What?! Nuclear Hoax

a reply to: penroc3



explain this video to me, go tell these people your theories on nuclear weapons just being tnt. better yet go move there.



ETA: its really easy for you to deny the fact that millions of peoples lives have been affected by these devices from your house in america or where ever and honestly at this point it just makes you look really really ignorant.

in the video i just posted are these people in on it to? are the survivors or nagasaki or chernobyl all in on it?

or are your wrong?


ill make you a proposal(if your in america) ill fly you to NY(where i live) and ill pay for your flight and hotel and we can go to japan and seeing as nuclear reactors and nuclear energy is no big deal or not real you can move into your new house on the coast of Ōkuma, Fukushima Prefecture or your new house in kazakhstan in the polygon. ill pay for you to live in these areas for a year.



last edit: in the video i just posted, it shows alot of russian detonations in the megaton range. a 50 megaton bomb called the Tsar bomba was detonated at the hight of testing, it was designed as a 100MT bomb but the fall out area was to large so they made it 'only' 50MT.

thats 50 MILLION TONS equivalent of tnt. there isnt that much tnt in the entire world let alone 1960 USSR and notice how its over 10,000 feet in the air?





here is america's biggest detonation



notice it isnt a HUUUUUGE pile of TNT, do you know how big a pile that size would be? its more TNT than was dropped during all of WWII including the nuclear bomb.

originally posted by: turbonium1
I remember how 'suitcase nukes' were being built by terrorists back in the 80's, what happened to them?

They forgot the 'magic recipe', probably!

Looks like your memory is faulty.

a reply to: turbonium1

So, are nuclear power stations fake?

originally posted by: turbonium1
If they could build 'nukes' with 1945 technology, we'd be able to get a 'DIY Nuke Kit' off Amazon by now!

That's totally bonkers. Do you read your posts before posting them?

originally posted by: Malisa
As I said before, even then you will chose to say it was faked for you! What are you going to inspect on that land in person? Bomb craters? What otherwise that the comic thing about not having some rooms underground?

This looks like a comic from the 50's! All proof you need is to stand there!

So in the end is, a bomb exists if your eyes see it live, otherwise it doesn't exist?

Will everyone believe you once you tell them you saw it live? Or will they laugh at you and tell you off?

Are you going to be another one of "Soylent Green Is People!" person?

How do you know if other people did the same before you?

This is weak, i though you were like someone with actual facts other than "i need to stand up there and cause a massive destruction of the world just because i am foolishly self entitled and the world turns around my lack of knowledge"

It's '"weak" to accept something without proof, and weaker still to know it's been faked and accept it as real, no matter what.


You ignore the fact Tokyo's firebombing wasn't mentioned in the news, as well. It's obvious Tokyo was much more important, back then, and today, than any other city in Japan. It should have been front page news that Tokyo was scorched, but it was never mentioned, or if it was, nobody spoke about it at the time.

It's excused as a 'forgotten event', as a horror that was not mentioned because it was so horrific, that nobody mentioned it in American newspapers, etc. What a load of crap that is. Any other event was mentioned, and the nuking made headlines around the world! Nukes are fine, but not a firebombing?? Nonsense.

a reply to: turbonium1

Oh look, something else you're wrong about.

New York Times, March 11, 1945:

originally posted by: turbonium1
It's '"weak" to accept something without proof,

And you are doing exactly that, and expects us to accept your 'truth', without proof!

If we list proof on both sides, yours and history's, which one would have more points to make?

Wanna play a game?

Everything after what i quoted is meaningless

Show us some proof.. Or zip it, zip it good...

: )

a reply to: turbonium1
Didn’t read back to see if this was already posted.
Interesting tale from someone pioneering Nuclear power and building power plants. Dude said he would swim in the used fuel pools.

Galen Winsor

Here is more info Galen Winsor asks – Who owns the plutonium? How much is it worth?

During his more than 30 years of professional involvement in handling nuclear materials, Winsor stubbornly refused to change his habits. He considered the used fuel pool at the Morris, IL recycling plant to be his personal “warm swimming hole”, he gave talks during which he licked uranium dioxide off of the palm of his hand and he once filled a two liter bottle from a used fuel pool and kept that water on his office desk for a daily drink.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Oh look, something else you're wrong about.

