone?

I ask people when they see a brick built house get nuked in a rock steady overhead shot right in front of the camera - So what did they make the camera out of?

Lets add here that things go 'big bada boom' there are massive explosive(s) and missiles that carry them. Nuclear weapons as explained to be the overwhelmingly devastating firepower on one missile don't exist. Pick an excuse from Aliens to mutually assured destruction to plain mechanical failure; nukes can't be used, excuses can.

Nukes actually were a humane solution to a problem they weren't needed to solve. That sounds a little weird but hang in there... An agreement was reached while drinking Manhattens that to stop Japanese people fighting to the death there needed to be an unstoppable weapon unleashed on the people that would end the war. The japanese could keep their emperor and their honour; the war would end. The nuke never needed to exist but people needed to believe it did. TNT was planted in a building and detonated, fire bombing was used on the surrounding wooden buildings. There was a big explosion but you don't see a nuclear crater and the stone buildings nearby are left standing. (search the mushroom cloud that wasn't) Few people know about the leaflets that were dropped to try and convince the Japanese that they had been nuked and not firebombed. (search Japan nuke leaflets). Obviously the lack of radiation, quick city rebuilding, plants growing, people returning doesn't match up with supposed nuclear fallout. There is a lesser known film of a massive TNT stack being built at the manhatten project to give the visitors an explosion if the never tested bomb fails.

When you get stuck in a lie there seems to be no getting out of it and nukes went from there. Our parasites made a fortune out of the scam both in the production of the missiles and waste disposal. It is fair to assume the waste disposal mob are filling a proportion of the nuclear waste barrels with dead bodies. (see video earlier in this thread on waste scam). Who would want to go in and check the barrels for bodies?

*Video Footnote: Watch between 0:17 and 0:19 as they make the cut. The cars instantly vanish and another car appears at the bottom. They cut to the minature. You can see a more recent photo of the original house still standing at the bottom of this post. Note the internal scenes fade before you see anything and they added sound fx, how are they not overloading the mic with all that air pressure?

 

[Citezenship]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2019-04-07 19:36:41
Reaction Score: 1

Here is a decent write up about this topic.

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://mileswmathis.com/bikini.pdf

 

[AthroposRex]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: AnthroposRex
Date: 2019-06-18 12:56:25
Reaction Score: 1

S

Nuke power is very efficient, which is why I suspect the constant railing against it. It can also be incredibly safe and have minimal to no waste in a properly designed reactor. I'm partial to LFTR as it makes use of existing waste streams for rare earths and has several fail-safes by nature of it's function.

So here's how a conventional nuke plant in general works. You have an enriched, subcritical radioactive material (fuel) emitting neutrons. It is placed in a pressure chamber with something called a moderator, typically water. The moderator's job is to slow the outgoing neutrons so they have a greater chance of knocking more neutrons out. This creates a chain reaction with more and more slowed-down neutrons displacing others. Slowing the neutrons down means the energy has to go somewhere. That energy is also absorbed by the moderator (water) as heat. In these systems, the water also acts as a coolant. The high pressure, superheated water moderator/coolant is then pumped through a heat exchanger (think the radiator in your car or water heater in your house) where the heat energy is passed off to the water in the second loop. The second loop is under lower pressure and the water can become steam. The pressure of this steam forces its way through a turbine and turns a generator, producing power. The steam then continues to a condensation stage where it is cooled and condenses back into water to make the trip again.

So you have two separate, closed loops of water. The primary (moderator/coolant) and secondary (steam generation). The water in the primary doesn't really become radioactive despite the exposure because the elements in water aren't especially susceptible to the neutrons being released by the fuel. More often, it carries traces of radioactive material from the fuel or the metals of the pressure vessel and piping. The secondary is never even exposed to neutrons at all and has no way to become radioactive.

Very strict protocols are in place as the fuel does need to be refreshed in conventional reactors. You also have to consider that these operations take place every few years, so the number of possible exposures and accidents is miniscule compared to coal and oil. For an example of the types of things that can go wrong here, you'd look at Hiroshi Ouchi and the Tokaimura accident. As ISeenItFirst mentioned, newer conventional reactors using heavy water, like CANDU, don't require much enriched material at all which further minimizes anyone involved at the facility dying or being exposed.

So, in other words, it's a fancy way to make steam power? Is our newest invention the steam engine?

 

[Whitewave]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: whitewave
Date: 2019-06-18 13:29:48
Reaction Score: 2

Nuke power is very efficient, which is why I suspect the constant railing against it. It can also be incredibly safe and have minimal to no waste in a properly designed reactor. I'm partial to LFTR as it makes use of existing waste streams for rare earths and has several fail-safes by nature of it's function.

Just in my lifetime there has been the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukishima disasters. I don't think nuclear is safe at all. When something goes wrong with nuclear power, it's a long-term disaster. Fukishima is STILL poisoning the entire Pacific over 6 year later! I don't think the damage is going to stay in the Pacific either.

 

[Citezenship]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2019-06-18 14:11:54
Reaction Score: 3

Just in my lifetime there has been the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukishima disasters. I don't think nuclear is safe at all. When something goes wrong with nuclear power, it's a long-term disaster. Fukishima is STILL poisoning the entire Pacific over 6 year later! I don't think the damage is going to stay in the Pacific either.

This is one of the things that bothers me, If it blows up it will kill everything in a 30 miles radius and nothing will be able to live there for 100 years, but yet chernobyl seems to be a veritable paradise for all the local wildlife and fauna, same with fukushima, have a look on google earth and look back through the historic images, same story here. Let me just say that again it will kill everything within thirty miles and nothing will be able to grow for a hundred years!

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: eddie
Date: 2019-06-18 14:16:06
Reaction Score: 2

Just in my lifetime there has been the Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukishima disasters. I don't think nuclear is safe at all. When something goes wrong with nuclear power, it's a long-term disaster. Fukishima is STILL poisoning the entire Pacific over 6 year later! I don't think the damage is going to stay in the Pacific either.

That's according to The Narrative. Galen Windsor said Three Mile Island was completely fake. They need to have these disasters every now and then to make sure people stay afraid of both nuclear bombs and the cheap energy that is nuclear power.

And what are the effects of the Pacific being poisoned? Has there been a single case of someone finding radiation in fish or something? As far as I can tell the practical effects of this poisoning have been nothing.