SH Archive Nuclear Weapons: do they exist or not?

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-05-14 20:28:08
Reaction Score: 7

I read the first three pages and then skipped to here so that I could inject my thoughts in to this topic.
What I think (presently) is based on what I also now think I understand about the forces of nature, and the way the system works to prevent knowledge from being accessible to the public: Thus any information about the way these weapons work is almost certain to be wildly innacurate.

I think there are weapons which can produce these effects. It's just that they aren't producing the effects by the same means advertised. You cannot allow yourselves to think that a system which lies about virtually everything else is going to tell you the real science behind this sort of weapon system. The only way to prevent that is by corruption of the science itself. Part of the reasoning behind this may well be that making powerful weapons might not be as difficult as it's made out to be if only you have the right knowledge.

Because it's in this thread I also want to point out that an electron microscope can only see dead things encased in metal. It cannot see living tissue. An important distinction to understand.

I'd like to say that a multiple weapons based attack on 9/11 is supported by the amassed evidence. It wasn't just one weapon system, it was several, and together these were employed to produce a plausible explanation for the results of the advertised hijack collision pancaking of the buildings, and that's what the evidence really shows. I suspect no less than 2 primary weapons were employed with a probable 1 or more others, and at least other 2 pyrotechnical accessory agents.

At least one of the primary weapons is unknown and produced previously unknown damage but which are mirrored by hutchinson effects, including antigravitational effects on vehicles at least several blocks away, liquefication of steel beams, pulverization of metal and concrete, incendiary liquefication of iron core engine motor blocks as though heated by magnetic induction, and others previously unrecorded. Now as far as I know crashed airplanes, even airliners, have never been known to produce such effects. I read at least one personal account from a first responder whom stated that the entire team in front of him simply vaporized/vanished. Again, not likely to be the result of any known weapon system.

 

[fabiorem]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: fabiorem
Date: 2020-05-14 21:31:23
Reaction Score: 2

As much as I hate the current "scientific" establishment, I have to say nukes, and nuclear power, are real. And I believe they have been used in 9/11. I remember a website back then, which reported nuclear radiation in the area, but then this site was taken down.
The problem is that nuclear explosions came to be associated with the mushroom cloud, so people believe its always like that, but I think there are different kinds of explosions, as there are different types of isotopes to work with. Also, nuclear disasters have caused more damage than nuclear explosions, so the so-called "deterrent" might be exaggerated.

 

[dreamtime]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: dreamtime
Date: 2020-05-14 21:40:03
Reaction Score: 2

As much as I hate the current "scientific" establishment, I have to say nukes, and nuclear power, are real. And I believe they have been used in 9/11. I remember a website back then, which reported nuclear radiation in the area, but then this site was taken down.
The problem is that nuclear explosions came to be associated with the mushroom cloud, so people believe its always like that, but I think there are different kinds of explosions, as there are different types of isotopes to work with. Also, nuclear disasters have caused more damage than nuclear explosions, so the so-called "deterrent" might be exaggerated.

I, too, think there was some kind of nuclear explosion involved in 9/11. I also think that conventional atomic bombs do not exist.

The people who did this actually failed to hide it, as the name 'Ground Zero' slipped through. Before 9/11, this name was always reserved for nuclear detonation sites. After 9/11, the facts in the encoclypedias slowly began to change so that the definition of the word is now a bit broader.

The german physicist Heinz Pommer developed the Ground Zero model of 9/11, explaining the details of the nuclear reaction involved.

Shortly after 9/11, officials were running through Manhattan, measuring radiation levels, and this was officially unrelated to 9/11.

But the surprising thing is that with the nuclear explosion used in 9/11, the radiation was extremely short-lived. After a couple days it wasn't really detectable any longer, above the ground. The radiation pulverized the tower from within, but most of the energy disappeared directly afterwards, and the damage stayed localized to the tower.

The water basins they have on the ground zero site today are for cooling the nuclear reactors that are still in the earth to this day.

The idea by Pommer is that the two atomic bombs were put down there at the same time when the towers were built. Because it's almost imposible to put them there afterwards.

 

[feralimal]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Feralimal
Date: 2020-05-14 21:50:37
Reaction Score: 1

911 looks like a controlled demolition.

It's possible that "nukes" are also faked by the same means as actual demolitions, so they could look similar.

