What if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply bombed? Perhaps, the final large bombs dropped contained some chemical agents, and possibly thermite/magnesium & white phosphorus to create the initial blinding light, and these along with the immense heat of a city wide fire produced the casualties we saw. "People etched into stone walls" could just be a piece of propaganda from the post-war propaganda campaigns. Wouldn't be hard to create a steel cutout and burnish a wall with flame, let alone x-rays.
I'll admit the above scenario is completely plausible; its the societal/academic implications that keep me skeptical. I certainly wasn't there, so I cant say where the proper history ends, and where the post-war propaganda begins.
If there are so many great hoaxes carried out, then what makes you so sure nukes are real?
I wont go as far as to dismiss the possibility, but that would be the single biggest con in the history of the world (as far as I know anyway). Its the same reason I'm hesitant to call the first moon landing fake, despite the multitude of motives the US possibly had to do so. Its just a crazy amount of people to keep quiet.
Also, I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I know enough about chemistry to realize that for a nuclear weapon to be impossible, much of our current textbook understanding of chemistry would need to be completely wrong. Furthermore, that would require some people to know the true nature of chemistry, and to have forged the false version we have now. So, either: A) only a handful of people are smart enough to figure out the true model, or B) a large portion of the academic world need to be complicit in the ruse.
I put that video on my list to watch, and I'll give it an honest chance sometime soon. At the very least you've done your research, and you make logical sense. So props for that. Good chatting!
I'm with you on everything except for the whole 'nukes aren't real' part. You'd think Japan might have brought that up while we were still enemies, considering two of their cities are the first and only human trials (according the the history books anyway).
If nuclear reactions are a hoax, then I'd be interested to know how they are faking the power output of all the nuclear power plants. And yes, U and Pu are different elements, but both have been proven to exist. The reactions are remarkably similar, but in the case of Pu, the reaction just happens much more quickly.
What if "nuclear winter" is just yesteryear's "climate change" scaremongering?
I really like this part. It would not shock me in the least.
Its been known for a long time that modern nukes pose little lasting threat to organic life, so long as they are not detonated close to the ground. Its only when the heat of the blast is close enough to heavier elements that they start to split and fuse into weird isotopes that actually cause problems like cancer. Leaking radioactive waste directly into the oceans however... well that could be a climate changing event, as it kills off a huge part of the plant life that is responsible for processing the CO2 that would otherwise be converted into carbonic acid, which kills off the very plants that usually process the CO2 in the first place.
One individual will say anything to stop another individual from torturing the first.
The information obtained is based on selfish interests (not wanting to drown), and not concluded based on solid intelligence or facts.
Let's say a terrorist breaks into your house and starts torturing you. They want to know if Bush was behind 911. Will you tell them Bush is responsible to stop the torture, or will you continue to feel like you are going to die for several hours because "solid intelligence" is so fucking important?
Hans Blix the head of the UN inspection team in those days told Bush and Blair that there is fuck all there. Some of these inspections made based on "intelligence" from said CIA. JFK was right when he wanted to smash them into pieces.
codegoat ago
The drug dealing lying cowards? Pleaz tell me about them!
Sciency ago
I'll admit the above scenario is completely plausible; its the societal/academic implications that keep me skeptical. I certainly wasn't there, so I cant say where the proper history ends, and where the post-war propaganda begins.
I wont go as far as to dismiss the possibility, but that would be the single biggest con in the history of the world (as far as I know anyway). Its the same reason I'm hesitant to call the first moon landing fake, despite the multitude of motives the US possibly had to do so. Its just a crazy amount of people to keep quiet.
Also, I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I know enough about chemistry to realize that for a nuclear weapon to be impossible, much of our current textbook understanding of chemistry would need to be completely wrong. Furthermore, that would require some people to know the true nature of chemistry, and to have forged the false version we have now. So, either: A) only a handful of people are smart enough to figure out the true model, or B) a large portion of the academic world need to be complicit in the ruse.
I put that video on my list to watch, and I'll give it an honest chance sometime soon. At the very least you've done your research, and you make logical sense. So props for that. Good chatting!
Sciency ago
I'm with you on everything except for the whole 'nukes aren't real' part. You'd think Japan might have brought that up while we were still enemies, considering two of their cities are the first and only human trials (according the the history books anyway).
If nuclear reactions are a hoax, then I'd be interested to know how they are faking the power output of all the nuclear power plants. And yes, U and Pu are different elements, but both have been proven to exist. The reactions are remarkably similar, but in the case of Pu, the reaction just happens much more quickly.
I really like this part. It would not shock me in the least.
Its been known for a long time that modern nukes pose little lasting threat to organic life, so long as they are not detonated close to the ground. Its only when the heat of the blast is close enough to heavier elements that they start to split and fuse into weird isotopes that actually cause problems like cancer. Leaking radioactive waste directly into the oceans however... well that could be a climate changing event, as it kills off a huge part of the plant life that is responsible for processing the CO2 that would otherwise be converted into carbonic acid, which kills off the very plants that usually process the CO2 in the first place.
0x7a69 ago
The CIA will say whatever the president orders them to say.
B3nd3r ago
damn and I thought it was the other way around.
Cant_Call_It ago
Can someone dumb this down for the ignorant?
cyks ago
One individual will say anything to stop another individual from torturing the first.
The information obtained is based on selfish interests (not wanting to drown), and not concluded based on solid intelligence or facts.
Let's say a terrorist breaks into your house and starts torturing you. They want to know if Bush was behind 911. Will you tell them Bush is responsible to stop the torture, or will you continue to feel like you are going to die for several hours because "solid intelligence" is so fucking important?
Cant_Call_It ago
Oh. I thought there was more to this image than that. I assumed I was missing something. I appreciate the explanation though!
Vaati ago
TL;DR The CIA effed up with the information arguing for the war in Iraq
B3nd3r ago
Nope. They got exactly what they wanted. Everything went according to plan.
Mariner00 ago
Hans Blix the head of the UN inspection team in those days told Bush and Blair that there is fuck all there. Some of these inspections made based on "intelligence" from said CIA. JFK was right when he wanted to smash them into pieces.