Nuclear Weapons: do they exist or not?

Do nuclear weapons exist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 24.1%
  • No

    Votes: 13 44.8%
  • I do not know

    Votes: 9 31.0%

  • Total voters
    29

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
2,798
Likes
8,266
#1
‘The Emperor Deterrence may have no clothes, but he is still Emperor.’ Despite his nakedness, this emperor continues to strut about, receiving deference he doesn’t deserve, while endangering the entire world. Nuclear deterrence is an idea that became a potentially lethal ideology, one that remains influential despite having been increasingly discredited. - concluded Lawrence Freedman (the dean of British military historians and strategists) in his classic The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (1989).

The atomic bomb, and nuclear bombs, are powerful weapons that use nuclear reactions as their source of explosive energy. Scientists first developed nuclear weapons technology during World War II. Atomic bombs have been used only twice in war - both times by the United States against Japan at the end of World War II. - History

nuclear-explosion.jpg

There is this theory out there that nuclear weapons do not exist. I am not quite sure what this "do not exist" is supposed to mean exactly. Apart from having all of them explosion videos made up, it appears that at the very least we do have the evidence of some humongous explosions. Yet, we have bizarre videos similar to the one below, where an alleged scientist claims to have been eating Uranium for years. With no negative consequences apparently.


Another suspicious event to add to the bunch would be the bombing of Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. A diligent observer would notice, that image googling any other WW2 Japanese city will produce levels of destruction, comparable to the ones suffered by Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Of course all the damages suffered by other Japanese cities were officially caused by fire bombings. Those "fire bombing" damages can be observed in the below thread:
Additionally, I could say that very similar damages have been taking place quite a few years prior to the first alleged Atomic Bomb detonation in July of 1945.
WMD_world_map.png

I am not pretending to be some sort of an expert on nuclear weapons, but one of the dangers of nuclear explosions is the Nuclear Fallout.
  • Nuclear fallout, or fallout, is the residual radioactive material propelled into the upper atmosphere following a nuclear blast, so called because it "falls out" of the sky after the explosion and the shock wave have passed.
My conventional education suggested that the affected area could be contaminated for hundreds of years. Do we really observe the consequences of such contamination in Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. I do not know, do you?

*****
KD: I'm essentially trying to figure out what exactly is being questioned in the existence of Nuclear Weapons. Is it the ability to produce the explosion of certain magnitude, or is it the subsequent radioactive contamination? Both explosion power, and contamination, or something entirely different?

What is your opinion on this issue? "Yes" or "No", and why?

My interest here: "something" leveled San Francisco in 1906, just like something did Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Damages are indistinguishable from each other. I find it highly suspicious. Could it be the same weapon? The one we do not know about.
 

Searching

Well-known member
Messages
150
Likes
818
#3
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.
 

mythstifieD

Well-known member
Messages
176
Likes
561
#4
When I was in Chicago a tour guide told me that a famous, likely not true, story of the Chicago Fire of 1872 was that a cow kicked over a lantern and kaboom.

If the standard of the day was building everything out of kindling, why didn't the British raise every fucking city and village in 1812? They could just send a spy to every major outpost in America and poof, there goes the nation and they can simply recolonize?

Because that's impossible.

The Teutonic Knights uncovered an ancient Aerial weapon which secured them unlimited power from the Vatican. They've completely or partially destroyed any city that goes against the plan. Why is Prussia so PIVITOL to it all, what relationship did the Knights play in Prussia? Why was Hitler obsessed with some made up ancient knighthood? Was it made up? Hitler sought nukes first, the Manhattan Project was a reaction. Why Manhattan? Was this weapon once used on Manhattan? And how did Hitler even come across this idea when it was anti German scientists such as Einstein that contemplated the chain reaction?

Could the truth be that Hitler was acquiring this ancient weapon? But in the age of television they needed a scientific cover story to explain the magnitude of its power? Interesting how Japan only gets bombed after Germany falls, is it because they actually dropped GERMAN NUKES on them?!