 

[Citezenship]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2020-05-14 21:52:55
Reaction Score: 3

As much as I hate the current "scientific" establishment, I have to say nukes, and nuclear power, are real. And I believe they have been used in 9/11. I remember a website back then, which reported nuclear radiation in the area, but then this site was taken down.
The problem is that nuclear explosions came to be associated with the mushroom cloud, so people believe its always like that, but I think there are different kinds of explosions, as there are different types of isotopes to work with. Also, nuclear disasters have caused more damage than nuclear explosions, so the so-called "deterrent" might be exaggerated.

I, too, think there was some kind of 'nuclear bomb' involved in 9/11. I also think that conventional atomic bombs do not exist.

The people who did this actually failed to hide it, as the name 'Ground Zero' slipped through. Before 9/11, this name was always reserved for nuclear detonation sites. After 9/11, the facts in the encoclypedias slowly began to change so that the definition of the word is now a bit broader.

The german physicist Heinz Pommer developed the Ground Zero model of 9/11, explaining the details of the nuclear reaction involved.

There is no doubt that the weapon used was not what we would call conventional, the planes should have pancaked on the towers not the other way around, the strange way it burned for weeks(maybe it had a reactor in its basement), melted rock and that strange stratification that makes it look like the rainbow rocks, all the twisted, melted and burned metal suggest something like in the Cali fires, same results no!

 

[Magnetic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Magnetic
Date: 2020-05-14 23:29:03
Reaction Score: 7

Until I examined the Cali fires, fires in Britain, and other unusual fires, I could not put the Towers destruction's method into focus: it was unique in the way it collapsed and was destroyed. There was nothing to compare it too that was remotely like it. 911 was a one off event that had many layers of deceptions with the most obvious being the airplane brought it down theory: easily disproved. Then after the shock and awe wore off years later, various disinfo theories were presented such as controlled demolition with conventional explosive weapons. Of course there were many problems with this since 2/3 of the towers disappeared and only 1/3 roughly of the structures was recovered. That when Dr. Steven's who had successfully sabotaged Pons and Flieschman's "cold fusion" experiments reception sought to bring the disinfo theory of thermite to the fore to muddy the waters, but thermite or thermate do not cause wholesale vaporization of structures. Meanwhile disinfo agent Dr. Judy Wood(an agent's name extrodinaire) presented evidence of a directed weapon but she never said what it was, how it worked and/or methods employed. She employed references to the fakir John Hutchinson to lead astray anyone who followed her. A dead end of deception. Meanwhile Dimitri Kalezov proposed a elaborate theory of nuclear bombs built into the foundations and proposed that they were leveled by them. I must say that this theory was interesting because of the energy needed to vaporize 2/3rds of the towers was immense and atomic bombs had that kind of power. He had a sad story about being in a Thai prison and most interestingly was present at the retired ex-head of Mossad's apartment in Bangkok the morning of the attack. The former Mossad leader took credit for the attack in this narrative which promoted the idea that Israeli nukes were used which promoted the idea that Israel's nukes were real of course. This story is a bit too pat for belief. Nuclear weapons have severe explosive effects according to those who say they know of these things but we do not find these "effects" in concordance with the actual event. Independent radioactive investigation was severely suppressed due to the fact that it was not present. Those who say the dirt was brought in to cover the radioactive rubble forget that workers boots could only be used for a few hours because of the molten steel which persisted for weeks underground. The dirt insulated and protected the feet of the rescue and cleanup crews. I believe from memory that Rockefeller was photographed with the WTT being built in the background of Life magazine with a watch clearly showing 911 on its face. This is key. The buildings were unique and designed to be brought down in a way that would not destroy downtown Manhattan and incorporated key elements that allowed a certain weapon to be used. The structure was built by steel beams supporting the outside structure of the towers. No building had ever used this kind of construction. The steel beams were designed for this building looked like a rectangular zero with a center space of air. This construction technique was the clue to the forces that would be used to bring it down.

 

[fabiorem]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: fabiorem
Date: 2020-05-15 00:23:33
Reaction Score: 3

The California fires were too much selective. You cant "code" a nuke to destroy entire houses, while the trees remain intact. That was only possible using a beam. If it was a nuke, even if it was a suitcase nuke, the trees would also be affected, but you had melted cars and the trees untouched.

