Maybe I spoke too soon. I think it's important to distinguish between 'whether nuclear weapons exist' (or can exist) and the idea the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were faked with various kinds of conventional bombs, as explained in the article. I have come across these ideas before and I have to say I do find the arguments quite convincing.
I would be very surprised if nuclear weapons don't exist, though, simply by virtue of the laws of physics enabling it.
It is a good argument about needing to create a threat to motivate people to accept a one world government. That I can easily accept.
The other explanation would be they simply hadn't got the bomb ready yet and needed an excuse to use it before the war ended. So they had to pretend they used it. This kind of thinking has other precedents/examples actually, so it is very believable. The string of lies told by NASA is an obvious one that springs to mind. Lunar landings, Mars landers and rovers and such like...
Bear in mind I haven't read the article yet, so this is just my initial, instinctive reaction - on the one paw you're right about the idea of hanging a permanent threat over people, but on the other paw you are wrong in thinking that there are no such things as nuclear weapons. This is a misdirection and part of their 'fake history narrative'.
This is how I know that Miles Mathis was given the proverbial 'offer one can't refuse'.
The laws of physics are very clear on the fact that a controlled fission reaction can produce a massive amount of energy equating to an explosion and all the rest of it. There wouldn't be something called a 'star' otherwise.
The mere fact that they have invented 'fake photos' and so on - i.e. a fake narrative - should tell you something. They are trying to get people to believe a different version of history.
This is key to understanding them. It's like Orwell in India spreading outright lies on the BBC, or his Winston Smith consigning stuff to the memory hole and rewriting stuff.
Ultimately, the laws of physics will answer all of these questions.
The real truth is far, far more scary than you can possibly imagine... Let's call it the Samson Option.
Coming soon to a cinema near you - on 16/11/24 according to the Wow Signal...
At the moment, I am drunk. My other half and me have been drinking a box of rose since 9 am this morning, so I am in no position to argue the toss with you about physics.
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a vast fortune must be a fucking Rothschild. Or gay." Take your pick.
I'll get back to you tomorrow. Possibly. If I'm still alive...
I first came across this idea, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually massively fire bombed, and the “nuclear bomb“ story is not true, about six months ago. The one thing I didn’t understand about it was, why? Was it just to make people afraid so we would be easier to control? Did they just enjoy watching people march in the streets against nuclear war, or creating a generation with the jeep existential angst about the possibility of the world ending tomorrow? Yes, probably all that – but your article clarifies that the main reason was to gain support for a world government, i.e. the UN. And it all fits together with the wall street financiers being behind everything.
I think this premise is viable. The American military could easily have used dirty bombs to spread some uranium and radiation but would imagine that a real atomic bomb would cause a great deal more radiation than was actually reported. The recovery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was remarkably fast for cities supposedly drenched in radiation. Another thing that makes me suspect is the amount of censorship and control of the situation so that scientists and journalists could not investigate thoroughly for a long time after the fact...Kman, DIGILEAK News
Yes, according to Palmer, the amount of radiation (supposedly from fallout) was far less than one would calculate from actual nuclear explosions. Also its dispersal did not follow the pattern one would expect.
So what is the point of this article? Are you saying nuclear weapons should be used to determine if the outcome witnessed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were reality based. 🤔
The point is that nuclear the 'nuclear' bombing of Japan left an immense impression on the entire world which continues to this day and is the basis of everything we believe about nuclear weapons. The idea of nuclear weapons represents the most serious existential threat to life on earth.
But statesmen and moneymen always like to keep the populace in fear, so then they can implement whatever policies they want. We should be wise to this ploy which is reproduced over and over in one variation or another. We should be careful not to believe everything we've been told, especially if it comes from a politician or a financier.
So, I'm a bit confused. Do you, or don't you believe that Nukes exist?
If you don't believe they exist, then what are they building and disassembling at Pantex?
The web says: Pantex is the primary United States nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility that aims to maintain the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
I have yet to see any satisfying proof that nuclear weapons exist. Obviously nuclear power works. I need to clarify this because "nukes" can refer to nuclear reactors but I'm referring to nuclear weapons.
As for Pantex, I don't know. Seems to me like a lot of government agencies receive funding despite not fulfilling a useful function. Couldn't say I really know, though.
I'm also willing to change my mind if new information becomes available. I consider myself a seeker and I'll often put things out there that I'm not totally sure about...
My reasoning is that people with careers to think of are unlikely to say certain things... so I consider it my job to say such things.
There were HUGE, I mean MONSTROUS facilities built toward the end of WWII for the production of tiny amounts of U238 and its separation from U235 because they said they could only use U238 to build a bomb. Absolutely ludicrous!!! It has been suggested that the reason for the elaborateness was to give the impression that not just anyone could produce an atomic bomb. But later, when Russia and others "had" nuclear weapons, they started using much easier to obtain U235 so they could build more bombs and keep up the Cold War.
It looks to me like its all just a big show. At this point I'm skeptical of the viability of real nuclear explosions. Atoms are said to be mostly empty space. I think I read that if an atom were the size of a football field, the nucleus would be something like the size of a golf ball. It's hard to imagine how many even more miniscule electrons or other infinitely small particles you could get to ACCIDENTALLY collide with that golf ball in the middle of a football field. To my mind it just doesn't seem practical.
But lots of things are just done for show. They don't have to work.
Maybe I spoke too soon. I think it's important to distinguish between 'whether nuclear weapons exist' (or can exist) and the idea the Hiroshima and Nagasaki were faked with various kinds of conventional bombs, as explained in the article. I have come across these ideas before and I have to say I do find the arguments quite convincing.
