What?! Nuclear Hoax

a reply to: turbonium1

dude, nuclear reactors are just a really fancy way of boiling water.


the rods heat up and boils the water into steam that turns a turbine.

why dont you understand that

originally posted by: penroc3
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

Children are taught about the supposed A-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and taught about the Holocaust, and showed films and photos of these horrors, so don't try and claim the Tokyo firebombing was too horrible to learn about at the same age, too.....because that's utter nonsense!

It's not 'the best look for America' to show Hiroshima and Nagasaki, either, so that's also a ridiculous excuse.


Excuses don't wash here.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: turbonium1

dude, nuclear reactors are just a really fancy way of boiling water.


the rods heat up and boils the water into steam that turns a turbine.

why dont you understand that

Proof is all that matters here, sorry to say.

If not, why believe it's true?

a reply to: turbonium1

First you claimed it wasn't reported at all. Then it wasn't reported right. Now it's covered up. Funny that you can find so much information about it, from the movie theater newsreels, to interviews with survivors and crew members, to detailed information about where they launched from, the altitude they flew at, and pretty much everything else you could want to know.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

First you claimed it wasn't reported at all. Then it wasn't reported right. Now it's covered up. Funny that you can find so much information about it, from the movie theater newsreels, to interviews with survivors and crew members, to detailed information about where they launched from, the altitude they flew at, and pretty much everything else you could want to know.

I also said no images were shown of it, at the time, which is true.

Nobody taught it in schools, either.

Why not?

a reply to: turbonium1

Except there were. There weren't allied images immediately afterwards because there weren't allied photographers on scene until after the war. You can find newsreel images shown after the war ended, and allied forces entered the city.

The firebombing didn't see a lot of coverage because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By 1945, cities being destroyed by hundreds of bombers, dropping thousands of tons of bombs was fairly normal. A city being destroyed by one bomber, dropping a single bomb was major news.

a reply to: turbonium1

go ask for a tour of a power plant. they do them all the time, or better yet take a few classes at your local community college



your burden of proof is absurd

the only way you will believe nuclear weapons exist is if you are given a personal show of one going off and all the other garbage you said.

nuclear power is a fact of life.



again ill ask, why do you think your right and the rest of the educated world is wrong?

a reply to: penroc3

go ask for a tour of a power plant.

And ask for the special tour. The one of the interior of the core.

a reply to: Phage

or diving lessons in the spent fuel cooling ponds

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Phage

or diving lessons in the spent fuel cooling ponds

This thread turned into a cartoon like scenario, well it was right from the beginning but now i can even picture Turbonium1 pressing a button on a giant keyboard and then the 'laser' comes up and shoots the death ray, then the other cartoon character explodes and 2 seconds later it's still standing there, all smoked up

I guess the bombs also had a TNT warning label on the side, and there were anvils falling along so all those that managed to run away from the bombs get an envil on their heads

But seriously Turbonium1 chan

Why are you dismissing all the evidence, but turning so little of your own?

I thought you were a man of logical thinking

So which was do you consider to be closer to reality

1. Gazillion images, videos, experiments, people affected by, people who work on it, people who knows how to but don't work on it, people who saw it live, people who saw the side effects in their parents and so on. The entire earth being unable to produce enough TNT to reproduce all the explosions we know about

2. Videos made for propaganda in times of War that only show some lapses so that people can see what's all about

I know i'm wasting my time here but i still would like to read your reply, as full of nonsense as it may be

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: turbonium1

Except there were. There weren't allied images immediately afterwards because there weren't allied photographers on scene until after the war. You can find newsreel images shown after the war ended, and allied forces entered the city.

The firebombing didn't see a lot of coverage because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By 1945, cities being destroyed by hundreds of bombers, dropping thousands of tons of bombs was fairly normal. A city being destroyed by one bomber, dropping a single bomb was major news.

Wrong. The paper mentioned photos of it, at the time, so they obviously DID have photos, on hand, but didn't show any of them.

And the Tokyo firebombing was NOT normal, in any way. It was unprecedented, in fact. In terms of lives lost, and in terms of destruction, and in terms of relevance to the war itself, nothing came close to it.

You act like this event was commonplace, daily event, while anyone here - even you - know that's total bs.

You're looking for excuses to support these lies told around the world, fooling the world, and it's shocking to even consider it otherwise, so that's when absurd excuses come out.

Then you claim it was too horrific an event for small children, but they will learn about it, in high school, or college.

You're telling me this crap, like it's true?!?! Are you serious?

If any textbook mentioned it, we'd all know about it, just like other historically significant events are known to everyone.

We know about every major battle of WWII, except for one event, of such historical significance, when compared to all other events which are etched forever in human history, only an idiot, or one who denies the truth, would claim this was merely a normal event, commonplace, or such crap.

Everyone also knows we learned about the Holocaust, and A-bombs, even though - as you suggest - such horrific events should NEVER be taught to small children, they did, and do, teach it to all the children, I was taught about these events around 5th or 6th grade, at first. I saw films of the horrific results by 7th grade, too.