 

[asatiger1966]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: asatiger1966
Date: 2020-05-15 05:30:44
Reaction Score: 11

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.

Thought you would find this worth a thought.


So, it was impossible to bring the WTC Towers down by any kind of traditional controlled demolition.

The same thing could be said about the WTC building # 7 and of the Sears Tower in Chicago. Either of them was constructed using similar thick double-walled steel frame that was impossible to break at once due to reasons described above.

However, in accordance with the US laws governing construction of skyscrapers buildings designers had to submit some satisfactorily demolition project before their construction project could be approved by the Department of Buildings. No one could be allowed to build a skyscraper that can't be demolished in the future.

This is the main point of the skyscrapers' in-built nuclear demolition features.

Ironically, such a nuclear demolition scheme of a skyscraper is not meant to actually demolish the respective skyscraper, especially considering that no one has any practical experience in demolishing skyscrapers by such means - it is only intended to convince the Department of Buildings to permit the skyscraper's construction whatsoever.

It appears that all designers and proponents of such nuclear demolition schemes sincerely hope that their ideas would not be put to use during their life-time.

Anyhow, "Controlled Demolition Inc." began to study possibilities of demolishing modern skyscrapers by underground nuclear explosions at the end of 60s, at request of the then New York Sate Governor Nelson Rockefeller - when it became necessary to get a legal approval from the New York Department of Buildings for the WTC Twin Towers construction.


After some research, a final solution was found and approved by the Department of Buildings and "Controlled Demolition Inc." got its nuclear demolition know-how patented.

You can not make this stuff up. Read the whole article below.

Nuclear Demolition of Skyscrapers

Each one of us knows so little. A case of "The more I know, the less I know"

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-05-15 13:54:18
Reaction Score: 9

No, all of you know a lot but lack confidence in realizing you have many answers. The biggest issue is to overcome this idea of a single weapon or tool. Military operations use a combined arms strategy and that's all we see here as well. This was a machine in operation. Not a hammer hitting a stone.

I know most or all of you already know all this, it's just that you've not seen it in this light as a military operation, and therefore a combined arms attack. Remember, a military machine is an army, not a tank, wars are about logistics, planning and support, and then weapons and machine like actions. Attacks involve tried and true weapons and tactics and then experimental weapons. The key to success in warfare is innovation and that innovation does not have to involve technical superiority. Success is innovative strategy, it's about doing something in a new way which the enemy cannot adapt to and then react to in sufficient time.

Recall any other attack such as Pearl Harbor. The primary weapon was new but not unproven. The British had sunk and seriously damaged most of the Italian fleet at Taranto using torpedo bombers prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The Imperial Navy was limited in what weapons it could use but it used all available aircraft types, from torpedo planes to bombers and fighters, and it used midget submarines as well. If they had thought that there was possibility of using full size submarines they would have used those too.

It's not one single thing, there's no single explanation: This is probably true of the JFK assassination as well. Just remember anything done on this scale is an opportunity to try out now tools, that would never be passed up, they would never use just one tool. The would use tried and true weapon and then experiment with new tools in the mix. It is also true there are many unexplained and unknowns given the limited access and destroyed evidence but that does not prevent you from seeing the unmistakable evidence.

I think a nuke was used, and if you accept that everything is planned well in advance then a subterranean nuke is the primary weapon, with a back up of controlled demo charges, and with supportive termite, but in addition the evidence amassed about vaporized people and vaporized steel girders caught on video, these personal accounts, and visual video and photographic evidence to include overturned cars blocks away show a new tool being used.

PS: It doesn't matter which is correct, none have to be correct to see that the results speak of many tools: See the whole as a combined arms attack and therefore involving many tools.