So yes, great question. What the hell are nukes really? No one without Q Clearance is allowed to know (look it up)
 

BStankman

Well-known member
Messages
377
Likes
1,503
#5
I have my doubts.
I now have to consider DEW in the form of Tesla's microwave death ray, and the earthquake machine were around long before Tesla.

The radioactive half life narrative is highly suspicious.
It should be something we could easily test with a Geiger counter at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.
The reactors all need cooling water, so that conveniently puts them in the traditional location of star forts.

13708_527b59ffd5bba-386x233.jpg Pripyat.jpg tmi-dussingerpostcard.jpg
 

Ilmarinen

Active member
Messages
21
Likes
110
#6
I have not been able to prove Nuclear weapons as marketed to us real but I have found loads of other kind of weapons which can do the job. Here is some vey interesting research. As far as those other weapons are concerned, Helsinki and all other Finnish coastal cities were annihilated by the Brittish, French & Swe troops by use of rockets during Crimean War 1854-56. According the wiki that was the first time rockets were used at war. Helsinki was the naval center of Russian Navy. Crimea was also wiped out probably using the same superior and new rocket technology. Incidentally, the exact same years are known in Finnish official history as "Years without summer", thats how bad damage those rockets did. Some of the pictures of empty cities could also be from that era? They also had the air-ship technology back then so they could fly above the enemy and drop huge (weight is almost no limit with these air-ships) bombs that have exactly same looking effects as those of Hiroshima, Nagasaki and all the rest firebombed cities. They probably had many different types of explosives, gasses and germs (bio warfare) for killing back then.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
255
Likes
1,320
#7
The radioactive half life narrative is highly suspicious.
It should be something we could easily test with a Geiger counter at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island.
You can just look at countless videos from people visiting Chernobyl and walking around with a Geiger counter. What do you think about them? Imho radioactivity and atomic energy are real, atomic bombs might not. I'm not sure. But I haven't seen evidence against it. They may have simply decided not to use them due to the danger of destroying the firmament, there is also some evidence that UFOs are preventing them from detonating/defusing them..

Interestingly Tesla apparently didn't believe that atoms could be split (nuclear fission), so that's kind of interesting. Do we even live in a reality that allows something like nuclear fission? Wouldn't it be highly diametral to life? But apparently it exists.
 
Last edited:

hal9000

New member
Messages
3
Likes
14
#8

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
741
Likes
1,974
#10
We eat uranium (potatoes) and radium all the time in small amounts; it's a naturally occurring substance. Dosage is everything when you're talking about ingesting poisons. Most medicines are technically poisons (antibiotics kill bacteria, chemo kills everything, etc.). Incidentally, the scientist who ate uranium to prove how innocuous it was died of leukemia. Kind of disproved his point, there.
There are now bacteria that eat uranium. Maybe they've always been around. I think we have ample evidence to show that atomic weapons exist and are certainly deadly. Madame Curie died from radiation poisoning (as well as countless others) so we know radiation in large amounts and of specific types certainly can kill you.
We looked for WMD for years and didn't find any but we knew he had them because he was our boy and we sold them to him. He had plenty of time to get rid of them and we did find chemical weapons.
There are old people moving into Chernobyl and eating the vegetables they grow there. Figure the radiation won't shave too much off their life span.
Mahabarata talks about a war in which some devastating weapon was used and it sure sounds like a nuclear weapon. There are areas of the world that look fine on the surface but are still radioactive. Don't know how old the radiation is in those areas but people seem to live there and do alright.
 

anotherlayer

Well-known member
Messages
371
Likes
1,201
#11
Nuclear blasts are nothing that can't be done using conventional explosives.
Which is where my brain left off on this research a while back. I think I was convinced that nucular *weapons* do not exist. It's just a bunch of atom bombs strapped together (fascii style, eat it FEB, ya filthy punter).

