Page 1 of 1
nuclear weapons question
Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:46 pm
by infinity
This guy takes us on a tour to radioactive places on earth with his hazmat and radioactive detection device, and shows the green glass of the heat of the first nuclear test site too.
https://youtu.be/TRL7o2kPqw0
I'd like to understand how this fits in with the idea that nuclear weapons are a lie. If the tradition picked up by this guy's instrument isn't fake, which I can't see how how it is fake, then I don't understand the nuclear weapons thing being a lie. Maybe I'm just confused or something? Maybe I misunderstood?
Re: nuclear weapons question
Posted: Fri Mar 27, 2015 8:05 pm
by animus
I am also not quite sure.
Have you seen the articles from jimstone and the videos of UpNorthOfThe49th?
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/blackmail.html
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/demonspider.html
Jump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqkbYNYHN34
Hidden In Plain Sight - Nuclear Blackmail?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=102dhnHYIpw
also interesting and somehow related:
http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/busted.html
http://jimstonefreelance.com/explosives.html
http://jimstonefreelance.com/cartoon.html
So is it really just to frighten people/governments with no real threat to back it up? I don't think so.
But the
analysis on the bikini-atoll tests is definetely spot on!
Re: nuclear weapons question
Posted: Sat Mar 28, 2015 4:18 pm
by daniel
infinity wrote:This guy takes us on a tour to radioactive places on earth with his hazmat and radioactive detection device, and shows the green glass of the heat of the first nuclear test site too.
The technique is called "dusting an area," and comes from the 1940s where unscrupulous landowners would load bits of gold into a shotgun and fire it into the side of a hill, which a perspective client would "accidentally" spot and grab the land, thinking he found the mother lode.
Be careful not to confuse radioactivity (commonplace) with the remnants of a nuclear explosion. I have noticed that tendency building... "no explosion" = "no radiation," which is NOT TRUE. Nuclear reactors run very hot, so yeah, it will melt sand into glass... though one would think that a nuclear explosion might do something like shatter the glass. Curious how it doesn't.
Re: nuclear weapons question
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2015 12:00 am
by pietropirou
In Australia, Frank Collins with his Ucadia System has updated his blog with a post in a similar vein. I feel that fear impedes our potential to foster rapport - shutters/blinders/boxes/presumptions/labels all flow down from this sum of all fears as we are taught power rests in the force of the state, instead of the openness of the individual.
http://blog.ucadia.com/
by the time of the beginnings of the Manhattan project, a number of issues had become clearly apparent:
(1) The first was that causing nuclear fission was extremely fickle. If one or more conditions were not right, then rather than causing nuclear fission, all that would happen would be a release of toxic radioactive poisoning – similar to the deliberate sabotage of Chernobyl and later Fukashima by the bat-shit crazy agents of the clinically insane New World Order elite as parasites within in the United States; and
(2) The second was that nuclear fission is more dependent on atmospheric conditions than conventional weapons – given the effect of electro-magnetic fluctuations on the shield of sub-atomic particles such as electron neutrinos, swirling in and around the atomic nuclei. It was also why effective nuclear fission events needed to be at or very near ground level as the weakest point of atmospheric and ground electro-magnetic fields and therefore electron neutrino fields; and
(3) A thermo-nuclear explosion could/can not be set off in motion. The device needed to be absolutely stationary to work. Let me repeat that in case you missed what I just said. A thermo-nuclear fission event cannot occur through a man-made device unless it is absolutely motionless. Why? Because unlike the Illuminati and Global Elite that refuse to listen or acknowledge Ucadia and the military that continue to disobey direct orders to stand down from such madness as planning for World War III, Mother Nature is not bat shit crazy. Instead, the whole of the universe works against enabling a nuclear fission event whilst an object is in motion. Why? Because if such things were possible, then the moon would have been vaporized billions of years ago, along with the earth upon the nuclear-fission effect of large scale meteorites and other impacts.
Re: nuclear weapons question
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 1:49 pm
by daniel
Here's an interesting tidbit...
"IF we have them [nuclear weapons], why can't we use them?"
--President Donald Trump
Makes you wonder...