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-05-19 11:04:00
Reaction Score: 1

Found this image from Time Ragazine 1965. Really it's related to the Nazi Doctors and Operation Paperclip and is an image shown in a video of a talk given by Annie Jacobsen on her book covering operation paperclip. Just had to post this because ultimately there is no such thing as artificial intelligence and all robotica has to eventually come back to biologically controlled machines and so this image is telling in my opinion. It is, the wet dream of the nazi doctors, and speaks to the whole mind game of the epoch when this cover was published in 1965. So, are they real or is it all a psycholgical thriller?
Operation Paperclip
Source *

 

[Magnetic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Magnetic
Date: 2020-05-19 19:24:05
Reaction Score: 6

Until I examined the Cali fires, fires in Britain, and other unusual fires, I could not put the Towers destruction's method into focus: it was unique in the way it collapsed and was destroyed. There was nothing to compare it too that was remotely like it. 911 was a one off event that had many layers of deceptions with the most obvious being the airplane brought it down theory: easily disproved. Then after the shock and awe wore off years later, various disinfo theories were presented such as controlled demolition with conventional explosive weapons. Of course there were many problems with this since 2/3 of the towers disappeared and only 1/3 roughly of the structures was recovered. That when Dr. Steven's who had successfully sabotaged Pons and Flieschman's "cold fusion" experiments reception sought to bring the disinfo theory of thermite to the fore to muddy the waters, but thermite or thermate do not cause wholesale vaporization of structures. Meanwhile disinfo agent Dr. Judy Wood(an agent's name extrodinaire) presented evidence of a directed weapon but she never said what it was, how it worked and/or methods employed. She employed references to the fakir John Hutchinson to lead astray anyone who followed her. A dead end of deception. Meanwhile Dimitri Kalezov proposed a elaborate theory of nuclear bombs built into the foundations and proposed that they were leveled by them. I must say that this theory was interesting because of the energy needed to vaporize 2/3rds of the towers was immense and atomic bombs had that kind of power. He had a sad story about being in a Thai prison and most interestingly was present at the retired ex-head of Mossad's apartment in Bangkok the morning of the attack. The former Mossad leader took credit for the attack in this narrative which promoted the idea that Israeli nukes were used which promoted the idea that Israel's nukes were real of course. This story is a bit too pat for belief. Nuclear weapons have severe explosive effects according to those who say they know of these things but we do not find these "effects" in concordance with the actual event. Independent radioactive investigation was severely suppressed due to the fact that it was not present. Those who say the dirt was brought in to cover the radioactive rubble forget that workers boots could only be used for a few hours because of the molten steel which persisted for weeks underground. The dirt insulated and protected the feet of the rescue and cleanup crews. I believe from memory that Rockefeller was photographed with the WTT being built in the background of Life magazine with a watch clearly showing 911 on its face. This is key. The buildings were unique and designed to be brought down in a way that would not destroy downtown Manhattan and incorporated key elements that allowed a certain weapon to be used. The structure was built by steel beams supporting the outside structure of the towers. No building had ever used this kind of construction. The steel beams were designed for this building looked like a rectangular zero with a center space of air. This construction technique was the clue to the forces that would be used to bring it down.

So let's think about a situation where you come upon someone who has died. You notice blood on his shirt which indicates a puncture wound that released blood but you see no puncture weapons about the body. Does that mean he was not pierced? No of course not. It just means that you have not seen any piercing weapons to make a final determination of what pierced him. Next you explore the wound by taking off his shirt around the wound and find a a round entrance wound. You examine it closely. Whatever it was that punctured him was round and had no sharp knife like puncturing narrow looks so whatever it was, it was round and not knife like. Next we examine the wound deeply. It goes in a straight line until it hit a bone then veered off in another direction. So it could not be a round sharpened pike like weapon because of the deflection from hitting the bone would not be possible with a pike or spear. We have not found the weapon or the object that caused the puncture yet. Next we turn over the body and see a round puncture wound on the other side. There is a tearing of flesh outwards to indicate the object was leaving from the body from his back wound. We have not found the weapon or the object that created the wound yet. Now we go to our knowledge base of weapons that wound create this kind of wound. It can't be a knife, sword, animal attack, natural bodily function, or any kind of piercing weapon that an attacker could strike bodily because of the nature of the wound does not match these weapons. Next we surmise the weapon was a projectile from a gunpowder type gun. The round bullet hole matches. The blood flow matches what a wound like this behaves. The deflection of the bullet when it hit the bone matches what a bullet would do. The exit wound matches the nature of a bullet that was leaving the body. So we surmise that a gun shot a bullet that left the wound that killed the person. All of the evidence leads us to conclude without the weapon or bullet being found that this person died from a gunshot wound. Now some would say listen this is impossible because there are no guns here therefore it can't be. This kind of logic flies in the face of the evidence. Or they may say bullets can't work here because the process of shooting the gun isn't what is physically possible. Again the evidence, not someone's belief system is what is important. So when I say with certainty that Magnetic Induction Heating was the cause of the collapse of the WTT's I base it on the evidence found there and also found in California, Britain and Portugal of similar types of attacks. The evidence shows a similar progression of logic. Have I found the actual weapon itself? No, but the evidence is congruent with magnetic induction heating to cause the trade centers to freefall. The design of the WTC of a hollow tube shape girders would allow the surfaces inside and outside to be dramatically affected simultaneously to cause the structure to lose all structural integrity under the MIH effect and that's why this type of structure was chosen. The evidence which I have described in earlier posts are congruent with this hypothesis. Occam's razor choses my hypothesis rather than some complicated unknown weapon whose characteristics is not known. The rusting of the steel in the attacks show the steel had been heated to a high temperature and became oxidized. This matches MIH. The non heating of the stainless steel and its pristine condition compared to the regular steel is exactly like what you would find if the attack was using the magnetic induction principle. How it was done is not what I am going to be sure about. If they had left the weapon next store for all to see it would be clear but like the gunshot victim where the gun is missing and the bullet too I say without any reservation it was a force that matches Magnetic Induction Heating 100%.