The US went to bomb all them sandy nations and the best they could pull out was the MOAB. The Mother of All Bombs.
MOAB - the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in the American arsenal. Wikipedia
The MOAB is not a penetrator weapon and is primarily an air burst ordnance intended for soft to medium surface targets covering extended areas and targets in a contained environment such as a deep canyon or within a cave system.
Fuck yes. You gotta wonder why we imagined all of Bin Laden's dudes were holed up in caves. Go and check those caves now, I bet you'll find a whole destroyed layer we don't even conspirasize about.
 

nothingnew

Active member
Messages
31
Likes
122
#12
I have read somewhere that the nuclear bomb may very well be real, but that there is no man-made trigger for such an explosion. Planets/stars have to be aligned properly and only then can a blast occur in a given environment. Some guy, sorry forgot his name wrote a book about this very same thing.

He called bullshit and even went so far and did calculations for future points in time where blasts could/would occur and low and behold, nuclear testing was done at the dates predicted. He called it something like the gong of the spheres and it was old ancient tech/knowledge most notably written about in the Mahabharata. Anyone know what Im talking about?


Edit: It was Bruce Cathie.

What the gov. thought of him

bccommentvo9.png
 
Last edited:

whitewave

Well-known member
Messages
741
Likes
1,974
#13
Interesting. I have one of Cathie's books. Do you know when the one you quoted from was written and if there's been any follow up from the French tests?
 

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
87
Likes
312
#14
Can't have nuclear without a nucleus.. And elements do not have a nucleus. D. B. Larson proved that and most of the scientists of the time thought the model of the atom was way off. But one can't expect to learn from real scientists in a fake education system. Young people are introduced to the fake scientists so that they don't question why their car gets the same gas mileage as grandpa did at their age. Elements have states of energy and frequency.. Sometimes they meet out of sync. Like acids and bases.

We are introduced to the "nuclear" age with napalm and white phosphorus which likes to stick to human skin. This is why photos of the survivors of Hiroshima have severe burns all over their bodies. They called it radiation and introduced the word fallout. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt relatively quickly after WWII.. And for some strange reason the people that went in to take pictures of the aftermath didn't get radiation sickness or burns.

All the videos of "nuclear" explosions are fake. One will notice a common theme in the videos... The Sun. They superimposed the Sun over some low tech special effects.

Coal miners die all the time... But we never hear about a funeral for a plutonium miner.

Radiation is just a fancy word for heat. That's all it is... Heat.

Atomic weapons are a joke and always have been. Chemical and conventional bombs and lasers are not a joke... because they are real and require no boogeyman to believe.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
255
Likes
1,320
#15
Can't have nuclear without a nucleus.. And elements do not have a nucleus. D. B. Larson proved that and most of the scientists of the time thought the model of the atom was way off. But one can't expect to learn from real scientists in a fake education system. Young people are introduced to the fake scientists so that they don't question why their car gets the same gas mileage as grandpa did at their age. Elements have states of energy and frequency.. Sometimes they meet out of sync. Like acids and bases.
I am looking into Larson now, thanks. He makes a lot of sense. But his model does allow for "nuclear energy" to exist, if I get this right? Everything may still work within the model of Larson, only that the energy doesn't come from nuclear fission, but atomic fission. It seems he covers this:

One of the most unexpected, but by this time firmly established, experimental discoveries of recent years is that all of the basic physical entities--atoms, particles, radiation, energy, electrical and magnetic charges-are interchangeable. Particles are materialized from radiation and are “annihilated” back to radiation again, protons become neutrons and vice versa, atoms undergo “fission” and “fusion,” mesons are created from kinetic energy and ultimately decay into electrons and neutrinos, the atomic reactors transform mass into energy, while at the same time the particle accelerators are busily engaged in converting energy back into mass.


Scientists always obfuscate the simple truths about the topics they discuss, because that prevents them from discussing multiple interpretations. Instead, they make everything so complicated that the naive population can no longer discern the facts from the interpretation.

The quackademia establishment reacts with a chorus of outrage when someone even uses the word 'interpretation'. According to them, there is no interpretation, but simply facts, that do not allow any other view.

