So Kodak had a nuclear reactor in NYC

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


I red that in my croatian version of the news. Apparently Kodak claims none of the Kodak employes were in contact and that only a few guards were keeping watch. I'm not sure if this is true, but if it is...yeah...it's better that it wasn't publicly known. Which in the end doesn't justify the whole concept of private interests experimenting with nuclear reactors.




posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:25 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


And your point? My point is that it was top secret, and in NY state if not NYC. How many more of these are out there? Just searching for the truth my man. We all know the OS is a fairy tale lie, just putting out options for people trying to connect the dots to get to the truth, which the government is desperately trying to hide.

Something felled those towers - controlled demolition - but the pulverisation was so extreme it made people like Dr Judy Wood explore space weapons and such, looking for a source of energy.

I remember seeing some posts regarding a deep and secret nuclear plant under the WTC and this makes that a real possibility.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
Ah well, to be fair these small research reactors aren't capable of really doing anything unpleasant on a major scale apart from a dirty bomb. But there are easier ways to acquire far more potent isotopes for one of those.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


Yes...but there is always radiation issue...which is why they kept it behind 1,5 meter thick concrete wall.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by hmmmbeer
 



And your point?

The point is that the reactor in question was 350 miles away from where the OP stated it was in the title.

My point is that it was top secret.......

Lot of what Kodak did was top secret.

and in NY state if not NYC.

350 miles. It could have just as easily been in Pennsylvania, Conneticut, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc.

How many more of these are out there?

Probably a few.

Just searching for the truth my man.

No you're not.

We all know the OS is a fairy tale lie...

No "we" don't.

....just putting out options for people trying to connect the dots to get to the truth, which the government is desperately trying to hide.

So how do you connect the dots when someone tells there is a reactor in NYC when in fact its 350 miles away?

Something felled those towers - controlled demolition

Read the NIST report.

- but the pulverisation was so extreme it made people like Dr Judy Wood explore space weapons and such, looking for a source of energy.

There are no people like Wood.

I remember seeing some posts regarding a deep and secret nuclear plant under the WTC and this makes that a real possibility.

So much for a search for the truth.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:43 AM
link   
reply to post by hmmmbeer
 



And your point? My point is that it was top secret, and in NY state if not NYC


Point is

One You failed to research, would have determined that the reactor (actually a neutron multiplier) was not
housed in New York City as you claimed, but several hundred miles away

Two - As truthers often do made leap trying to connect 2 unrelated events

You lose



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


Lose?

I didnt know this was a game?

I just wish you, Good Ol Dave, Genradek, etc would stay out of these and go invade some other forum.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I think this is a non-story, other than discussing the social ignorance associated with it.

As has been pointed out, if anyone had discussed this before it was public knowledge they would have been ridiculed.

FYI, there are plenty of places that the public knows nothing about right now, just as there have been throughout the history of centralized government. People don't see it, but there are still thousands of secret locations storing plenty of dangerous materials used in research and development.

Perhaps the scariest part about all of it is the lack of transparency. When you have these things in the hands of corporations, with no one to really answer to, you have to wonder how a government can claim to be working for national security.

That material might not have been adequate for a nuclear device, but it would certainly have been adequate for a "dirty bomb". It was unaccounted for as far as we are all concerned.

I think people need to look into who knew about this, how it was secured, who had access and how those people were monitored.

When you have a government reducing freedom in the name of "national security", and then you find stories like this, you have to wonder just how competent they are, and what their true motivations are...



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



That material might not have been adequate for a nuclear device, but it would certainly have been adequate for a "dirty bomb".


Don't know if that's true or not - but it would go a long way to explaining why Kodak didn't publish its location to the general public. Also, the government, including the NRC were well aware of its location, capacity, use and condition. Those are the people we charge with overseeing those kind of things. That's the system.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
The uranium of a reactor is not good for a bomb, without further enrichment. That would be madness. Its mad enough already that each reactor can render an area around it uninhabitable.


Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by detachedindividual
 



That material might not have been adequate for a nuclear device, but it would certainly have been adequate for a "dirty bomb".


Don't know if that's true or not - but it would go a long way to explaining why Kodak didn't publish its location to the general public. Also, the government, including the NRC were well aware of its location, capacity, use and condition. Those are the people we charge with overseeing those kind of things. That's the system.


The reactor was acquired in 76. In 86 Chernobyl happened. "I am running a reactor in Manhatten" is not something Kodak was keen to brag about I guess. Who knows, maybe they even were not in line with regulations.
edit on 16-5-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 



The reactor was acquired in 76. In 86 Chernobyl happened. "I am running a reactor in Manhatten" is not something Kodak was keen to brag about I guess. Who knows, maybe they even were not in line with regulations.


It wasn't in New York City!! Not in New York City! It was in Rochester, NY, at Kodak headquarters, hundreds of miles away. It wasn't in New York City.



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Just for clarification, here is the CNN article. No reactor. Not enough material to make a bomb. NOT IN NEW YORK CITY!

www.cnn.com...



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
Kodak did more damage to the enviroment with all the toxic chemicals they released into the air and the ground than this reactor ever did.

OMG Kodak had some radiactive isotopes WHOOPIE

Kodak was the microsoft of the analog age.

They could read the VIN number off your car from the stratosphere back when you were playing with howdy doody.

People need to calm the hell down and worry about today instead of yesterday



posted on May, 16 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaanny
 


Don't forget about the water. They put alot of stuff into the water. And you're right about their photo capabilities. Heard stories about how they could tell what brand of cigarette a soldier was smoking from 100,000 feet.



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Despite the errors made by the OP, a private corporation having Nuclear material should be everyone's concern.

Unbelievable that people would defend this based on it not being enough to make a bomb.

Radioactive = dangerous to one degree or another.
Secretly giving out radioactive material to corporations and storing it within populated places =

Invading other countries and killing their leaders based on thing you *suspect* them of doing, when you know for a fact you are doing the same =


Besides that, I don't buy that they never used it for something nefarious.

And I accept the point the OP was making, which is that if corporations can get ahold of nuclear material, its by no means impossible that nuclear material was used in 9/11.
edit on 17-5-2012 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-5-2012 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 


Private companies with nuclear naterials....?

What about nuclear reactors for power generation....?

The utilities which use reactors are private companies......

There are universities which have small reactors for experimental/educational purposes



posted on May, 17 2012 @ 01:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Cecilofs
 


This company was grinding the lenses for the photo equipment for the U-2 spy plane.

It also did the lenses for Hubble.

It had top secret clearance.

Did the the crooked cop down in Rochester PD need to know anything.

Its called need to know and I am sure Kodak would have let everyone worry if there was ever a reason to.

Which there wasnt.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZaannyIts called need to know


Yeah exactly, which is why so much BS is happening around the world which shouldn't be.

If we knew about it, which we SHOULD when it concerns us, these things wouldn't be allowed to happen.

Ok so a small amount of radiation isn't going to level a city, but it might give you cancer. People should be able to make informed decisions about these things (like whether or not they want to live next to radioactive material), but we can't because information like this is kept from us. Sure some people will make stupid and uninformed decisions, but that's their right. If we focus more on education and providing accurate information, then people will be less likely to make stupid and uninformed decisions.


I am sure Kodak would have let everyone worry if there was ever a reason to. Which there wasnt.


Case in point. In this case, if all went well there was no harm to people nearby. If something went wrong they may have experienced health problems. That's a risk that they should be able to choose to take or not, but the decision was made for them by the Government and Kodak.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Cecilofs because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join