 

[Citezenship]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2020-05-19 19:41:45
Reaction Score: 6

Just so happens they had the tech there on the day.

Hurricane Erin (2001) - Wikipedia

Storm was steered away from Manhattan using the mobile nexrad system, i would say it has the power requirements although i do not know about its output.

No need for anything exotic and radar has been with us quite some time now.

Heard a story that one of these was parked off the coast of New Orleans as Katrina hit land.

No proof just exploring.

 

[Magnetic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Magnetic
Date: 2020-05-20 14:44:39
Reaction Score: 3

Just so happens they had the tech there on the day.

Hurricane Erin (2001) - Wikipedia

Storm was steered away from Manhattan using the mobile nexrad system, i would say it has the power requirements although i do not know about its output.

No need for anything exotic and radar has been with us quite some time now.

Heard a story that one of these was parked off the coast of New Orleans as Katrina hit land.

No proof just exploring.

View attachment 46197

I think that the storm which is electro-magnetic would interfere with the magnetic induction heating protocols so it had to be steered away. Competing EM fields could cancel out much of the power of the weapon and the military would not take any chances with a storm like this.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Red Bird
Date: 2020-05-20 14:54:22
Reaction Score: 3

Just so happens they had the tech there on the day.

Hurricane Erin (2001) - Wikipedia

Storm was steered away from Manhattan using the mobile nexrad system, i would say it has the power requirements although i do not know about its output.

No need for anything exotic and radar has been with us quite some time now.

Heard a story that one of these was parked off the coast of New Orleans as Katrina hit land.

No proof just exploring.

If you're interested take a look at the In Truth By Grace YouTube Channel's videos on the last hurricanes. She shows the actual bouy data is different than the news and NOAH reports (wind speeds,etc.). In somecases it shows the data gets changed later. Imagine that. Once again actual verifiable data lied about.

 

[Dielectric]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Dielectric
Date: 2020-05-21 02:03:06
Reaction Score: 2

