I have no evidence to believe this, other than the fact that literally everything we have been told are lies, but I have always sort of thought that Nuclear weapons don't actually exist and that mostly we have been told horror stories and shown hollywood movies to scare us into compliance. Am I totally wrong? probably. But anyway, given the high tensions over nuclear powers atm, I am wondering if anyone has any info on this topic in particular.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (36)
sorted by:
Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the Trinity test, and the Bikini Atoll tests were fake. Many other nuclear detonations were real. Many real nuclear detonations were passed off as conventional or ignored completely.
People with one viewpoint or the other and show you an example or two, then argue that it applies to all events everywhere. The truth is more complex than that, although many "intellects" find this too uncomfortable to accept.
Want to see a real nuke going off up close? Go back and watch the Beirut port explosion. Look at video of the blast and pictures of the damage done, and try to convince yourself that was an old pile of fertilizer.
BTW, ammonium nitrate is only an oxidizer and requires mixing with a fuel such as fuel oil before being used as a blasting agent. That's right, even when properly mixed, AMFO is not even an explosive itself but requires an actual explosive to set off the detonation.
After you're done with all that, go back to the other replies you've received and see how many told you the things that I just told you.
What makes you think that they were nuclear detonations? Don’t you think the increase in background radiation (both locally, and further afield carried by the winds) would have been detected in such a case?
I’m intrigued!
As far as residual radioactivity and fallout, you have to keep in mind that they've had over 75 years to perfect these things. Blowing things up was the point, and as it stands now they make the area radioactive only if they want to.
It's not that they're perfect, but I suspect anything you could detect without specialized equipment is gone within a few days. Research along the lines of this article to find out about elevated background radiation from "jet fuel melting steel beams": Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed. The big secret to keeping the secret is that no one is looking.
Even though nuke detonations can be quite small, they're very large compared to conventional explosives. This 2000lb bomb is a popcorn fart compared to Beirut: HUGE JDAM BOMB STRIKES TALIBAN POSITION. Why doesn't the military just drop fertilizer on terrorists?
Often you can tell they're lying by the explanation they give. For example, huge single detonations are explained as "exploding ammo dumps". The problem is, ammo dumps don't go off all at once, but more like a pack of firecrackers as the fire reaches each munition.
You can often see more direct evidence. Nukes get white hot in the center, pegging the camera sensor, while conventional explosives are red-orange. Several nukes in Yemen and Syria showed "scintillation", which looks like sparks flying out of the explosion. Upon close inspection, they don't fly through the air because they are caused by radiation directly impinging the camera sensor.
And if you're wondering, countries like Russia and China know all this and much more, but if you think it through there's hardly a point in them calling out the West on it. The Satanic Neo-Imperialists clearly do not give a single fuck what anyone has to say.