Contrary to what we're all supposed to believe, since Hiroshima and Nagasaki (which were fake) there have been many, many dozens of tactical nuclear strikes (which were all too real).
There was just another tactical nuclear strike using two weapons on unknown targets. The video is not dated but the news broke today. I have never seen this particular strike before and I have seen video of quite a number of them, so I'm going on the assumption it's new and would have been taken the night of February 15-16
The video was originally posted to TikTok but I don't have the link. Here's the link to a slightly downrezzed version on YT (which you should consider saving): WTF, IS THIS REAL?!?!?
I can assure you it is real. In fact, you can see the towering mushroom cloud of the preceding strike. No one seems to know where this was, but someone on the video speaks a word which is said to be Russian.
These are without doubt nuclear detonations, if you have never seen one on a battlefield. Look how it completely lights up the sky and the landscape for several seconds, and very dark night falls thereafter. It's very hard to tell, but I would eyeball the yield at 10-15 kT.
All of this is being very heavily suppressed.
UPDATE 2/17: I've located one writeup of this event on alt-media: Nuclear war but not in Ukraine
Just an explosion of gas/oil/kerosene. You could easily do similar mushroom clouded blast using a standard 200 liter barrel with top cutted out and little gasoline. Be careful, it could be violent over the top.
Mushroom cloud in no case nuclear blast specific.
Brighness change is just a shitty mobile automatic exposure control.
PS: There is a special and very painful place in a hell for those who shoot vertical videos.
Nukes are fake bro. Nagasaki and Hiroshima prove it.
Bruce Cathee wrote a few books on the earth grid and he hypothesized nukes can only be ignited on a certain point of the grid at only a certain point in time. Then he says when and where the French we’re going to do their next nuke tests.
I've heard this hypothesis. I do think there's an earth grid and there may even be some relation to nuclear weapons, but from all the tactical strikes I've seen they can use them anywhere they wish, in very precise locations down to a few meters. That doesn't rule out Cathee's hypothesis, but it means that there is not much apparent practical locational limitation from it.
There could still be some limitation as to timing, but all the targets I've seen have been fixed so we can;t tell the difference there. But short of an aircraft carrier, anything worth blowing up with a nuke probably doesn't move much. Since the Russians have deployed nuclear-tipped anti-ship cruise missiles since at least 1983 (see the P-700 Granit), unless they're lying about this one little aspect of it I suspect there's no practical limitation as to time either.
All in all, I personally found no anomalies that would compel me to research Cathee's hypothesis further.
You mean, for instance, that nuclear bombs are completely real and not at all propaganda that only exists on the television?
Correct. Firebombing.
Nope. More fiction. Provide evidence please.
Mushroom clouds are caused by simple convection and pressure wave forces. They happen with all explosives, but the larger - the more obvious.
And now, it is being advertised. By you. Tsk tsk.
For any children who still believe that Beirut was destroyed by fertilizer or that several World Trade Center buildings were turned to dust by airplanes, I suggest you return to the NYT and CNN, where such fairy tales are widely available.
Ammonium nitrate is no joke. You do need a LOT of it though. I don't know what you are talking about regarding beirut, but this was the explosive fuel (not explosive proper) used at waco.
I doubt there are many around here that think that!
There you are, advertising bad things again... Tsk tsk.
Tell that to the people with Geiger counters and the well-documented years of lingering radioactivity.
you don't need a nuclear blast to leave radioactivity:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb
They include this quote on that page, just in case people go there with doubts about the reality of nuclear explosives:
Thanks wikipedia, I'll never question the reality of Nukes again...
But if anyone else feels like questioning them, they could do worse than reading "Death Object: Exploding The Nuclear Weapons Hoax"
You're correct that a mere conventional but dirty bomb could also spread radioactivity, but in 1945 we did not have radioactive material to spare to make dirty bombs. My ex-professor Richard Feynman was at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, and the bomb was real and Hiroshima was real. He gave us anecdotes about some of it. He was involved in the difficult uranium separation process, and it was hard enough to make enough uranium 235 to make a bomb, much less have any to make an alternative dirty bomb which would be much less effective.
Also there were plenty of studies validating the reality of Hiroshima. Plus, there is the famous 'shadows on a wall' situation where the bomb energy was absorbed by the bodies of the killed civilians but passed them so their shadows were etched on the wall in a way that no conventional explosives could.