I believe average people would be able to understand physics if it wasn't consciously made more complicated and absurd

I start to realize that we have been fed so many stories. We are immersed into fables and lies, it's all around us, and it seems there is no end to it, in the contrary, the society of the future will be based upon illusions only; we are wittnessing the transition :(
 
Last edited:

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
454
Likes
829
#17
Can't have nuclear without a nucleus.. And elements do not have a nucleus. D. B. Larson proved that and most of the scientists of the time thought the model of the atom was way off. But one can't expect to learn from real scientists in a fake education system. Young people are introduced to the fake scientists so that they don't question why their car gets the same gas mileage as grandpa did at their age. Elements have states of energy and frequency.. Sometimes they meet out of sync. Like acids and bases.

We are introduced to the "nuclear" age with napalm and white phosphorus which likes to stick to human skin. This is why photos of the survivors of Hiroshima have severe burns all over their bodies. They called it radiation and introduced the word fallout. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt relatively quickly after WWII.. And for some strange reason the people that went in to take pictures of the aftermath didn't get radiation sickness or burns.

All the videos of "nuclear" explosions are fake. One will notice a common theme in the videos... The Sun. They superimposed the Sun over some low tech special effects.

Coal miners die all the time... But we never hear about a funeral for a plutonium miner.

Radiation is just a fancy word for heat. That's all it is... Heat.

Atomic weapons are a joke and always have been. Chemical and conventional bombs and lasers are not a joke... because they are real and require no boogeyman to believe.
Plutonium isn't mined. If nuclear power is fake, so is plutonium.

Radiation is not a fancy word for heat. Heat is not the kind of word you would use in this context.
Radiation is a fancy word for energy transmission. Temperature is but one measurement energy.

Burns from phosphorus would be decidely different than burns from a nuclear flash.

Maybe the videos are fake, maybe not. I don't know. But I do know nuclear explosions occur at rate well in excess of one a week. Deep underground. They use them to make natural gas holding caverns, in oil exploration, and mining. If I remember right, treaties allow nuclear detinations of up to 50kt(unsure of exact figure) for civil purposes without international notification.

I don't know about Hiroshima and nagasaki, but Chernobyl was a con job, and I speculate 3 mile was as well. Chernobyl was hit with a suitcase nuke.

If you want to see the real results of a real small nuclear blast, check out the photos of reactor 4 from Chernobyl. Or any number of other incidents that were actually nuclear, which was hidden. For example, Oklahoma, and Bali nightclub. Both very obviously shallow underground low yield nuke blasts to anyone expert in such matters. There are many more as well.
 

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
87
Likes
312
#18
Plutonium isn't mined. If nuclear power is fake, so is plutonium.

Radiation is not a fancy word for heat. Heat is not the kind of word you would use in this context.
Radiation is a fancy word for energy transmission. Temperature is but one measurement energy.

Burns from phosphorus would be decidely different than burns from a nuclear flash.

Maybe the videos are fake, maybe not. I don't know. But I do know nuclear explosions occur at rate well in excess of one a week. Deep underground. They use them to make natural gas holding caverns, in oil exploration, and mining. If I remember right, treaties allow nuclear detinations of up to 50kt(unsure of exact figure) for civil purposes without international notification.

I don't know about Hiroshima and nagasaki, but Chernobyl was a con job, and I speculate 3 mile was as well. Chernobyl was hit with a suitcase nuke.