New York Times, March 11, 1945:

The firebombing of Tokyo merely killed over 100,000 people in a few hours, an unprecedented historical event of all history, at the time, nothing close to it, that's why I said to mention it somewhere, is possible, although rare, if stated.

This supports my whole argument, in fact.

Historical events are found in headlines, alone, because it's one, important, event, which occurred the day before, and was a very significant event, or perhaps a milestone event, of historical note.

All of these events we know of World War 2, are told in classes, or books, or an 'expert' in the subject, etc.

Why don't they mention it, or it's spoken like a footnote?

Look at this example -it's on the bottom, nobody would think it's a major event, or anything significant, since it's mentioned at the bottom, like a 'footnote'.

Since it's your 'evidence', what is said in the paper, about the event? Any idea?

Compare this event, placed at the bottom of their headlines, to the 'more important' events they mention at the top....and another event, just below it....

These 'events' happened, but not a single day before, which is implied, of course. These events may happen, and do happen, but over a period of time, in most cases. Any event that occurs in a single day is rare, and significant, and mentioned all the time afterwards....well, except for one event, which is virtually ignored.


It happened during war, against Japan, the enemy of America, who murdered innocent Americans at Pearl Harbor. Who tortured American POW's, without mercy.

The idea of America being silent about the Tokyo firebombing because Americans would feel bad, or upset, if they knew about it, is a pathetic excuse. America was out for blood, in Germany and in Japan. A bombing was good, never bad, or wrong. Bigger the bombing, the better it was for America to win the war. Nobody cared how many Japanese died, or how it happened.

Every city or town that America blew into dust was always in headlines. Front page news. Happy news, to celebrate.

We'd have cheered about firebombing Tokyo, but we never knew about it, or twisted around, whenever spoken of, at all.


Look at the way they presented it, at the time - poor Tokyo was scorched by firebombs.

If they had mentioned that America scorched half of Tokyo, the evil enemy of America, we'd all party on our streets, and cheered.

And we'd see all sorts of photos, and footage, of the event, and aftermath......


That's why Tokyo wasn't mentioned as other bombings were. The aftermath showed nukes didn't destroy Tokyo. Firebombs did it. Nothing else flattened Tokyo.


Only 'nukes' can flatten cities, of course, because we never saw Tokyo flattened by firebombs, a few months earlier.



Nobody is the wiser, right?

a reply to: turbonium1

Tokyo's fire bombing is talked about, as was the atomic bombings.You've gone from 'not mentioned in the papers' to 'not high enough up on the page'. What next? Not the right font?

If your benchmark is 'did it make the papers' then every one of your arguments falls flat on its backside.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: turbonium1

So, are nuclear power stations fake?

Nothing proves they are real, so why believe it's true?

Something covered in secrecy like this doesn't make sense, unless it's faked.

We can simply measure the validity of anything existing, or not existing, with the same methods we've proven everything else today. Nothing is a special case that needs no proof to accept as being real. There are many cases of note, however, and it is utterly absurd. Nonsense rules the world, sadly.


This lie about nukes being real is simply reinforced with many more lies, that confirm the original lie, again and again, for years afterwards.

You think something cannot be faked, if anything else supports it as real, especially if you see many other things that are also supporting it as real.

What do you think makes a fake seem so real to you, in the first place, is more fakes supporting the original fake.


It seems they have so many 'nuclear accidents' for some reason, why wouldn't they know how to make it safe by now, when they sure know how to make all those nuclear power plants, and they know all about their amazing nuclear technology?

We know how to make electrical power plants work safely, and everything else, too....except we still can't figure out how to make them nuke plants safe, for some odd reason!! Same reason we can't go to the moon - because they faked it all, from the very beginning.

a reply to: turbonium1

It's been hours since i replied, do you want to show us or not

Or you have zero proof and are afraid to lose the game?

It's simple, you comment back with points that proof with no doubt you are right, other people do the same until we reach a common ground, why are you ignoring me?

