What?! Nuclear Hoax

a reply to: turbonium1

You mean apart from the newspaper that mentions it?

It was mentioned, stop claiming it wasn't.

Now answer the other questions instead of employing feeble diversions.

Here it is not being mentioned again

www.newspapers.com...

And again

images.app.goo.gl...

And again

www.bagelsoverberlin.com...

Certainly seems to not get mentioned a lot.

Again people are trying to have logical debates with a Flat Earther, why?

Not a single thing anyone posts or says here is going to wake them up from their ultra exclusive top knowledge of reality and history.

originally posted by: opethPA
Again people are trying to have logical debates with a Flat Earther, why?

Not a single thing anyone posts or says here is going to wake them up from their ultra exclusive top knowledge of reality and history.

Some do just to have fun, some do just to trigger people around

Some do just to keep the flat earth person going for days and days, totally wasting their time : )

Some actually have hope to reach through the wall and bring up some uncommon sense

a reply to: opethPA

I'm not trying to have a logical debate, that would require some logic to be involved as well as debate - a meaningful exchange of ideas.

What can't be allowed to stand is for blatant falsehoods and inaccuracies to be propounded as some sort of truth.

Turbonium1 has, for years now, landed on a topic, dusted off his soapboax and spouted empty, meaningless rhetoric into the wind. His position changes often, and by the end of a thread will often be spouting a completely opposite stance to the start. His posts are long word salads with no nutritional content. Questions are avoided and never answered. In return he demands answers he doesn't want from people he won't believe on a subject he doesn't understand.

That kind of approach can't be allowed to dominate any kind of topic if people who genuinely want to find out about something are actually going to get answers.

Tl:dr - You can't say 'I told you so' if you haven't.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Here it is not being mentioned again

www.newspapers.com...

And again

images.app.goo.gl...

And again

www.bagelsoverberlin.com...

Certainly seems to not get mentioned a lot.

We never heard about this event in school, and our textbooks never mentioned it anywhere, and I've never seen any documentary on it, or on History Channel, or on any TV channel, and I never even heard about it until recently...

That it was mentioned is something I didn't know about, until now, so I stand corrected on that. I'm only after the truth, I don't care if something I said wasn't true, I'll accept the truth, and move on.

They did mention it, at least that's true. The real issue - as you can review from my earlier posts, if you need to - was that I assumed they never mentioned the event, because this would allow them to never show any images of Tokyo, after the firebombing. And again, if you review my earlier posts, I already said if they DID show any images, it was very rare. Obviously, they would mention the event, if they HAD shown any images of it, as well.


The NY Times article was already posted, btw. So we now have 3 mentions of the event, one day later, for one of the most significant, unprecedented events in human history, which was never taught to us in schools, wasn't in any textbooks, never mentioned on TV programs, even the History/etc. channels, not anywhere at all....

Are you serious? It doesn't make any sense, as I said, for such a milestone event to be almost ignored, other than a few articles the next day, or so, until you see they didn't show any images of Tokyo after the attack.... or if they did, rarely so.

One of these papers notes 'Tokyo's Heart Rubble Pile, Photos Show'. Why wouldn't they simply show us the photos in the paper, instead of saying 'photos show' it? Why didn't these OTHER papers, like the NY Times, show us photos of Tokyo in ruins? Maybe they did show photos, but I'm not aware of any, so far.

Why would they mention 'photos show' something, but never show the photos? They DID show a map of Tokyo, beside a map of Boston, to compare the area of destruction if Boston was hit. They obviously had the photos of Tokyo, and even knew the entire area hit in the attack, and outlined the map of Tokyo to show us, and had time to show how Boston would look in the same scenario.....

When they mention photos show Tokyo in rubble, obviously they had photos on hand. Maybe they buried a little photo in the paper somewhere, I don't know. But nothing on the front page, of those papers, for sure.

These papers were always splashing images of the war on their front pages, with headlines in huge capital letters, of course. The Tokyo firebombing wiped out half of the city, and killed about 100,000 people, in under 3 hours time. It was completely unprecedented, in human history.

But it was not the major story of the day, for some reason. They planned another attack the same day in Europe, of course, which became the headline story that same day. And with photos, of course. The Tokyo firebombing was secondary news, without photos, and it seems they never mentioned it again, or rarely.

When we say photos of 'nuked' cities a few months later, everyone was shocked by the total destruction of two cities, right? Yes, because it was something 'nobody had ever seen before'. Which was true, because nobody had seen Tokyo after the firebombing. They showed lots of photos of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, over and over again, and footage....

If you still don't get the point - why didn't they show images of Tokyo afterwards? Because Tokyo was destroyed in the same way, as those two cities, with FIREBOMBS. If they showed Tokyo firebombed, it would match the other cities, which they 'nuked'. Photos of Tokyo's destruction would certainly shock people, but we'd have also known that firebombs caused it.