And you're absolutely right to say it's something no child should learn about, since a child that young has a very impressionable mind, and to present such grotesque horrors of our past, which are shocking to adults, let alone kids...

However, the point is that if they show kids these horrific events, and even films of it, then you can't excuse it on that basis, right?

The answer is obvious, if you wish to see the reality...

It wasn't shown to us, because if it were, we'd have seen how Tokyo was flattened by firebombs, and we'd see the same thing happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, soon afterwards.

Nobody even knew about Hiroshima or Nagasaki before, they were small, poor cities in Japan, not significant. We didn't know what they ever looked like before the 'A-bomb' hit 'em! Later on, we saw it, but not then, or for some years later, we never saw it...

There'd obviously be many people, in America, and worldwide, who'd seen what Tokyo looked like before it was flattened, of course.

Anyone would be in shock to see Tokyo flattened, so they hid the photos from us, no photos were shown in any newspapers.


Why did they hide all the photos of Tokyo? This is a very simple question to answer, is it not?....


They had photos to show us, because they told us there were photos of it, showing Tokyo in rubble.....they said so, in their paper. Why would they have maps of the area damaged in Tokyo, if they had no photos of it?

It's clear to see what they did, why they did it, how it worked so perfectly well, and nobody should be so clueless about it, anymore.

I can't believe that Turbonium san has been posting here on this thread since 2017 and no amount of evidence has changed his mind at least a little bit

I mean, it's been years now, enough time to review the evidence, go into trips to figure it out in person, talk to people and get actual experience in real life that helps you figure things out

You can get a degree in 4 years, and Mr Turbonium has wasted 2 entire years defending something, he could probably be mid way through a degree that would help him figure an actual answer he would be satisfied with in all this dumb matter

And yet...

Years....

a reply to: Malisa

He still thinks the world is flat. So whatcha gonna do?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Malisa

He still thinks the world is flat. So whatcha gonna do?

Call the GhostBusters of course?

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: turbonium1

go ask for a tour of a power plant. they do them all the time, or better yet take a few classes at your local community college



your burden of proof is absurd

the only way you will believe nuclear weapons exist is if you are given a personal show of one going off and all the other garbage you said.

nuclear power is a fact of life.



again ill ask, why do you think your right and the rest of the educated world is wrong?

If you claim that nukes are genuine, then you need to prove it.

Radiation exists, and causes cancer, among other illnesses, I've already explained that fact, so I'm saying it once again.


It's great to see how radiation still leaks out of their high-tech power plants....again and again!

After years of leaking, they've no idea how to fix that problem, somehow!


Why would every other energy source we have today - hydro-electric, solar, wind, etc. - never have problems of catastrophic proportions? Your reply is that only nuke plants use radiation for power, of course.

If so, why can't they figure out the leaking problem yet?

The leaking problem is never going to be 'solved'. Leaking radiation is a constant reminder to everyone, that nukes are real, nuke power is real, and nukes have radiation.

Once in awhile, radiation 'leaks' from a nuke power plant, because they simply can't figure out how to stop all of them leaks! Aw, shucks!

a reply to: turbonium1

If you claim that nukes are genuine, then you need to prove it.

If you claim the world is flat, then you need to prove it.
See how that works?

Well, the explosions are DEFINITELY real, the shockwaves, etc no question massive destruction. Depending on the yeild of said nuke, the shockwaves alone would blow up organs, the flash make people blind etc. Horribbly destructive weapons. There are plenty of real documented cases of nukes on land, underground, in water and even in space to prove this.

I have been skeptical of the danger of radiation,the fall out, the REAL thing that gets people spooked. First I saw that thing about the guy who ate radioactive metal for years to demonstrate how fake the real dangers of radiation are.

Then there's Chernobyl. The wildlife there is thriving. It's a tourist attraction, yet we were warned it to be un-inhabitable for thousands of years. Same with Fukushima, WAY worse than Chernobyl, but the radiation there doesn't seem to be affecting the habitat as much as we have all been taught.

I am almost, not quite, but almost am beginning to feel like the effects of radiation as aboogeyman, has existed to cause fear of such weapons to a level beyond any conventional weapon. As I ponder it, it kinda makes sense, and is this likely the main reason we haven't seen ww3 yet.

Maybe I'm wrong, but again this is in skunk works, so I'm safe, right???

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

If you claim that nukes are genuine, then you need to prove it.

If you claim the world is flat, then you need to prove it.
See how that works?

You claim the world is a ball, without any proof of it, do you see how that works?

a reply to: turbonium1

Yes. I do.
The proof is there.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: turbonium1

If you claim that nukes are genuine, then you need to prove it.

If you claim the world is flat, then you need to prove it.
See how that works?

You claim the world is a ball, without any proof of it, do you see how that works?

You are a very dumb person, i have taken a mig out to almost out of space and saw the earth down and it was round, i took my little sister with me, it happened some years ago

You have no clue how things work

And you would be scared to know from all i've seen about you so far : P

Currently a trip to the edge costs about 25 thousand or so, why don't you go take a spin on it? It's like 40 minutes or so and you can see for yourself, no cameras or anything to hide the truth for you