I thought you were 100% sure about your stuff.. If you know it is true, then why not risk it all? You know you are going to win anyways : P

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Tokyo's fire bombing is talked about, as was the atomic bombings.You've gone from 'not mentioned in the papers' to 'not high enough up on the page'. What next? Not the right font?

If your benchmark is 'did it make the papers' then every one of your arguments falls flat on its backside.

The actual event was an American firebombing of Tokyo, correct?

Nothing said about America firebombing Tokyo.

That's like newspapers mentioning Dresden was bombed into dust. It seems to lack some rather important information, yes?


A guy murdered someone in the alley, and he 'mentions' the event, by saying how someone was murdered in the alley.

I suppose you think he has 'mentioned' the event, while never mentioning he is the murderer??

That's not mentioning the actual event, is it?

Do you know what mentioning an actual event means, now? It's not mentioning only one part of the event, and leaving out parts you don't want to bring up.

Get the idea, now?

originally posted by: Malisa
a reply to: turbonium1

It's been hours since i replied, do you want to show us or not

Or you have zero proof and are afraid to lose the game?

It's simple, you comment back with points that proof with no doubt you are right, other people do the same until we reach a common ground, why are you ignoring me?

I thought you were 100% sure about your stuff.. If you know it is true, then why not risk it all? You know you are going to win anyways : P

The lack of proof for nukes is your problem, not mine. I'm 100% sure of that.

Knowing nukes are fake is a great thing, since I don't worry about phantom bombs destroying the planet, as you do. It's up to you to stop fearing their lies, and find there is a peace of mind, knowing the lies hold us in fear, and ignorance of the reality, and the truth.


Science has become a monster feeding our fears, which is sad, indeed. Use your own mind to see the reality in front of you, it's freedom, in many ways.

a reply to: turbonium1

Post.the.evidence.

Post it

assumptions are worthless

America was already able to flatten Tokyo, why would they need to bomb two much smaller, poorer cities, before getting Japan to surrender?

'Sure you can destroy our greatest city, but we will never surrender, unless you are capable of bombing our tiny grass and bamboo huts, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, okay?'

originally posted by: Malisa
a reply to: turbonium1

Post.the.evidence.

Post it

assumptions are worthless

Then why are you still doing it? Assume everything, and ask others to prove it's not true.

a reply to: turbonium1

Because they didn't surrender.

Because firebombing a city in that way takes a lot of resources. Dropping an atom bomb does not.

Where is your evidence for the hundreds of planes, the thousands of incendiaries, the pilots and support personnel needed to firebomb Hirishina and Nagasaki? How did this firebombing give people radiation burns and sickness?

Where, once again, is your explanation for the atom bomb generated marker layer of radio-active soil used by scientists the world over?

So far all you have is "it wasn't in any newspapers that I never read".

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Malisa
a reply to: turbonium1

Post.the.evidence.

Post it

assumptions are worthless

Then why are you still doing it? Assume everything, and ask others to prove it's not true.

I’m not assuming anything, I’m asking you to prove your claims

Did I open this thread?

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Because they didn't surrender.

Because firebombing a city in that way takes a lot of resources. Dropping an atom bomb does not.

Where is your evidence for the hundreds of planes, the thousands of incendiaries, the pilots and support personnel needed to firebomb Hirishina and Nagasaki? How did this firebombing give people radiation burns and sickness?

Where, once again, is your explanation for the atom bomb generated marker layer of radio-active soil used by scientists the world over?

So far all you have is "it wasn't in any newspapers that I never read".

No, it wasn't mentioned in ANY newspapers that America firebombed Tokyo, that's your problem here.

It makes no sense that they firebomb the capital city of Japan and not mention it anywhere. You can't be that dense, can you?

You know it makes no sense, right? It is not about my own 'idea' that they would've mentioned it.... even you know better than that. It was one of the major events of the war, it's silly to even debate the merits of speaking about it, let alone ignoring it, as if it were 'no big deal'!

You cannot explain this, and you know it. There is an answer for it, which you cannot accept. It doesn't matter if you accept it or not, it is the truth.