A few months later, photos of two virtually unknown cities being destroyed won't shock people, because they'd seen Tokyo flattened earlier. When they spew about how powerful 'A-bombs' destroyed these cities, it doesn't work so well. Same thing in Tokyo, with firebombs. Same steel and concrete structures left intact, in all three cities, which is an indication of firebombing, which burns wood, etc. while it leaves steel and concrete intact.


Simple, if you use your brain for once.

originally posted by: opethPA
Again people are trying to have logical debates with a Flat Earther, why?

Not a single thing anyone posts or says here is going to wake them up from their ultra exclusive top knowledge of reality and history.

Who has tried to have a logical debate on this issue, other than myself? Not you, obviously. So what are you trying to do here, other than spew personal attacks?

a reply to: turbonium1

Any of that answer questions asked of you? No?

Thought not. You have nothing but empty rhetoric.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
a reply to: turbonium1

Any of that answer questions asked of you? No?

Thought not. You have nothing but empty rhetoric.

Any of "that"? What is "that"?

If only someone could come here, and stick to the issues, for once, that would be an absolute miracle.

It's not reality, though I wish it were. Oh well, so be it.

originally posted by: turbonium1


We never heard about this event in school, and our textbooks never mentioned it anywhere, and I've never seen any documentary on it, or on History Channel, or on any TV channel, and I never even heard about it until recently...

That it was mentioned is something I didn't know about, until now, so I stand corrected on that. I'm only after the truth, I don't care if something I said wasn't true, I'll accept the truth, and move on.

Seems to be the crux of most of your differing views, you either did not listen in school or you unfortunatley went to a school with low eductaional standards, sorry if that sounds harsh, but this thread along with your rockets dont work in space nonsense suggests to me that you are not the most academic.

I have yet to see you accept any truth other than your own, that is a loney path my friend

a reply to: turbonium1

'That' is the calorie free word salad you posted.

I suggest you seek out the 'world at war' series from 1974 and complete the education you slept through.

This dude says Nukes were real but not as devastating as the Tokyo fire bombing and not Says that the deciding factor for Japans surrender.

I think the better Nuclear hoax theory would be to go with is that nukes are real but their apocalyptic nature is overstated. The Gaylen Winsor video I posted makes the same claim. Claims the dangers of nuclear radiation had been overstated to keep us dependent on fossil fuels and keep governments control over our power supply.

In this one Gaylen says the people who survived Hiroshima were able to tell the Nagasaki people to recognize the flash and then how to hide to survive the blast.


a reply to: turbonium1

originally posted by: turbonium1

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.

How nuclear power stations are constructed and work is no secret at all. I think you mean that you do not understand how they work.
Try doing some research fo a change.

originally posted by: UpIsNowDown
Seems to be the crux of most of your differing views, you either did not listen in school or you unfortunatley went to a school with low eductaional standards, sorry if that sounds harsh, but this thread along with your rockets dont work in space nonsense suggests to me that you are not the most academic.

I have yet to see you accept any truth other than your own, that is a loney path my friend

Truth is absolute, it's not based on anyone claiming it's the 'truth', or not.

Proof is what determines the truth, nothing else matters to me. I don't care how many people accept something, or not, I am fine with being in the minority on it, because the majority simply follow what they are told is the 'truth', and never even question it, or doubt it, and that's sad, imo.


As for the Tokyo firebombing being taught is schools, I know it was never taught in my schools, and not in any of my textbooks, either. Show me proof it is in your school textbooks, if you can, because I'd like to see that...

And please point out a program on History Channel which shows it, or any other TV documentary that does, if you can...


You say that I went to a lousy school, or that I didn't learn much in school, let's see your evidence it was taught in your school, instead of puffing up like a pompous ass....

"More people were killed in the Tokyo firebombing of March 9-10 than in the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki five months later. Yet it remains one of the forgotten horrors of the Second World War."

nation.time.com...


Why would it be "forgotten", if they taught it in our schools, as you claim?

Let's see your proof, of a "forgotten" event in history, taught in your school....

We'll soon find out who's the 'uneducated' one here....

originally posted by: oldcarpy
How nuclear power stations are constructed and work is no secret at all. I think you mean that you do not understand how they work.
Try doing some research fo a change.

I'm waiting for proof of your claim, the 'research' excuse doesn't wash..

a reply to: turbonium1

the same reason Japan doesnt really talk about what they did in China like unit 731.

usually mass death events like dresden and the tokyo fire bombings are taught later in school because its not appropriate for CHILDREN.

i learned all about them in collage

not to mention it is not the best look for america so it is swept under the rug, but its there if you look and want to learn about WWII