I have the impression a dirty bomb would be created using nuclear waste from nuclear energy generation (rather than especially formulated material) - which was actively being researched for commercial use at the beginning of the 40's by Argonne National Laboratory (according to wikipedia) - which to my mind means it was probably already being utilized by the military industrial complex in a non-commercial way, and then they would have access already to waste by the time they are doing test detonations...
You may say but then the radio-activty would be too weak... but then there is evidence that the radioactivity measured at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was very weak, or even non-existent.
It's one of those things thats so well known and such a striking visual of the nuclear detonation, without actually depicting detonation, that I wonder if those images depicting it were faked or perhaps even just caused by someone completely on fire falling against the wall. We are told they are shadows, but they are not sharp, clearly defined shadows, and they also look like they could be carbon soot on the wall in a vaguely human shape.
There were trees left standing at "ground zero" in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The shadows in the images are left on concrete, the concrete was otherwise unscathed - not vaporized. There is a bridge directly under the detonation location, brick and mortar, still standing. Only the wooden structures burnt. The brick and mortar of the buildings remained standing, intact, just stripped of any wooden parts.
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki destruction doesn't look much different to the firebombing of Dresden, except that there were far more brick and mortar buildings in Dresden. Napalm dropped on buildings would burn away all the wooden ones (and wooden parts) which were the majority of the buildings in these fishing "cities" Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
A nuclear blast should be indiscriminate - it would vaporize all the wood, including the tress, not just the human structures made from wood. A Human directed firebombing campaign however, would target human structures and not necessarily be too concerned with burning down the trees that line the streets.
There is another book about Hiroshima and Nagasaki specifically which tackles the issue based on the medical evidence of effects on victims - Hiroshima Revisited
That author believes real nukes were developed later, so it disagrees on that with the other book I've linked to.
I have to say that Dr Feynman was at the first a-bomb test which was before Japan bombings, and it was real. He taught our classes and he was straight to us. He was not a liar.
https://priceza.us/list-cheapests-www.express.co.uk/news/world/1319334/hiroshima-atomic-bomb-nagasaki-japan-world-war-2-us-military-history-asia-news-spt
I question that book author's crediblity; be careful in believing him.
I respect you even though I dispute you, but I have to go the opposite way on the premise.
Dick Feynman was a somewhat autistic yet charismatic guy. We all loved him and he was a symbol for rebellious youth to follow. A couple of times I went to the nudie bar in Pasadena that he used to go to to watch strippers but also to free his conscious mind so his powerful subconscious could think. He would stare at boobs but would doodle physics on the cocktail napkins there. He, an MIT graduate, claimed his IQ was only 125 but I think his subconscious mind was at 180. I am currently writing a physics book with a new approach, leveraging off issues with his excellent intro physics books. I respect him, but I discovered while trying to teach AIs some physics, that there are actually improved viewpoints to teach from. But I build on the shoulders of giants, like him. The 201 East Bridge lecture hall where he lectured us ought to be named a national monument. When he died of cancer after a long bout the campus went into mourning. RIP, guy. Hope you're doing quantum path integrals over all the angels in heaven now.
Haha. No, he had a normal sex drive. Was married a couple of times, had a kid. His first wife was a tragedy. He loved her. During the period he was working on the bomb, his wife had TB and then she died.
Truth is stranger than fiction. You have merely been misinformed.
The earth is demonstrably and obviously flat ("level" is a more accurate word to use) on the scale in which we live and conduct all science. Not recognizing this is insane, and very sad.
You would benefit from discussing and exploring the subject further. Join us at the community I created specifically for the topic! It isn't at all what you think it is.
Nothing. You're right. The world is not perfectly flat, it's just mostly flat which is why we experience it that way (most especially thanks to water). It does have topography. Many use the word "level" instead, to try and avoid that issue. Language is imprecise.
The world is oriented level-ly. If that makes any sense to you. The world is planar and has topography on that plane, is another way to try and convey the same. It is also worth noting, that this is the case (demonstrably and experientially) regardless of the true shape of the world.
What I meant specifically, by your quoted statement was only to acknowledge that experiential reality. We don't experience a spherical world, we experience a (largely, and including topographical variance) flat one. This is also the reason that children almost all conceptualize (and draw) the world as a flat plane, before they are indoctrinated into other worldviews (under the guise of science and education).