Real fear established by willingly holding onto a fake suggestion. Compare "nukes can destroy the world" with "my fear of destruction destroys my perception of the world"...which one is more destructive?
These conspiracies are never consistent. They aren't even supported by anything. The link is a BBC documentary about Oppenheimer's later life promoting nuclear nonproliferation (unsuccessfully). How this is evidence that nukes are fake is not specified.
To be honest, it is theoretically possible that the power plants are real while the bomsbs are fake. But it seems kind of silly if this were the case, because then we are saying NPPs exist but no one ever used the technology to build a bomb. On the other hand, if NPPs are fake too, then that is one elaborate conspiracy. NPPs are not everywhere, but they are a lot more places and involve a lot more people than the bombs. At least people can say "well how many people have actually seen a nuclear bomb?" and be sort of right.
There is a somewhat more believable conspiracy that nuclear radiation is less harmful than promoted by the official sources of info. I have no real opinion on that because I have no first hand knowledge.
There is no way nuclear science is fake and I won't even hear it. Only FE tier people believe that sort of thing. So, given that, the energy numbers can be assumed correct. The only real question is whether we can harness it for various devices.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9ml-_-c3AXY
when you know nukes are fake the breathless narration..."he only had one year to build the bomb"....is hilarious.
sure....
just like the moon they faked the big explosions. with stacks of TNT.
they got about 40 years of fear out of it.
Real fear established by willingly holding onto a fake suggestion. Compare "nukes can destroy the world" with "my fear of destruction destroys my perception of the world"...which one is more destructive?
TIL nuclear bombs were announced in 1986.
Then, all NPPs are fake too.
I want to see at least consistency in every theory. If there is no consistency in theory, then, it's not a theory, it is just a bullshit.
Sso where I could find the same amount of videos, posts and threads about how fake NPPs are, and how exactly they are faked.
These conspiracies are never consistent. They aren't even supported by anything. The link is a BBC documentary about Oppenheimer's later life promoting nuclear nonproliferation (unsuccessfully). How this is evidence that nukes are fake is not specified.
To be honest, it is theoretically possible that the power plants are real while the bomsbs are fake. But it seems kind of silly if this were the case, because then we are saying NPPs exist but no one ever used the technology to build a bomb. On the other hand, if NPPs are fake too, then that is one elaborate conspiracy. NPPs are not everywhere, but they are a lot more places and involve a lot more people than the bombs. At least people can say "well how many people have actually seen a nuclear bomb?" and be sort of right.
There is a somewhat more believable conspiracy that nuclear radiation is less harmful than promoted by the official sources of info. I have no real opinion on that because I have no first hand knowledge.
There is no way nuclear science is fake and I won't even hear it. Only FE tier people believe that sort of thing. So, given that, the energy numbers can be assumed correct. The only real question is whether we can harness it for various devices.