I would be very surprised if nuclear weapons don't exist, though, simply by virtue of the laws of physics enabling it.
It is a good argument about needing to create a threat to motivate people to accept a one world government. That I can easily accept.
The other explanation would be they simply hadn't got the bomb ready yet and needed an excuse to use it before the war ended. So they had to pretend they used it. This kind of thinking has other precedents/examples actually, so it is very believable. The string of lies told by NASA is an obvious one that springs to mind. Lunar landings, Mars landers and rovers and such like...
Bear in mind I haven't read the article yet, so this is just my initial, instinctive reaction - on the one paw you're right about the idea of hanging a permanent threat over people, but on the other paw you are wrong in thinking that there are no such things as nuclear weapons. This is a misdirection and part of their 'fake history narrative'.
This is how I know that Miles Mathis was given the proverbial 'offer one can't refuse'.
The laws of physics are very clear on the fact that a controlled fission reaction can produce a massive amount of energy equating to an explosion and all the rest of it. There wouldn't be something called a 'star' otherwise.
The mere fact that they have invented 'fake photos' and so on - i.e. a fake narrative - should tell you something. They are trying to get people to believe a different version of history.
This is key to understanding them. It's like Orwell in India spreading outright lies on the BBC, or his Winston Smith consigning stuff to the memory hole and rewriting stuff.
Ultimately, the laws of physics will answer all of these questions.
The real truth is far, far more scary than you can possibly imagine... Let's call it the Samson Option.
Coming soon to a cinema near you - on 16/11/24 according to the Wow Signal...
Bah! Laws of physics! That's the biggest lie of them all!
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF03FN37i5w
I will investigate your link at some point.
At the moment, I am drunk. My other half and me have been drinking a box of rose since 9 am this morning, so I am in no position to argue the toss with you about physics.
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a vast fortune must be a fucking Rothschild. Or gay." Take your pick.
I'll get back to you tomorrow. Possibly. If I'm still alive...
I first came across this idea, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were actually massively fire bombed, and the “nuclear bomb“ story is not true, about six months ago. The one thing I didn’t understand about it was, why? Was it just to make people afraid so we would be easier to control? Did they just enjoy watching people march in the streets against nuclear war, or creating a generation with the jeep existential angst about the possibility of the world ending tomorrow? Yes, probably all that – but your article clarifies that the main reason was to gain support for a world government, i.e. the UN. And it all fits together with the wall street financiers being behind everything.
I think this premise is viable. The American military could easily have used dirty bombs to spread some uranium and radiation but would imagine that a real atomic bomb would cause a great deal more radiation than was actually reported. The recovery of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was remarkably fast for cities supposedly drenched in radiation. Another thing that makes me suspect is the amount of censorship and control of the situation so that scientists and journalists could not investigate thoroughly for a long time after the fact...Kman, DIGILEAK News
Yes, according to Palmer, the amount of radiation (supposedly from fallout) was far less than one would calculate from actual nuclear explosions. Also its dispersal did not follow the pattern one would expect.
So what is the point of this article? Are you saying nuclear weapons should be used to determine if the outcome witnessed in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were reality based. 🤔
The point is that nuclear the 'nuclear' bombing of Japan left an immense impression on the entire world which continues to this day and is the basis of everything we believe about nuclear weapons. The idea of nuclear weapons represents the most serious existential threat to life on earth.
But statesmen and moneymen always like to keep the populace in fear, so then they can implement whatever policies they want. We should be wise to this ploy which is reproduced over and over in one variation or another. We should be careful not to believe everything we've been told, especially if it comes from a politician or a financier.
MIC moneymen are mostly interested in shaking down US taxpayers. Weaponry is always a necessity, but social programs are "entitlements."
So, I'm a bit confused. Do you, or don't you believe that Nukes exist?
If you don't believe they exist, then what are they building and disassembling at Pantex?
The web says: Pantex is the primary United States nuclear weapons assembly and disassembly facility that aims to maintain the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.
I have yet to see any satisfying proof that nuclear weapons exist. Obviously nuclear power works. I need to clarify this because "nukes" can refer to nuclear reactors but I'm referring to nuclear weapons.
As for Pantex, I don't know. Seems to me like a lot of government agencies receive funding despite not fulfilling a useful function. Couldn't say I really know, though.
I'm also willing to change my mind if new information becomes available. I consider myself a seeker and I'll often put things out there that I'm not totally sure about...
My reasoning is that people with careers to think of are unlikely to say certain things... so I consider it my job to say such things.
Agreed.
There were HUGE, I mean MONSTROUS facilities built toward the end of WWII for the production of tiny amounts of U238 and its separation from U235 because they said they could only use U238 to build a bomb. Absolutely ludicrous!!! It has been suggested that the reason for the elaborateness was to give the impression that not just anyone could produce an atomic bomb. But later, when Russia and others "had" nuclear weapons, they started using much easier to obtain U235 so they could build more bombs and keep up the Cold War.
It looks to me like its all just a big show. At this point I'm skeptical of the viability of real nuclear explosions. Atoms are said to be mostly empty space. I think I read that if an atom were the size of a football field, the nucleus would be something like the size of a golf ball. It's hard to imagine how many even more miniscule electrons or other infinitely small particles you could get to ACCIDENTALLY collide with that golf ball in the middle of a football field. To my mind it just doesn't seem practical.
But lots of things are just done for show. They don't have to work.