How do we explain the energy output of nuclear facilities without nuclear?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were likely the result of firebombing campaigns (napalm), similar to what happened in Dresden. USA was in control of Japan for a full year before the days of the alleged bombings, they had control over the narrative. Likely the "cities" were destroyed over a number of days in firebombing campaigns, rather than in an instant with nukes.

there are 2 good boks on the topic:

Hiroshima Revisited

Death Object: Exploding The Nuclear Weapons Hoax

However, nuclear energy is very real. It is only instantaneous, explosive nuclear fission for use as a bomb that is in question. I've read that as the nukes were designed, they would just melt in a horrible nuclear, highly radioactive blob - rather than create a massive radioactive explosion The concept of a chain reaction of atomic fission that creates a massive explosion is the myth part.

tbh im not even sure about atomic theory as a whole any longer

There is a lot that doesn't make sense. I know a guy who worked in a nuclear facility on the fire department. they had to know the emergency procedures.

On the other hand how is Hiroshima such a beautiful city. It was supposed to be a nuclear wasteland for 100k years Naa they just scrapped it off. Really?

From the research I've done, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed, and the Trinity test before them was a regular huge ass bomb. And the Bikini Atoll tests just after were completely faked.

There's a hypothesis that the function of nuclear devices is tied to ley lines, but that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, given experience since WW2.

That experience is that tactical nukes have been used many dozens of times in attacks, from Bali to NY to Chernobyl to Beirut to just last week in either Syria or Siberia (no one can figure it out). The detonations are quite distinct from any conventional explosions.

Regrettably, it seems that nukes are all too real, and have shown to be all too usable.

Bruce Cathie on calculating the time and place of "atomic explosions"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRc4vKwf3WA

If Nagasaki and Hiroshima were conventional explosive, there was not a plane at the time and probably still isn't a plane capable of lifting that heavy of a bomb, with enough tnt to flatten a large city.

I have been spending quite a bit of time on this topic over the past few years, and I've come up kind of on the fence.

On one hand, there are some very clear BS fakes in the nuclear bomb footage archives. There is also many photos and videos of military stacking piles of TNT the size of buildings to simulate nuclear explosions and test things. Whenever you see somebody wasting that kind of time that it would take to stack hundreds of thousands of sticks of TNT just to supposedly test the effects of something completely predictable it makes you wonder "are the supposed nukes actually TNT explosions as well?

The other day somebody posted Bill Gates comments about how the vaccine should be thought of similarly to the Manhattan project and the Apollo missions. Well, we know that at least one of these was completely fake (the Apollo missions), and if Bill Gates is comparing these three things, it's fairly easy to also see that the vaccines were about control. If we know that the Russians have never cast public doubt on the Apollo missions, but there is no doubt in any of our minds that the Russians knew they were fake, then it's very easy to imagine a scenario where both countries put the fear of God into their populations by making them think that we were always on the verge of sending missiles back-and-forth that would clear the planet of fauna for centuries. If we know that the Apollo missions caused people to start focusing on television, and we know that the Manhattan project made everybody afraid that we were always going to be at risk of nuclear war, and we know that the ostensible vaccines are being used to create digital ID/social credit systems, then it's easy to come to the conclusion that all three of these are fake in the exact same way, and by that I mean 100% fake.

However, the reason I still remain on the fence about nukes is because of certain governmental/military initiatives, such as the efforts and money put into keeping doomsday planes in the air and deep underground nuclear bunkers, etc.

Pertaining nuclear energy in general, it is highly plausible that generating nuclear power is totally a thing, and the only thing that is bogus is the notion of runaway nuclear reactions, a.k.a. critical mass, the thing that is required to cause all of the energy to be depleted in nanoseconds, resulting in huge explosions. It's possible that we have tried to do this and failed, but then used the efforts to convince everybody to be scared. It's also possible that they knew these things couldn't be done to begin with but they still wanted to scare people into submission.

I remain on the fence.

They exist. The atom was split, I get this wrong, the date, but chemically uranium, some alchemist with a bunsen burner, after WW1. It led to it being applied into fission. Nuclear reactors. It started, or was attempted to get weaponized by the Germans in WW2, but their operation wasn't focused, parts from here there and in war. Where great lengths and huge losses were deployed to stop it. It became focused by the Manhattan project. Until splitting the atom is a matter of fact frequently by CERN and etc etc. Where there is even deadlier capacity much much deadlier.

Sorry, but unfortunately they are very real. I can see how one 'could" have the illusion of them being non-existent, but it also requires a determined mind of historical ignorance.

You're American? If so, take a road trip to Nevada. Plenty of sites to visit with a dosimeter. (If allowed, ofc)