So Kodak had a nuclear reactor in NYC

www.news.com.au...

"Gizmodo.com reports that in the basement of Kodak's New York property lay 3.5 pounds of enriched uranium. Which means they had enough to build an atomic bomb.
No-one knew about it - not cops, firies, New York officials - except for a few top Kodak execs and White House types."

So was there one under the WTC?

Now I know 9/11 was a complete fraud and inside job, but we dont know the whole truth. All kinds of theories of how/what caused so much pulverisation; one that came up every so often was a secret reactor deep under the WTC. This gives that theory a whole lot of cred.

i doubt thats the ONLY company...

there could be dozens, hundreds.

look at Larry Silverstein - apparently who wouldnt sacrifice a few thousand New Yorker's lives in their building to collect a few billion dollars?

and our jaw drops over a street thug killing their victims over $1... well this is exponentially worse.

and again who knows, maybe NYC or other cities r rigged to blow up all 35-50 square miles of it along with tens of millions of people, all they need is one nuke maybe even a small one.



if not nyc, maybe nuking DC is the next false flag - afterall why does it seem Obama admin have relocated the white house away from east coast??

But if you were to state such proverbial nonsense...a couple of years ago...like..."hey guys, Kodak has a nuclear reactor"....

you would be steamrolled by the mainstream supporters...telling you that you should make an appointment with your doctor. The ridicule would be enormous.

There is a lesson in there somewhere....

lmao.

Kodak made x-ray machines for dentists. I would assume that the material was for such a purpose.

Link

reply to post by OccamAssassin


But that makes too much sense for conspiracy theorist to grasp.

No need to speculate, the reason for them having it is clearly stated at the bottom of the document:

Apparently Kodak acquired the reactor in 1974 to check for impurities and other assorted testing. It was dismantled in 2006.

Contrary to what the article and in turn the OP would probably like us to believe, this was not some sort of personal power source or anything other that something given to them for analysis.

Just so everyone knows, the nuclear reactor that Kodak kept was located at Kodak Park, which is in Rochester, NY (in western NY) and is 340 miles from NYC. I live 20 minutes from Rochester and drive by Kodak Park all the time. So this one has nothing to do with WTC or 9/11.

reply to post by samkent


...and you're implying that you need a nuclear reactor to build an X-ray machine? wow...


please...use the wiki

reply to post by CINY8


I'm not implying any connection with the 9/11...

reply to post by AgentSmith

Apparently Kodak acquired the reactor in 1974 to check for impurities and other assorted testing. It was dismantled in 2006.

great. Problem solved than. Wonder why that didn't work for Saddam about the wmd's. Stupid Saddam, he should have just told the westerners that they are using it just to do some testing and sh*t. No biggie. That would fly.


edit: This is clearly a conspiracy...samkent stated that they were using it to build x-ray machines for dentist. So obviously they are lying to cover up the dentist agenda.

You might not be, but the OP posted this in 9/11 conspiracies for some reason therefore implying it somehow does.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


I was responding to the OP's title and opening statements saying that Kodak had kept it in a building in NYC and that is not the case here.

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


What do you exactly think they could have done with this rather small reactor? Clearly they would not have been authorised to have it in their possession if there was any likelihood of the material being misused. It was clearly all accounted for as it should be and nothing went missing. There was no more risk, perhaps less even, than with any other organisation with the correct clearance and security procedures in place. Just because you don't understand the technology or the administration involved in it's distribution doesn't mean there is a problem.

reply to post by AgentSmith


I would imagine that he was trying to prove that theory that a mini nuke was used to bring down the towers is not that far fetched. Although I would not connect this incident with the event, implications are interesting if you wanna draw parallels.

reply to post by AgentSmith


The point of my post, my good man, is that we are not in the know. I'm not connecting it to anything. I'm just saying...we are so ready to jump and defend the administration, but it is clear from many cases that things are hidden from the public. The public is than forced to concoct wild theories about events, since real data is hidden. Like this little baby.


Tell me...how many people would be protesting in front of Kodak if it was publicly known that there is a nuclear reactor in some basement near the NYC? And that only a couple of guards are watching it? How many?

Ah yes I see, but contrary to what the article says if I remember rightly there would not be enough U235 to reach critical mass anyway. As this would have been a research reactor it would not even have been highly enriched and even if it was and the device was built using a highly efficient neutron reflector, critical mass would still far exceed the amount stated. You would need over 100lbs of 235 of high purity (i.e. >80%) to achieve critical mass (without a neutron reflector), with a neutron reflector maybe 30-50 lbs. Whereas a research reactor utilises 235 of

reply to post by hmmmbeer


Reactor was in ROCHESTER NY where Kodak had its headquarters . Rochester is almost 400 road miles
from New York City

I went to school in Rochester

Kodak turned the material over to the government in 2007, under heavy security. But for more than 30 years, the company had a device called a californium neutron flux multiplier, or CFX, in a specially built labyrinth beneath Building 82 at its labs near Rochester, New York. The device was about the size of a refrigerator.

Map of New York State

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


Very true, there is definitely a lot concealed from the public. Some rightly, some wrongly. In this case it is probably best that it was not public knowledge this material was there. While I certainly hope they did not have just a couple of guards preventing unauthorised access, if this was the case the fact it wasn't public knowledge was why it remained there without incident and wasn't stolen to be 'misused'

additionally...is it ok to threaten countries that are researching nuclear power for their own gain, when you allow private corporations to own and experiment with nuclear reactors ? And god knows how many that we know nothing about....

reply to post by MarioOnTheFly


No comment ;-)