If you want to see the real results of a real small nuclear blast, check out the photos of reactor 4 from Chernobyl. Or any number of other incidents that were actually nuclear, which was hidden. For example, Oklahoma, and Bali nightclub. Both very obviously shallow underground low yield nuke blasts to anyone expert in such matters. There are many more as well.
Maybe I should have used Uranium as the example.. Thanks for pointing it out. I haven't done as much research as I want into nuclear power plants but someone mentioned it was the most inefficient way to create electricity... I can't verify that yet. But what gets me is how it works. "the radioactive uranium bundle that heats water into steam. Welcome to the nuclear reactor core." So uranium emits heat.. Radioactivity is heat. Is the water filled with some magical radiation? Or just heat? No one dies working at a nuclear facility as opposed to a coal or oil facility... My old scout master was apart of the nuclear test site out here in Nevada and a member of the Atomic Energy Commission (maybe Board of Nevada). Anyways growing up in Vegas no one has ever died and no "radiation" exists anywhere in this area. Someone wrote that the testing was actually conventional bombs and TNT. Just throwing some more stuff out there...
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
454
Likes
829
#19
Maybe I should have used Uranium as the example.. Thanks for pointing it out. I haven't done as much research as I want into nuclear power plants but someone mentioned it was the most inefficient way to create electricity... I can't verify that yet. But what gets me is how it works. "the radioactive uranium bundle that heats water into steam. Welcome to the nuclear reactor core." So uranium emits heat.. Radioactivity is heat. Is the water filled with some magical radiation? Or just heat? No one dies working at a nuclear facility as opposed to a coal or oil facility... My old scout master was apart of the nuclear test site out here in Nevada and a member of the Atomic Energy Commission (maybe Board of Nevada). Anyways growing up in Vegas no one has ever died and no "radiation" exists anywhere in this area. Someone wrote that the testing was actually conventional bombs and TNT. Just throwing some more stuff out there...
Yeah, well it all depends. Most reactors use low concentrations of uranium. Some barely refine it at all. No power plants use highly refined or weapons grade material. They all produce plutonium, in incredibly small amounts.
The radiation in this case is not heat. Heat really isn't a thing. For uranium, I believe it is mostly radiating alpha particles and low energy gamma rays. Alpha particles have a hard time getting into the body (ingested alpha emitters would be very nasty though) through the skin, and the gamma is too low energy to really have much effect. Essentially uranium is pretty safe stuff.

Also, nuclear power is incredibly efficient. I think only hydroelectric dams are more efficient. Arguments can be made either way depending on how you calculate in dealing with the waste, vs CO2 or whatever the next scam is that skews the formulas.

Essentially, the water absorbs energy from the alpha particles, which manifests as a higher energy state (hotter).
Post automatically merged:

Nobody does from the radioactive devices in their home, and there are several. Can usually find some Americium and some tritium in an average house. Not to mention radon, granite counters (particularly granite from China, they send us their hottest pieces and keep the cool stuff, there is trace uranium in those slabs and they are right a gonad level, yikes), and those bananas on the counter (bananas are radioactive).
Post automatically merged:

I'd add that there have been studies on uranium mining deaths. Uranium emits radon gas, lung cancer being the primary affect. All the hysteria about radon in homes is a direct result of studies on uranium miners sometime around the 40s.
Now we don't use mine shafts for uranium very much, in favor of safer methods.
Post automatically merged:

Yeah, well it all depends. Most reactors use low concentrations of uranium. Some barely refine it at all. No power plants use highly refined or weapons grade material. They all produce plutonium, in incredibly small amounts.
The radiation in this case is not heat. Heat really isn't a thing. For uranium, I believe it is mostly radiating alpha particles and low energy gamma rays. Alpha particles have a hard time getting into the body (ingested alpha emitters would be very nasty though) through the skin, and the gamma is too low energy to really have much effect. Essentially uranium is pretty safe stuff.

Also, nuclear power is incredibly efficient. I think only hydroelectric dams are more efficient. Arguments can be made either way depending on how you calculate in dealing with the waste, vs CO2 or whatever the next scam is that skews the formulas.

Essentially, the water absorbs energy from the alpha particles, which manifests as a higher energy state (hotter).
Post automatically merged:

Nobody does from the radioactive devices in their home, and there are several. Can usually find some Americium and some tritium in an average house. Not to mention radon, granite counters (particularly granite from China, they send us their hottest pieces and keep the cool stuff, there is trace uranium in those slabs and they are right a gonad level, yikes), and those bananas on the counter (bananas are radioactive).
Post automatically merged:

I'd add that there have been studies on uranium mining deaths. Uranium emits radon gas, lung cancer being the primary affect. All the hysteria about radon in homes is a direct result of studies on uranium miners sometime around the 40s.
Now we don't use mine shafts for uranium very much, in favor of safer methods.
Another add, that not all the effects of nukes can be made with conventional materials. The aftermath may be made to appear similar, or even exactly the same, but nukes leave certain tell tale signs, that could be easily overlooked by the layperson. Such as evidence of an EMP, permanent shadows, etc.
 
Last edited:
Top