So let's think about a situation where you come upon someone who has died. You notice blood on his shirt which indicates a puncture wound that released blood but you see no puncture weapons about the body. Does that mean he was not pierced? No of course not. It just means that you have not seen any piercing weapons to make a final determination of what pierced him. Next you explore the wound by taking off his shirt around the wound and find a a round entrance wound. You examine it closely. Whatever it was that punctured him was round and had no sharp knife like puncturing narrow looks so whatever it was, it was round and not knife like. Next we examine the wound deeply. It goes in a straight line until it hit a bone then veered off in another direction. So it could not be a round sharpened pike like weapon because of the deflection from hitting the bone would not be possible with a pike or spear. We have not found the weapon or the object that caused the puncture yet. Next we turn over the body and see a round puncture wound on the other side. There is a tearing of flesh outwards to indicate the object was leaving from the body from his back wound. We have not found the weapon or the object that created the wound yet. Now we go to our knowledge base of weapons that wound create this kind of wound. It can't be a knife, sword, animal attack, natural bodily function, or any kind of piercing weapon that an attacker could strike bodily because of the nature of the wound does not match these weapons. Next we surmise the weapon was a projectile from a gunpowder type gun. The round bullet hole matches. The blood flow matches what a wound like this behaves. The deflection of the bullet when it hit the bone matches what a bullet would do. The exit wound matches the nature of a bullet that was leaving the body. So we surmise that a gun shot a bullet that left the wound that killed the person. All of the evidence leads us to conclude without the weapon or bullet being found that this person died from a gunshot wound. Now some would say listen this is impossible because there are no guns here therefore it can't be. This kind of logic flies in the face of the evidence. Or they may say bullets can't work here because the process of shooting the gun isn't what is physically possible. Again the evidence, not someone's belief system is what is important. So when I say with certainty that Magnetic Induction Heating was the cause of the collapse of the WTT's I base it on the evidence found there and also found in California, Britain and Portugal of similar types of attacks. The evidence shows a similar progression of logic. Have I found the actual weapon itself? No, but the evidence is congruent with magnetic induction heating to cause the trade centers to freefall. The design of the WTC of a hollow tube shape girders would allow the surfaces inside and outside to be dramatically affected simultaneously to cause the structure to lose all structural integrity under the MIH effect and that's why this type of structure was chosen. The evidence which I have described in earlier posts are congruent with this hypothesis. Occam's razor choses my hypothesis rather than some complicated unknown weapon whose characteristics is not known. The rusting of the steel in the attacks show the steel had been heated to a high temperature and became oxidized. This matches MIH. The non heating of the stainless steel and its pristine condition compared to the regular steel is exactly like what you would find if the attack was using the magnetic induction principle. How it was done is not what I am going to be sure about. If they had left the weapon next store for all to see it would be clear but like the gunshot victim where the gun is missing and the bullet too I say without any reservation it was a force that matches Magnetic Induction Heating 100%.

I agree with you entirely and the same goes for the selective torching of whole neighborhoods. As you're probably already aware there's a solution to every problem and in this case it's probably called phased array microwave towers.

Now this is very interesting to think about. See PrincepAugus post #74 with the video on electrical transmission via water.
Electric Ether

 

[Magnetic]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Magnetic
Date: 2020-05-27 14:24:05
Reaction Score: 7

More proof of magnetic field(s) were used in the attack. A person takes a compass and checks the magnetic orientation of a WTC girder that is displayed and finds strong magnetic fields in different orientations emanating from it.

 

[Archive]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: Fezzer
Date: 2020-05-28 00:19:46
Reaction Score: 0

I might be simple, but wouldn't a Chain Reaction go on and on and on?

 

[asatiger1966]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: asatiger1966
Date: 2020-08-08 23:53:35
Reaction Score: 5

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!

Well "that is not always true"

This is technical and long but should answer your questions.

VT Proving again that Nuclear Weapons are your friend (Banned by National Security Letter-Ignored Again) – Veterans Today | Military Foreign Affairs Policy Journal for Clandestine Services

[Editor’s note: This article is one of the most important VT ever published, and it remains every bit as relevant today, as the use of mini nukes with ‘clean’ designs continues unabated; and unless this becomes widely known and pressure applied by the masses of the people to stop it, they will continue to be used with impunity to kill innocent people en masse. Ian]


Photo below

A micronuke test on a small trailer showing just how small these 5th gen types can be

 

[Citezenship]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: CitizenShip
Date: 2020-08-09 10:07:51
Reaction Score: 1

Well "that is not always true"

This is technical and long but should answer your questions.

VT Proving again that Nuclear Weapons are your friend (Banned by National Security Letter-Ignored Again) – Veterans Today | Military Foreign Affairs Policy Journal for Clandestine Services

[Editor’s note: This article is one of the most important VT ever published, and it remains every bit as relevant today, as the use of mini nukes with ‘clean’ designs continues unabated; and unless this becomes widely known and pressure applied by the masses of the people to stop it, they will continue to be used with impunity to kill innocent people en masse. Ian]


Photo below

A micronuke test on a small trailer showing just how small these 5th gen types can be

Veterans Today - Wikipedia

 

[DanFromMN]

Note: This post was recovered from the Sh.org archive.
Username: DanfromMN
Date: 2020-08-09 10:13:38
Reaction Score: 2

Veterans Today - Wikipedia

If WIKIPEDIA thinks so highly of it, it MUST be true

Nukes aren't radioactive though.